Beyond the Green Illusion of Capitalism

Promoting comprehensive green transformation is a key measure for the global response to climate change, the advancement of sustainable development, and the improvement of people’s quality of life. Since the beginning of the 21st century, and especially since the 2008 international financial crisis, the frequent emergence of global ecological and environmental problems has made “green economy” and “green growth” focal issues. Western society in “late capitalism” is even more committed to achieving a green turn by integrating “green elements” with capitalist economic development through so-called “green capitalism”[1]1 “Green capitalism” refers to the attempt to address ecological crises through market mechanisms and technological innovation within the existing capitalist framework, without fundamentally altering capitalist relations of production., aiming to construct a “green future” with a win-win for economic growth and environmental protection, thereby resolving the dual crisis of economy and ecology. Whether this “green economy,” born from the logic of capital, can ultimately be successfully realized has become a topic of great concern and debate.

推动全面绿色转型是全球应对气候变化、促进可持续发展以及改善人民生活质量的关键举措。进入21世纪尤其自2008年国际金融危机以来，全球生态环境问题的频现，使得“绿色经济”“绿色增长”开始成为焦点议题。处于“晚期资本主义”的西方社会，更是致力于借助“绿色元素”与资本主义经济发展相融合的“绿色资本主义”1来实现绿色转向，旨在构筑经济增长与环境保护双赢的“绿色未来”,以达到化解经济与生态双重危机的目的。这种产生于资本逻辑的“绿色经济”能否最终成功实现，成为备受关注与争论的议题。

I. The Green Illusion Constructed by the “Green Turn”

一、“绿色转向”构筑的绿色幻象

Since the 1960s and 1970s, the ecological problems brought about by Western traditional industrialization and urbanization have continuously emerged and intensified, plunging Western society into widespread anxiety. People began to advocate for a “green turn” without changing the capitalist system, that is, relying entirely on an operational model centered on the “market” and “technology” to regulate ecological problems, attempting to ease the contradiction between humans and nature and alleviate people’s ecological anxiety, thereby forming the governance strategy of green capitalism.

20世纪六七十年代以来，西方传统工业化和城市化进程所带来的生态问题不断涌现和激化，使得西方社会陷入普遍焦虑，人们开始主张在不变革资本主义制度的情况下寻求“绿色转向”,即完全依赖于以“市场”和“技术”为轴心的运作方式来调节生态问题，试图缓和人与自然之间的矛盾、减轻人们的生态焦虑，由此形成了绿色资本主义的治理策略。

(A) The Background of the “Green Turn”

(一)“绿色转向”的背景

Compared with early capitalism, the various contradictions of late capitalism are deeply intertwined with economic crises, further exacerbating the contradiction between humans and nature. “The neoliberal economic reconstruction originating from the new regime of monopoly finance capital has not only undermined the economic welfare of the majority but, in some regions, has even deprived people of the most basic ecological conditions necessary for human survival, such as clean air, drinkable water, and sufficient food.”[2]2 This is a citation from a source not specified in the original text. In the sphere of production, the ecological crisis caused by capital’s overexploitation of natural resources poses unprecedented challenges to human society; in the sphere of consumption, the material pursuits driven by consumerism cause serious resource waste, aggravating environmental pollution and energy consumption.

与早期资本主义相比，晚期资本主义的各种矛盾与经济危机深度交织，进一步加剧了人与自然的矛盾，“源自垄断金融资本新政权的新自由主义经济重建不仅破坏了大多数人的经济福利，在一些地区甚至剥夺了诸如清洁的空气、可饮用的水以及足量的食物等这些人类生存所需的最基本的生态条件”2。在生产领域，资本对自然资源的过度开发造成的生态危机，给人类社会带来前所未有的挑战；在消费领域，消费主义推动的物质追求造成了严重的资源浪费，加剧了环境污染和能源消耗。

The rise of the Western environmental movement was a response to public nuisance incidents and ecological crises. By arousing public attention and participation, it promoted the awakening and popularization of environmental awareness. In 1962, American marine biologist Rachel Carson published *Silent Spring* in Boston, exposing the abuse of pesticides and other chemicals by humans, which is regarded as the foundational work of the environmental movement. In 1972, the report *The Limits to Growth* published by the Club of Rome predicted that if humanity only focused on economic growth, it would inevitably encounter economic collapse. This attention from intellectuals promoted global emphasis on environmental issues and spurred subsequent research and action. The first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, triggering profound reflection on environmental issues. The Western environmental movement promoted the awakening of environmental awareness in Western society and the arrival of the “green turn.”

西方环保运动的兴起是对公害事件和生态危机的回应，它通过引发公众的关注和参与，推动了环境保护意识的觉醒及普及。1962年，美国海洋生物学家蕾切尔·卡逊(Rachel Carson)在波士顿出版了《寂静的春天》,对人类滥用农药及其他化学品进行了揭露，被视为环保运动的奠基之作。1972年罗马俱乐部发布的报告《增长的极限》预言人类若只关注经济增长，必然遭遇经济的崩溃。这些来自知识分子的关注推动了全球范围对环境问题的重视，并促进了后续的研究和行动。联合国第一届环境大会于1972年在瑞典斯德哥尔摩召开，引发着人们对环境问题的深刻反思。西方环保运动推动着西方社会环保意识的觉醒以及“绿色转向”的到来。

Since the 1990s, Western society has paid increasing attention to ecological issues, and the green movement has continuously shifted toward green politics. In 2007, the United Kingdom successively released the *Energy White Paper* and the *Climate Change Bill (Draft)*, which detailed requirements for developing a low-carbon economy and controlling greenhouse gas emissions, explicitly proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26%–32% by 2020 and to 60% by 2050. In 2009, the Democratic Obama administration in the United States signed the *American Recovery and Reinvestment Act* of $787 billion, making new energy a key development area. The subsequent Republican Trump administration denied climate warming and supported traditional fossil fuels, while the current Democratic Biden administration has introduced what is touted as the most radical new energy policy in history. American green politics has become a focal point in the vortex of two-party political struggle. The European Union (EU) stated in a document in September 2011 that “the European economy should complete a thorough transformation within the span of a generation.”[3]3 This is a citation from a European Union document. Additionally, other Western countries have successively increased investment in developing renewable energy to promote low-carbon green economic growth. All these factors have contributed to the so-called “green turn.”

20世纪90年代以来，西方社会对生态问题愈加重视，绿色运动不断向绿色政治转向。2007年，英国相继发布了《能源白皮书》和《气候变化法案(草案)》,对于发展低碳经济、控制温室气体的排放作了详细要求，明确提出到2020年消减26%—32%的温室气体排放，到2050年排放量降到60%。2009年，美国民主党奥巴马政府签署了7870亿美元的《美国复苏与再投资法案》,将新能源作为主要发展领域，后继的共和党特朗普政府则否定气候变暖、支持传统化石能源，现任民主党拜登政府又出台了号称史上最激进的新能源政策。美国绿色政治在两党政治的斗争漩涡中成为焦点。欧洲联盟(EU)在2011年9月的一份文件中指出，“欧洲经济应当在一代人的时间跨度内完成彻底转向”3。此外，西方其他国家也相继加大了对于发展可再生能源的投入，促进经济的低碳绿色增长。这些都促成了所谓的“绿色转向”。

(B) The Rise of the “Myth of the Green Market’s Omnipotence”

(二)“绿色市场万能论”的兴起

Faced with the current dual crisis of economy and ecology, how can economic growth be maintained while improving the ecological environment? Western governments generally choose to achieve the “green turn” through market mechanisms.

面对当前经济与生态的双重危机，如何在改善生态环境的同时维持经济增长?西方政府一般选择以市场机制实现“绿色转向”。

Proponents of green capitalism hold the belief that “reasonable pricing” of natural resources can maximize their utility. In their view, environmental degradation is largely the result of the market’s failure to reflect the environmental costs of production and consumption, as well as the value of natural capital. From this premise, assigning private property and economic value to the environment is regarded as the best way to manage natural resources.[4]4 This is a reference to the concept of “natural capital,” which assigns economic value to natural resources and ecosystem services. The “myth of the green market’s omnipotence”[5]5 The “myth of the green market’s omnipotence” is a critical term for the belief that market mechanisms alone can solve environmental problems. is thus formed. This theory firmly believes that a reasonable pricing mechanism for natural resources can incentivize enterprises to find more environmentally friendly and efficient ways of resource utilization, and that high-value natural resources will become a new driving force for technological innovation and the development of green industries. The reasoning is as follows: First, in the green market, an enterprise’s environmental performance becomes an important factor in competition. By improving environmental performance, enterprises can gain a competitive advantage in the market, and consumers tend to choose products and services with higher environmental standards. This competitive pressure in the market prompts enterprises to continuously improve their environmental performance and provide more environmentally friendly and sustainable solutions. Second, they advocate combining the business principles of the market economy with ecological protection, attempting to create a new sustainable development model for capitalism. The primary task of the government is to ensure market standardization. By implementing green taxes, the government can incorporate the environmental costs of enterprises into the tax system, making them part of the total cost of the enterprise, thereby constraining enterprises to protect the environment and rationally develop and utilize natural resources. “Sustainability itself” thus becomes a commodity, traded and managed under the principles and mechanisms of the market. In short, for supporters of green capitalism, by reasonably pricing natural resources, the scarcity of natural resources and environmental costs can be reflected, and the market will ensure that these resources are used in the most efficient way, thereby reducing damage to the environment.[6]6 This is a summary of the core argument of green capitalism proponents. They superstitiously believe that relying on capitalist market principles can solve ecological problems, emphasizing that the market mechanism of capitalism serves the ecosystem, and even attributing the root cause of environmental problems entirely to market failure in effectively allocating resources.[7]7 This refers to the neoclassical economic explanation of environmental problems as a form of market failure. The “myth of the green market’s omnipotence,” as the main viewpoint or theory of green capitalism, is highly favored in Western society.

那些绿色资本主义的拥趸持有这样一种信念：通过对自然资源的“合理定价”就可以发挥它们的最大效用。在他们看来，环境退化在很大程度上是市场未能反映生产和消费的环境成本以及自然资本价值的结果。由此出发，将私有财产和经济价值分配给环境被视为管理自然资源的最佳方式4。“绿色市场万能论”5因此形成。这种理论坚信对自然资源合理的定价机制可以激励企业寻找更加环保和高效的资源利用方式，高价值的自然资源将成为推动技术创新和绿色产业发展的新动力，其理由是：首先，在绿色市场中，企业的环境绩效成为竞争的重要因素。企业通过改进环境绩效可以获得市场的竞争优势，消费者也倾向于选择那些具有较高环境标准的产品和服务，这种市场竞争的压力促使企业不断改进环境绩效，提供更加环保和可持续的解决方案。其次，他们主张将市场经济中的商业原则与生态保护相结合，试图创造出一套新的资本主义可持续发展模式。政府的首要任务就是确保市场规范化，通过推行绿色税的方式，政府可以将企业的环境成本纳入税收体系，使其成为企业总成本的一部分，以便约束企业保护环境与合理开发、利用自然资源。“可持续本身”在这便演变成了一种商品，在市场的原则和机制下被用来进行交易与管理。总之，在绿色资本主义的支持者看来，通过对自然资源合理定价，就能反映出自然资源的稀缺性和环境成本，市场就会确保这些资源以最有效的方式使用，从而减少对环境的破坏6。他们迷信依靠资本主义市场原则来解决生态问题，强调资本主义的市场机制为生态系统服务，甚至将环境问题产生的根本原因全部归咎于市场失灵而未能有效分配资源7。“绿色市场万能论”作为绿色资本主义的主要观点或理论，在西方社会备受青睐。

(C) The Prevalence of the “Myth of Green Technology’s Omnipotence”

(三)“绿色技术万能论”的流行

Another main mode of operation for alleviating the ecological crisis in late capitalist society is the excessive promotion of green technology. “Over the past decade, many advocates of green capitalism have attempted to peddle green technology as a panacea, or to ‘decouple’ environmental impacts from economic activities, thereby masking the conflict between market logic and ecological limits.”[8]8 This is a citation from a critical analysis of green capitalism.

晚期资本主义社会缓解生态危机的主要运作方式还在于对绿色技术的过度推崇。“在过去的十年间，许多绿色资本主义的倡导者都试图兜售绿色科技万灵丹，或将环境影响从经济活动中‘分离’出去，以此来掩饰市场逻辑和生态限制之间的冲突。”8

First, it advocates improving environmental protection efficiency within the framework of capitalism through technological improvement and innovation measures. The rise of green technology attempts to make people believe that power can be continuously obtained from renewable energy, resource utilization rates can be raised by reducing production energy consumption, cutting pollution and selecting alternative technologies, and that all those myriad products and vehicles will become more energy-efficient, allowing people to worry not about climate impacts and to keep consuming indefinitely, presenting a beautiful green picture to the world.[9]9 The original text uses a superscript "9" here, which is retained as an endnote marker in the translation. The source of this quote is not provided in the original. In the technological solution of green capitalism, promoting and developing technologies such as renewable energy within the market framework of capitalism is seen as an effective means to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; these innovations will replace existing polluting technologies, continuously reduce net carbon emissions, and ultimately play a role in environmental protection. *New York Times* best-selling columnist Thomas Friedman claims that if people turn to solar and other renewable energy, transform clean energy into a "new growth engine," and produce the billions of things that Chinese, Indians and people elsewhere in the world want, the entire planet can enjoy the "American way of life."[10]10 Thomas Friedman, *New York Times* columnist, cited in the original text. Such an overly optimistic assumption about green technology, on the one hand, overestimates the potential of renewable energy to alleviate the ecological crisis, and on the other hand, underestimates ever-growing future demand; it inevitably fails to withstand scientific scrutiny and examination.

第一，主张在资本主义的框架内，通过技术改良和革新措施来提高环境保护效率。绿色技术的兴起试图使人们相信可以从可再生能源中不断获取动力，通过降低生产能耗、减少污染和选择替代性技术提高资源利用率，所有那些种类繁多的用品和车辆都会变得更加节能，使人们无需担心气候影响，并能一直消费下去，向世人展现了一幅美好的绿色图景9。在绿色资本主义的技术解决方案看来，资本主义市场框架内推广和开发可再生能源等技术是控制和降低温室气体排放的有效手段，这些创新将取代现有的存在污染的技术，不断减少净碳排放量，最终起到环境保护的作用。《纽约时报》畅销书专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼(Thomas Friedman)声称，如果人们转向太阳能和其他可再生能源，将清洁能源转变为“新的增长动力”,并生产出数十亿中国人、印度人和世界其他地方人们都想要的东西，这样整个星球都能享受“美国的生活方式”10。如此对绿色技术过度推崇的乐观主义假设，一方面在于高估了可再生能源缓解生态危机的潜力，另一方面也低估了不断增长的未来需求，必然经不起科学的检验和推敲。

Second, it proposes specific technological solutions to the ecological crisis. "Geoengineering" is considered a general term for large-scale artificial technologies and methods used by humans to intervene in the Earth's environment and climate change, and can be broadly divided into two categories. The first is carbon removal, which aims to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse gas content and mitigate the impacts of climate change. The second is solar radiation management, which aims to regulate the climate by altering the way the Earth receives or reflects solar radiation. Examples include spraying aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation, and placing mirrors in space to change the Earth's radiation balance, all with the goal of lowering the Earth's surface temperature. Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich once pointed out: "Geoengineering will work to fulfill the promise of solving global warming, and it will only cost us tens of billions of dollars a year."[11]11 Newt Gingrich, former U.S. House Speaker, cited in the original text. The famous Dutch Nobel laureate in chemistry Paul Crutzen similarly believed that if we hope to rapidly mitigate warming and reduce other climate impacts, then geoengineering… would be the only available option.[12]12 Paul Crutzen, Dutch Nobel laureate in chemistry, cited in the original text.

第二，针对生态危机提出具体的技术解决方案。“地球工程”被认为是人类通过大规模的人工技术和方法来干预地球环境和气候变化的总称，大体可以分为两大类。其一是碳移除，旨在从大气中移除二氧化碳，以减少温室气体的含量并降低气候变化的影响。其二是太阳辐射管理，旨在通过改变地球接收或反射太阳辐射的方式来调节气候。如喷洒气溶胶到大气中以反射太阳辐射、在太空中放置反射镜来改变地球的辐射平衡等，目的是降低地球的表面温度。美国众议院前议长纽特·金里奇(Newt Gingrich)曾指出：“地球工程将致力于履行解决全球变暖问题的承诺，而且每年只会花费掉我们数十亿美元。”11荷兰著名诺贝尔化学奖得主保罗·克鲁岑(Paul Crutzen)同样认为，如果我们希望能快速地缓和升温情况和消减其他气候方面的影响，那么地球工程……就将是唯一的可用选项了12。

At this point, we can see that late capitalist Western societies, while not transforming the capitalist system, rely on green capitalist solutions centered on market mechanisms and technological innovation to improve the environment. In a certain sense, this alleviates, covers up, and shifts the deep-seated contradictions between the capitalist mode of production and the ecological environment. It is highly attractive in a capitalist society where drawbacks are increasingly apparent, but it merely constructs a "green illusion."

至此，我们可以看到，晚期资本主义西方社会主张在不变革资本主义制度的前提下，依赖于以市场机制和技术革新为轴心来改善环境的绿色资本主义解决方案，某种意义上缓和、遮盖、转嫁了资本主义生产方式与生态环境之间的深层次矛盾，在弊端日益显现的资本主义社会极具吸引力，但不过是构筑了一个“绿色幻象”。

II. The Harm of the "Green Illusion"

二、“绿色幻象”之危害

As capitalist contradictions further escalate, green capitalism advances capital's inherent drive to privatize everything and bring it into the sphere of circulation, further exacerbating existing inequalities. On this basis, it has also formed capitalist hegemonic forms such as "green fascism" and "ecological imperialism," which not only deepen Western green anxiety but also intensify tensions in global ecological protection.

随着资本主义矛盾的进一步升级，绿色资本主义推进了资本将一切私有化并将其纳入流通领域的内在动力，进一步加剧了现有的不平等，在此基础上又形成了资本主义霸权性质的“绿色法西斯主义”“生态帝国主义”,不仅加深了西方的绿色焦虑，还加剧了全球生态保护的紧张局势。

(I) The Predicament of the Western Green Turn

(一)西方绿色转向的困局

In fact, the bourgeoisie's efforts to address the climate crisis in order to save capitalism are concentrated in the erroneous solutions of green capitalism. Examples include technological targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as market mechanisms such as carbon trading schemes and "payments for ecosystem services." They have also proposed dubious technological solutions, including carbon removal, carbon sequestration, and other geoengineering schemes.[13]13 "Payments for ecosystem services" (PES) is a market-based mechanism where beneficiaries of ecosystem services pay providers for conservation or restoration activities.

实际上，资产阶级为拯救资本主义而应对气候危机的努力，集中体现在绿色资本主义错误的解决方案上。例如减少温室气体排放的技术目标以及碳交易计划和“生态系统服务付费”等市场机制，还提出了一些可疑的技术解决方案，包括碳去除、碳固存和其他地球工程方案13。

On the one hand, the practice of incorporating nature into the market system reduces nature to an appendage of humanity. Far from improving the ecological crisis, it exacerbates the contradiction of the "subject-object dichotomy." In the view of John Bellamy Foster, a representative figure of ecological Marxism, the market mechanism of putting a price tag on natural resources has caused ecological resources to be completely stripped into capital. This reductionist approach of constructing everything through a "market-commodity" relationship is "absurd" and harmful.[14]14 John Bellamy Foster, a leading ecological Marxist scholar, cited in the original text. British scholar Ivan R. Scales argues that in the rush to commodify nature, environmental protection serves the interests of capital, rather than the market serving the interests of biodiversity conservation.[15]15 Ivan R. Scales, British scholar, cited in the original text. Marx also pointed out that under the capitalist system, "the theoretical cognition of the independent laws of nature itself appears only as a cunning, the purpose of which is to make nature (whether as a means of consumption or as a means of production) subject to human needs."[16]16 Marx, cited in the original text. That is to say, under capitalist society, the relationship between humans and nature is alienated into a one-sided, egoistic relationship of possession; nature is reduced to an appendage of humanity. This "subject-object opposition" leads to a sharp contradiction between humans and nature. In addition, it must be noted that as market mechanisms begin to operate unchecked in the ecological sphere, the relentless pursuit of profit leads to varying degrees of "greenwashing"[17]17 "Greenwashing" refers to the practice of companies or organizations misleadingly portraying their products, activities, or policies as environmentally friendly. behavior. Many capitalist enterprises deliberately create the illusion of sustainable development to evade and reduce their own environmental protection costs. In this sense, the crux of green capitalism lies in its attempt to forcibly cram the complexity of the climate and ecological crisis into the narrow framework of the market, without considering whether the market can truly solve these problems.

一方面，将自然纳入市场体系的做法使得自然沦为人的附属物，非但没有改善生态危机，反而加剧了“主客二分”的矛盾。在生态学马克思主义代表人物约翰·贝拉米·福斯特(John Bellamy Foster)看来，将自然资源明码标价的市场运作机制，造成了生态资源完全被剥离为资本的现象，这种以“市场-商品”的关系来构建一切的简化主义做法是“荒诞”和有害的14。英国学者斯伊万·斯凯尔斯(Ivan R. Scales)认为，在急于将自然商品化的过程中，环境保护服务于资本的利益，而不是市场服务于生物多样性保护的利益15。马克思也曾指出，在资本主义制度下，“对自然界的独立规律的理论认识本身不过表现为狡猾，其目的是使自然界(不管是作为消费品，还是作为生产资料)服从于人的需要。”16也即是说，人与自然的关系在资本主义社会下异化为单方面利己主义的占有关系，自然沦为人的附属物，这种“主客对立”关系导致了人与自然的尖锐矛盾。除此之外，还必须关注的是，市场机制开始在生态领域放任运行，不断追求利润致使不同程度的“漂绿”17行为发生。资本主义的很多企业刻意制造出可持续发展的假象，来逃避和降低自身环境保护的成本。在此意义上，绿色资本主义的症结就在于，它力图将气候和生态危机的复杂性强行纳入市场的狭隘框架内，而没有去考虑市场是否真正能解决这些问题。

On the other hand, the approach of repairing ecological problems through technological improvement lacks feasibility. The late capitalist idea of repairing the ecological environment through technological innovation actually adheres to an attitude of ecological optimism, but this ecological optimism finds it difficult to break free from the shackles of the logic of capital. British scholar Richard Smith points out that the essential logic of capital development is irreconcilably contradictory to saving the planet, and theorists of green capitalism generally overestimate the potential of "green" production.[18]18 Richard Smith, British scholar, cited in the original text. The "technological omnipotence theory" faces the "Jevons paradox," which suggests that improving energy efficiency may lead to more energy consumption. This is because under capitalist conditions, an increase in the efficiency of a certain energy use will increase demand for that energy.[19]19 The Jevons paradox, named after 19th-century economist William Stanley Jevons, observes that technological improvements that increase the efficiency of resource use often lead to increased, rather than decreased, consumption of that resource. That is to say, the notion of solving environmental problems purely through technological means has limitations. Although strategies such as the "Green New Deal" and "green growth" are to a certain extent in line with the requirements of social progress and the interests of the masses, the complexity of domestic politics in Western countries makes such plans difficult to sustain. For example, 80% of Republican respondents in the United States strongly opposed the "Green New Deal," while only 46% of Democrats supported it.[20]20 Polling data cited in the original text. The implementation of Europe's green turn has also been affected by adverse factors such as geopolitics and internal divisions. Regarding how to carry out the energy transition, there have always been differences within EU member states; France and Germany have been at odds over whether to develop nuclear energy, each sticking to their own position, making it "difficult to achieve the goal of quickly bridging the current energy supply gap by rapidly increasing renewable energy production capacity in the short term."[21]21 Quotation cited in the original text. From the above, it can be seen that although the efforts of late capitalist societies to resolve the ecological crisis have partially promoted a domestic green turn, due to the influence of the capitalist system itself and the complexity of domestic politics, superficial universal "greening" can only degenerate into a green utopian illusion.

另一方面，通过技术改良的方式修复生态问题的做法缺乏现实性。晚期资本主义通过技术革新修复生态环境的思路，实际上秉持着一种生态乐观主义的态度，只不过这种生态乐观主义很难挣脱资本逻辑的束缚。英国学者理查德·史密斯(Richard Smith)指出，资本发展的本质逻辑与拯救地球存在不可调和的矛盾，绿色资本主义的理论家们普遍高估了“绿色”生产的潜力18。“技术万能论”面临着“杰文斯悖论”,即提高能源效率可能导致更多的能源消费。这是因为在资本主义条件下，某种能源使用效率的提高会增加对这种能源的需求19。也即是说，纯粹通过技术手段来解决环境问题的观念是有局限性的。虽然“绿色新政”“绿色增长”等战略一定程度上符合社会进步的要求和群众的利益，但是西方国家国内政治的复杂性，使得这种规划难以维系。例如，80%的美国共和党受访者表示强烈反对“绿色新政”,而只有46%的民主党人支持它20。欧洲绿色转向的实施也遭遇了地缘政治和内部分歧等不利因素的影响。关于如何进行能源转向，欧盟成员国内部一直存在分歧，法德两国在是否发展核能问题上各执一词，互不相让，“短期内通过快速提高可再生能源产能以弥补目前能源供应缺口的目标难以实现”21。由上观之，晚期资本主义社会为化解生态危机所做的这些努力虽然片面推动了国内的绿色转向，但是受资本主义制度本身以及国内政治的复杂性的影响，表面的普遍“绿化”只能沦为绿色乌托邦幻象。

As the Japanese ecosocialist scholar Kohei Saito summarizes: whether it is the “Green New Deal” attempting to achieve “green economic growth” or fantasy technologies like geoengineering, they are all desperately trying to maintain capitalism—the root of the crisis, and the ultimate contradiction lies precisely here.[22]22 Kohei Saito, *Capital in the Anthropocene* (Tokyo: Shueisha, 2020), p. 12. The British ecological Marxist theorist David Pepper points out that “the ecological contradictions of capitalism make sustainable development or a ‘green’ capitalism an impossible dream, and thus a self-deceiving fraud.”[23]23 David Pepper, *Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice* (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 95. In short, if the inherent “ecological negation” logic of capital is not eliminated, no matter how much green capitalism develops, ecological imperialism and ecological fascism will intensify, further aggravating the ecological crisis, and ultimately completely shatter the ecological hopes of late capitalism.[24]24 See John Bellamy Foster, “The Ecological Crisis of Late Capitalism,” *Monthly Review* 72, no. 6 (2020): 1-15.

正如日本生态马克思主义学者斋藤幸平总结的：无论是试图实现“绿色经济增长”的“绿色新政”,还是像地球工程这样的梦幻技术，实际上都在拼命维护资本主义——这一危机的根源所在，终极矛盾就在于此22。英国生态学马克思主义理论家戴维·佩珀(David Pepper)指出，“资本主义的生态矛盾使可持续发展或‘绿色’的资本主义成为一个不可能实现的梦想，从而成为一种自欺欺人的骗局”23。总之，如果不消灭资本固有的“生态否定”逻辑，绿色资本主义即使再发展，生态帝国主义和生态法西斯主义都会变本加厉，进一步加剧生态危机，最终使晚期资本主义的生态希望完全破灭24。

(2) Shifting Pollution and Waste and Evading Environmental Governance Responsibility Abroad

(二)对外输出污染废物与环境治理责任的推诿

The selective greening strategies of green capitalism implemented by Western developed capitalist countries have clearly achieved little effect. To completely eliminate the pollution problems of their own industrial development, they have begun to use cost externalization to transfer their own risks, continuously shifting and exporting environmental pollutants to the Third World—a typical act of “ecological colonialism” and “ecological imperialism.”

西方发达资本主义国家实行绿色资本主义的选择性绿化策略显然收效甚微，为了彻底消除本国工业发展的污染难题，它们开始采用成本外在化的方式转嫁本国风险，不断向第三世界转移与输出环境污染物，是典型的“生态殖民主义”和“生态帝国主义”行径。

On the one hand, the essence of developed capitalist countries transferring high-pollution industries to other countries is to reduce the cost of their own industrial development and externalize environmental costs. Along with the continuous development of capitalist productive forces and the increase in the degree of industrialization, developed capitalist countries have accumulated a large amount of industrial waste and refuse, causing environmental degradation. To deal with environmental pollution problems, they have adopted measures such as multinational corporate cooperation, transferring high-pollution industries to developing countries, and even exploiting the ecological resources of developing countries and regions in the name of climate cooperation. The current climate change problem is the result of cumulative emissions from centuries of Western industrialization. Starting from the use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution, as industrialization has deepened, developed countries, with only 20% of the world’s population, have emitted approximately 60% of greenhouse gases, directly causing climate change and seriously endangering public health. The Japanese government, to shift the risk of nuclear contamination, has begun discharging Fukushima’s nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, completely disregarding the opposition of neighboring countries, which will have an incalculable impact on the marine ecological environment and has triggered strong condemnation and opposition from domestic citizens and neighboring countries. The ocean is the common property of all humanity and should not become a field for certain countries to shift pollution.

一方面，发达资本主义国家把高污染产业转移到其他国家的实质是为了降低本国工业发展的成本，将环境成本外部化。伴随着资本主义生产力的不断发展以及工业化程度的提高，发达资本主义国家积累了诸多的工业垃圾和废物，造成环境的恶化。为了应对环境污染问题，它们采取了跨国公司合作等措施，将高污染产业转移至发展中国家，甚至以气候合作之名变相剥削发展中国家和地区的生态资源。如今的气候变化问题是西方工业化数百年排放所累积的结果，从工业革命使用化石燃料开始，随着工业化进程的不断深入，发达国家仅占全世界20%的人口却排放了大约60%的温室气体，直接导致了气候变化问题，严重危害着公众健康。日本政府为转嫁核污染的风险，全然不顾周边国家的反对，启动福岛核污染水排海，对海洋生态环境将造成不可估量的影响，引发国内民众和周边国家的强烈谴责与反对。海洋是全人类的共有财产，不应该成为某些国家转嫁污染的场域。

On the other hand, Western countries have not adhered to or fulfilled the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in dealing with environmental pollution problems, continuously evading governance responsibilities. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change stipulates the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” meaning that while every country has a responsibility to participate in solving climate problems, Western countries have the highest historical greenhouse gas emissions and should therefore bear greater emission reduction responsibilities, while also assisting economically struggling countries in transitioning to a clean development model. “However, Western developed countries, led by the United States, attempt to make developing countries bear the consequences of the ecological crisis, while themselves refusing to assume the historical responsibility and current obligations for emission reduction.”[25]25 Wang Xiaohong, “The Historical Responsibility of Western Developed Countries for Climate Change,” *World Environment* 2021, no. 3: 45. One piece of evidence is that former US President Trump announced in 2017 the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, refusing to fulfill the commitments made in the agreement to provide aid funds for developing countries to address climate change and to cut carbon emissions. Research shows that approximately 90% of global excess carbon emissions originate from Western developed capitalist countries led by the United States. Not only have they failed to fulfill their own emission reduction tasks, but they are also urging developing countries to assume the responsibility for global emission reduction. Canadian scholar Naomi Klein argues that developing countries like China and India, although they produce greenhouse gases, should not bear the same responsibility as developed countries, because they have little responsibility for the environmental pollution of the past 200 years or so.[26]26 Naomi Klein, *This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate* (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), p. 78. General Secretary Xi Jinping, in an interview with Reuters, also pointed out: “Adhering to principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities does not mean that developing countries should not contribute to the global response to climate change, but rather that it should be in line with the capabilities and requirements of developing countries.”[27]27

另一方面，西方国家并未坚持和履行“共同但有区别的责任”来应对环境污染问题，不断推诿治理责任。《联合国气候变化框架公约》规定了“共同但有区别的责任”这一原则，即虽然每个国家都有责任参与解决气候问题，但西方国家的温室气体历史排放量最多，它们理应承担更大的减排责任，同时还要援助经济发展困难的国家向清洁发展模式转变。“然而，以美国为首的西方发达国家妄图让广大发展中国家承担生态危机的恶果，自身却不肯承担减排的历史责任与现实义务。”25美国前总统特朗普2017年宣布退出《巴黎协定》,拒绝在协定中承诺的为发展中国家提供应对气候变化的援助资金和削减碳排放量，就是证明之一。有研究显示，全球约有90%的过量碳排放源自以美国为首的西方发达资本主义，它们自身非但未履行应有的减排任务，反倒督促起发展中国家承担全球减排的责任。加拿大学者娜奥米·克莱恩(Naomi Klehin)则认为，像中国和印度这样的发展中国家虽然制造了温室气体，但无需同发达国家负同样的责任，因为它们对于过去200年左右的环境污染并没有多少责任26。习近平总书记在接受路透社采访时也曾指出：“坚持共同但有区别的责任等原则，不是说发展中国家就不要为全球应对气候变化作出贡献了，而是说要符合发展中国家能力和要求。”27

(3) Launching Wars to Plunder Ecological Resources

(三)发动战争，大肆攫取生态资源

Launching wars against Third World countries and regions has become an important means for the Western imperialist bloc, led by the United States, to shift domestic ecological crises and plunder the energy and resources of other countries.

向第三世界国家和地区发动战争成为以美国为首的西方帝国主义集团转嫁国内生态危机、掠夺他国能源和资源的重要手段。

First, plundering the resources of other countries through war. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, composed of Western countries led by the United States, under the guise of “democracy” and “human rights,” constantly courts and cultivates “pro-American” and “pro-European” factions, creating national division and ethnic conflicts in other countries. Its fundamental purpose is to occupy and plunder the resources of other countries, turning them into its own dependencies—a typical imperialist act. To control the oil resources of the Middle East, under the pretext of maintaining regional security, the US and the West have directly or indirectly launched unjust wars, causing serious humanitarian crises and refugee problems. Moreover, the United States has personally stolen oil. Since 2015, incidents of the US occupying forces in Syria stealing oil have been continuously exposed, exacerbating Syria’s energy shortage. Syrian Ambassador to Russia Bashar Jaafari stated: “Our ambulances do not even have fuel to transport the wounded, while the United States has been stealing our natural gas and oil and shipping it to third countries.”[28]28 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848).

其一，通过战争大肆攫取他国资源。以美国为首的西方国家组成的北大西洋公约组织，在全球打着“民主”“人权”的幌子，不断拉拢和培植“亲美派”“亲欧派”,制造他国国家分裂和民族矛盾，其根本目的是侵占和掠夺他国的资源，将其变成本国的附属，这是典型的帝国主义行径。为了控制中东地区的石油资源，打着维护地区安全的幌子，美西方直接或间接发动不正义战争，造成了严重的人道主义危机和难民问题。不仅如此，美国还动手亲自盗取石油。自2015年开始，美国驻叙利亚占领军偷盗石油的事件被连续爆出，该行径加剧了叙利亚能源短缺。叙利亚驻俄罗斯大使巴沙尔·贾法里(Bashar Jaafari)表示：“我们的救护车甚至没有燃料来运送伤者，而美国却一直在偷窃我们的天然气和石油，并将其运往第三国。”28

Second, imperialist wars have caused incalculable damage to the ecology of underdeveloped countries and regions. The US military extensively used highly toxic chemical agents during the Vietnam War, the most harmful of which was “Agent Orange” (also known as defoliant), causing devastating impacts on the local ecosystem. In areas contaminated by Agent Orange, a large number of species became extinct, and human diseases became frequent. To this day, the harmful effects of residual hazardous chemicals on the local ecology continue, fully exposing the anti-ecological and anti-human nature of imperialism. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), led by the United States, has repeatedly used depleted uranium munitions with radioactive and chemical toxicity in wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As recently as 2023, the United States provided depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine.

其二，帝国主义战争给欠发达国家和地区生态造成了不可估量的损失。美军在越南战争中大量使用剧毒化学品，其中最具危害性的叫“橙剂”(也称枯叶剂),对当地生态系统造成了毁灭性灾难影响，被“橙剂”污染的区域物种大量灭绝，人类疾病频发。直至现在，危险化学品的残留对当地生态造成的恶劣影响还在持续，帝国主义反生态、反人类的本质暴露无遗。以美国为首的北大西洋公约组织(NATO)在战争中多次使用具有放射性和化学毒性的贫铀弹，如1991年海湾战争、1999年轰炸南斯拉夫、2001年入侵阿富汗和2003年入侵伊拉克，直到2023年美国还向乌克兰提供贫铀弹。

3. Transcending the “Green Illusion”

三、超越“绿色幻象”

Facts have proven that the series of measures taken by late capitalism to deal with the ecological crisis will only make the already strained ecological chain more constricted, thus sealing the fate that capitalism’s hope of escaping the ecological predicament will ultimately be dashed. This requires transcending the logic of capital, achieving a dual transformation of system and values, learning from China’s wise plan for building an ecological civilization, and truly embarking on a path of modernization featuring harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature.

事实证明，晚期资本主义应对生态危机的一系列举措，只会使原本紧张的生态链条更加局促，也就注定了资本主义走出生态困局的希望终将破灭。这就必须超越资本逻辑，实现制度与价值观的双重变革，借鉴中国建设生态文明的智慧方案，真正走出一条人与自然和谐共生的现代化之路。

(1) Transcending the Capital Logic of Private Ownership of the Means of Production

(一)超越生产资料私有制的资本逻辑

The fundamental path to achieving a good ecological environment lies in breaking through the framework of the capitalist system and replacing capitalist private ownership with socialist public ownership. To achieve a transcendence of the Western green transformation plan, it is necessary to expose its anti-ecological nature and shake the foundations of the capitalist system and the capitalist mode of production, because “capitalism itself is the fundamental disaster that needs to be exorcised.”[29]29 John Bellamy Foster, *Ecology Against Capitalism* (2002), p. 1.

良好生态环境实现的根本通路在于突破资本主义制度框架，以社会主义公有制取代资本主义私有制。要实现对西方绿色转向方案的超越，就必须揭示其反生态的本性，撼动资本主义制度和资本主义生产方式的根基，因为“资本主义本身就是需要驱除的根本性灾难”29。

On the one hand, green capitalism is inherently “anti-ecological,” because the capitalist system and the logic of capital behind it are the root causes of the ecological crisis. In the view of Marx and Engels, “modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.”[28]28 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). That is to say, “as long as private ownership of the means of production exists, the global environment will continue to be destroyed.”[29]29 John Bellamy Foster, *Ecology Against Capitalism* (2002), p. 1. For example, in order to alleviate the inherent contradiction between the socialized character of production and the private ownership of the means of production, to compensate for the harm caused by overproduction, and thereby to maximize profit, capitalism has begun to accelerate the plundering of global resources on a massive scale, resulting in the privatization of public natural resources and the polarization of access to ecological resources. At the same time, through the capitalization of natural resources and the externalization of the costs of damage, it conceals the disguised exploitation of the working class and the defects of the capitalist system itself. Thus the capitalist system and its mode of production are the fundamental causes of the ecological crisis; the ecological crisis simply cannot be resolved under the capitalist system. Whether green capitalism seeks a solution through market mechanisms or through technological innovation, it will only exacerbate the ecological crisis.

一方面，绿色资本主义本身具有“反生态性”,这是因为其背后的资本主义制度与资本逻辑是生态危机产生的根源。在马克思恩格斯看来，“现代的资产阶级私有制是建立在阶级对立上面、建立在一些人对另一些人的剥削上面的产品生产和占有的最后而又最完备的表现”30。也就是说，“只要生产资料私人所有制存在，全球环境就会继续遭到破坏”31。例如，为了缓解生产的社会化与生产资料的私有制这对内在矛盾，弥补生产过剩所带来的危害从而追求利润的最大化，资本主义开始加速对全球资源进行大肆掠夺，由此造成了公共自然资源的私有化以及生态资源享有的两极化。同时，他们通过自然资源的资本化与损害代价外部化的过程，掩盖对工人阶级的变相剥削以及资本主义制度本身的弊端。因而资本主义制度与其生产方式是造成生态危机的根本原因，生态危机根本无法在资本主义制度下得到解决，不管是绿色资本主义通过市场手段，还是寻求技术革新解决的路径，只会使生态危机加剧。

On the other hand, to solve ecological problems, a strong institutional guarantee must be established. Socialist public ownership can better ensure that ecological resources are not appropriated and deprived by capital. First, advocating the establishment and improvement of socialist public ownership can better safeguard the interests of the people. “Transforming social relations of production in a socialist direction. The governing force of such a society is not the pursuit of profit but the satisfaction of people’s genuine needs and the requirements of socially and ecologically sustainable development.”[30]30 James O’Connor, *Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism* (1998), p. 278. The socialist system can effectively regulate the power of capital, eliminating the possibility of its unlimited appropriation of ecological resources, enabling people to enjoy natural resources fairly, and promoting the realization of ecological justice. Second, socialist public ownership can better achieve the integrated and balanced consideration of economic development and ecological protection. Under socialist public ownership, the distribution and utilization of resources will be subject to stricter regulation, ensuring that economic activities do not lead to the overexploitation of natural resources, and preventing the erosion of public natural resources by private capital and its disorderly expansion in the ecological sphere. Economic development and ecological protection are no longer in a relationship of opposition but one of mutual promotion and mutual support, which can create a better future for future generations.

另一方面，要解决生态问题，必须建立强有力的制度保障，社会主义公有制可以更好地确保生态资源不被资本占有和剥夺。首先，倡导建立和完善社会主义公有制，更能维护人民利益。“沿着社会主义方向改造社会生产关系。这种社会的支配力量不是追逐利润而是满足人民的真正需要和社会生态可持续发展的要求”32。社会主义制度可以实现对资本力量的有效规制，排除了其无限占有生态资源的可能性，使得人们可以公平享有自然资源，促进了生态正义的实现。其次，社会主义公有制可以更好地实现经济发展和生态保护的统筹兼顾。在社会主义公有制下，资源的分配和利用都会受到更加严格的监管，确保了经济活动不会对自然资源过度开发，避免了私人资本对公共自然资源的侵蚀及其在生态领域的无序扩张。经济发展与生态保护不再是对立的关系，而是相互促进、相互支撑的关系，可以为后代创造一个更加美好的未来。

In summary, socialism is based on the free and comprehensive development of human beings, safeguarding the common interests of all humanity, and fostering a genuinely benign interactive relationship between humans and nature. It is in this sense that we can conclude: only under socialist public ownership can ecological justice be truly realized, effectively avoiding the deterioration of the ecological environment caused by blind economic development, and truly providing a reliable institutional support for protecting our ecological environment.

总之，社会主义是立足于人的自由全面发展，维护全人类共同的利益，人与自然是真正良性互动的关系。正是在上述意义上，我们可以得出结论：只有在社会主义公有制下才能真正实现生态正义，有效规避由于经济盲目发展导致的生态环境恶化，真正为保护我们的生态环境提供可靠的制度支撑。

(II) Transcending the Opposition of Subject and Object through the Harmonious Coexistence of Humans and Nature

(二)以人与自然和谐共生超越主客体的对立

The concept of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature aims to transcend the concept of the opposition between subject and object under the capitalist system, ultimately achieving a more balanced and sustainable relationship between the two. It contains profound ethical value. To truly improve the ecological environment and achieve green development, it is necessary to reshape the traditional antagonistic relationship between humans and nature. “Green development, in its essence, is about properly resolving the issue of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.”[31]31 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 18th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee” (May 24, 2013).

人与自然和谐共生理念旨在超越资本主义制度下人与自然的主客对立观念，最终实现二者更加平衡和可持续的关系，内蕴着深刻的伦理价值。要想真正改善生态环境，实现绿色发展，就必须重塑传统人与自然二者之间对抗性的关系，“绿色发展，就其要义来讲，是要解决好人与自然和谐共生问题”33。

First, handling the relationship between humans and nature with the concept of harmonious coexistence represents a substantive transcendence of Western green thought and the ecological modernization model. The concept of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature truly follows the sustainable development principle of respecting nature, conforming to nature, and protecting nature, regarding humans and nature as a community of life that is interdependent, mutually prosperous, and symbiotic. Only through the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature can human development and social progress be truly realized. It not only breaks through the contradiction and opposition between traditional “anthropocentrism” and “ecocentrism” but also represents a revolutionary transcendence of the late capitalist ecological governance model. Second, the path of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature emphasizes satisfying the normal needs of the current generation without compromising the future development of subsequent generations. All human activities should respect the laws of nature and the boundaries of ecosystems, avoiding the imposition of pressure and further damage on the natural environment, ensuring the rational use and protection of existing resources to meet the needs of current and future generations, and contributing to the unity and realization of intra-generational justice and intergenerational justice.

第一，以和谐共生的理念来处理人与自然之间的关系，是对西方绿色思潮以及生态现代化模式的实质超越。人与自然和谐共生的理念真正遵循了尊重自然、顺应自然、保护自然的可持续发展理念，将人与自然视为相互依存、共荣共生的生命共同体，只有在人与自然的和谐共生中才能真正实现人的发展和社会的进步。它不仅突破了传统“人类中心主义”与“生态中心主义”的矛盾对立，更是对晚期资本主义生态治理模式的革命性超越。第二，人与自然和谐共生之路强调既满足当前世代的正常需求，又不损害子孙后代未来的发展。人类的所有活动都应当尊重自然的规律和生态系统的边界，避免对自然环境施加压力和造成进一步破坏，确保现有资源的合理利用与保护，以满足当前和未来世代的需求，有助于代内正义与代际正义的统一与实现。

(III) Practical Dimension: Promoting Green Transformation through the Construction of a Socialist Ecological Civilization

(三)实践向度：以社会主义生态文明建设助推绿色转型

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, under the guidance of Xi Jinping’s thought on ecological civilization, China has achieved a series of practical accomplishments in the construction of a socialist ecological civilization, continuously advancing a comprehensive green transformation, contributing the practical wisdom of Chinese-style ecological governance modernization to solving global ecological problems, and forging a path of Chinese-style ecological modernization characterized by the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature.

党的十八大以来，我国在习近平生态文明思想指导下，在社会主义生态文明建设上取得了一系列实践成就，不断推进全面绿色转型，为破解全球性的生态难题贡献了中国式生态治理现代化的实践智慧，走出了一条人与自然和谐共生的中国式生态现代化之路。

First, in the practice of China’s ecological civilization construction, adhering to the concept that “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets,” ecological civilization construction has always been placed in a prominent position in the overall work. Taking solid practical actions in addressing and responding to global ecological challenges is the foundation and support for demonstrating the responsibility of a major country. “In the contemporary Chinese context, the construction of an ecological civilization takes as its era background the ecological transformation of human civilization development, the innovation of civilizational forms, and comprehensive transformation, and it is also an ecological civilization construction within the context of development as the top priority.”[32]32 Wang Yuchen, “The Logic of Ecological Civilization Construction in the Contemporary Chinese Context,” *Studies on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics* (2019), no. 4. China has incorporated the goals of peaking carbon emissions and achieving carbon neutrality into the overall layout of economic and social development and ecological civilization construction, clarifying the strategic direction and target requirements for the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development, and demonstrating the image of a major country willing to work together with global partners to continuously contribute to greater progress in global climate governance.

首先，在我国的生态文明建设实践中，秉持“绿水青山就是金山银山”理念，始终将生态文明建设摆在全局工作的突出位置。在处理和应对全球生态难题上采取坚实的实际行动，是我们展现大国担当的底气与依托所在。“在当代中国语境下的生态文明建设，是以人类文明发展的生态变革、文明形态创新与全面转型为时代背景，又是在以发展为第一要义的语境下的生态文明建设。”34我国将碳达峰碳中和纳入经济社会发展和生态文明建设整体布局中，明确了经济社会发展全面绿色转型的战略方向和目标要求，展现了中国愿意与全球合作伙伴一道努力，为推动全球气候治理事业取得更大进展而不断添砖加瓦的大国形象。

Second, it assists the ecological construction of other developing countries, supports the high-quality joint construction of the Belt and Road Initiative, and demonstrates the responsibility of the world’s largest developing country. China actively advocates South-South cooperation, has established the “South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund,” actively carries out project cooperation in the field of climate change response, and assists developing countries in improving their capacity to address climate change by providing technical assistance, financial support, and other means within its capabilities. China actively builds a green Belt and Road Initiative, deepens ecological and environmental cooperation with countries along the route, continuously promotes the green transformation of the regional economy, and supports the construction of ecological and environmental infrastructure and the development and upgrading of green industries in countries along the route. The Memorandum of Understanding on Building a Green Belt and Road Initiative reached between the Chinese government and the United Nations Environment Programme aims to build an environmentally friendly Belt and Road Initiative. China has also signed more than 50 cooperation documents with multiple relevant countries and international organizations, jointly committed to ecological and environmental protection. At the same time, China actively implements the “Green Silk Road Envoys Program,” which has successfully trained over 3,000 professionals serving more than 120 countries participating in the joint construction of the Belt and Road Initiative.[33]33 Data from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, “Progress Report on the Green Belt and Road Initiative” (2023). In the future, it will also increase support for the Belt and Road Initiative International Green Development Coalition and investment in Belt and Road Initiative partner countries to promote green development.

其次，助推其他发展中国家生态建设，支持高质量共建“一带一路”,展现其最大发展中国家的担当。中国积极倡导南南合作，设立“南南合作援助基金”,在应对气候变化领域积极开展项目合作，通过提供力所能及的技术援助、资金支持等方式，协助发展中国家提高应对气候变化的能力。中国积极构筑绿色“一带一路”,与沿线国家深化生态环保合作，不断推进区域经济绿色转型，支持沿线国家生态环保基础设施建设与绿色产业的发展升级。中国政府与联合国环境规划署达成的《关于建设绿色“一带一路”的谅解备忘录》旨在建设环保友好的“一带一路”。中国还与多个相关国家和国际组织签署了50多份合作文件，共同致力于生态环境保护。同时，中国积极推行“绿色丝路使者计划”,已经成功培训了超过3000名专业人才，服务于120多个共建“一带一路”国家35,未来还将加大对“一带一路”绿色发展国际联盟的支持和“一带一路”伙伴国的投资，促进绿色发展。

Finally, actively participate in the joint construction of global ecological civilization, and guide the international negotiation agenda for addressing climate change. Climate change is one of the recognized global issues today and a key factor constraining sustainable development. China actively participates in international climate change negotiations, is committed to strengthening friendly cooperation among countries, promotes the negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, conducts dialogue with all parties through multilateral channels, and facilitates the international community in reaching consensus on climate change issues. China has not only become an important participant and contributor to the construction of global ecological civilization, but is increasingly playing a leading role. For example, China organized and participated in negotiations for numerous international environmental conventions such as the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention, and is committed to promoting collaborative cooperation among various international organizations. China was the presidency of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which adopted the "Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework." The "Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework" outlines the vision of achieving "harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature" by 2050, and clarifies the global biodiversity protection targets for 2030, which is of great and far-reaching significance for global environmental governance. In addition, China took the lead in proposing and implementing the ecological protection red line system internationally, promoting large-scale and holistic protection of ecological spaces and endangered species, providing a Chinese solution for global ecological protection and governance, and practically demonstrating its responsibility as a major responsible country on the international stage.

最后，积极参与全球生态文明共建，引导应对全球气候变化的国际谈判议程。气候变化是当今公认的全球性问题之一，也是制约可持续发展的关键因素。中国积极参与国际气候变化谈判，致力于加强各国间的友好合作，推动联合国气候变化框架公约下的谈判进程，通过多边渠道与各方进行对话，促进国际社会在气候变化问题上达成共识。中国不仅成为当之无愧的全球生态文明建设的重要参与者与贡献者，而且越来越发挥着引领者的角色。例如，中国组织参加了《蒙特利尔议定书》《巴塞尔公约》等诸多国际环境公约的谈判，并致力于推动各个国际组织之间的协同合作。中国是《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(COP15)的主席国，该会议通过了“昆明—蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架”。“昆明—蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架”描绘了2050年实现“人与自然和谐共生”的愿景，并明确了2030年全球生物多样性保护目标，对于全球环境治理具有重要而深远的意义。此外，我国率先在国际上提出并实施了生态保护红线制度，促进了对生态空间与濒危物种的大规模、整体性保护，为全球生态保护治理提供了中国方案，在国际上以实际行动践行了作为一个负责任大国的担当。

In summary, the exposure, critique, and transcendence of the green illusion of late capitalism indicate that in the current advancement of China's ecological civilization construction, it is necessary both to recognize the anti-ecological nature of contemporary capitalism's pursuit of profit, and to seek opportunities for ecological transformation amidst the changes unseen in a century in the world, striving to unite the people of all countries and continuously inject new vitality into global environmental governance and the joint construction of ecological civilization. Only in this way can we comprehensively promote green transformation and jointly build a beautiful world of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature.

总之，对晚期资本主义绿色幻象的揭露、批判与超越表明，在当前我国生态文明建设的推进中，既要认清当今资本主义追求利润的反生态本性，又要在世界百年未有之大变局中谋求生态变革的机遇，努力团结世界各国人民，不断为全球环境治理和生态文明共建注入新的活力。唯有这样才能全面推动绿色转型，共建人与自然和谐共生的美好世界。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑