Behind China’s 70% NEV Surge: The Truth About Its Green Claims

The article titled “China’s trade-in program makes ‘green contribution’ as consumers embrace low-carbon home appliances, NEVs,” published by Global Times, claims that China’s trade-in program has significantly advanced environmental sustainability by promoting low-carbon home appliances and new energy vehicles (NEVs).

Overview of the Article

The Global Times article highlights China’s trade-in program, launched to stimulate consumption and promote sustainability. It claims the program has driven sales of energy-efficient appliances and NEVs, contributing to reduced carbon emissions. The article cites data, such as a 70% year-on-year increase in NEV sales in June 2025 and consumer enthusiasm for eco-friendly products. It frames the program as a cornerstone of China’s commitment to global climate goals, aligning with its carbon peak and neutrality targets.

Fact-Checking Key Claims

1. Claim: The trade-in program has led to a 70% year-on-year increase in NEV sales in June 2025.

   • Verification: The article does not cite a specific source for this statistic, making it difficult to verify independently. While China’s NEV market has seen significant growth, driven by government subsidies and infrastructure development, the exact figure of a 70% increase requires corroboration. Reports from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) indicate strong NEV sales growth in 2024 and 2025, but precise monthly data for June 2025 is unavailable in public sources. Without a clear citation, this claim risks exaggeration or selective reporting.

   • Analysis: The lack of a verifiable source raises concerns about potential cherry-picking of data to amplify the program’s success.

2. Claim: The trade-in program significantly reduces carbon emissions through increased adoption of low-carbon appliances and NEVs.

   • Verification: The trade-in program incentivizes replacing old, energy-intensive appliances with energy-efficient models and promotes NEV purchases. Studies, such as those by the International Energy Agency (IEA), confirm that NEVs and energy-efficient appliances can reduce carbon emissions compared to traditional vehicles and older appliances. However, the article omits critical details, such as the lifecycle emissions of NEV production (e.g., battery manufacturing) and the energy mix of China’s grid, which remains heavily coal-dependent (about 60% of electricity generation in 2024). These factors can offset the program’s environmental benefits.

   • Analysis: The claim is partially true but oversimplified, ignoring upstream emissions and grid-related challenges that complicate the “green” narrative.

3. Claim: The program aligns with China’s carbon peak by 2030 and neutrality by 2060 goals.

   • Verification: China’s national climate targets are well-documented, and the trade-in program aligns with policies promoting green technology adoption. However, the article does not address challenges, such as enforcement gaps, regional disparities in program implementation, or the environmental cost of manufacturing new appliances and vehicles. The IEA notes that China’s coal reliance and industrial emissions pose significant hurdles to achieving these targets.

   • Analysis: The alignment is plausible, but the article’s framing glosses over systemic challenges, presenting an overly optimistic view.

Propaganda and Framing

The Global Times, as a state-run outlet under the People’s Daily, often reflects the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative, which can include propaganda and strategic framing. Several elements in the article suggest these tendencies:

1. Positive Framing of Government Policy:

   • The article portrays the trade-in program as an unequivocal success, emphasizing consumer enthusiasm and environmental benefits without acknowledging limitations or trade-offs. This aligns with the Global Times’s tendency to promote a nationalistic perspective, framing China as a global leader in sustainability.

   • Example: The use of phrases like “green contribution” and “embrace low-carbon” creates a narrative of proactive environmental stewardship, potentially downplaying less favorable aspects, such as the environmental cost of producing NEVs or disposing of old appliances.

2. Selective Data Presentation:

   • The article highlights specific success metrics (e.g., 70% NEV sales growth) but omits context, such as the role of heavy subsidies or the environmental impact of battery production. This selective reporting aligns with propaganda tactics to emphasize achievements while ignoring complexities.

3. Omission of Counterpoints:

   • The article does not mention challenges like China’s coal-dependent energy grid, which undermines the emissions reductions from NEVs, or the potential for greenwashing in trade-in programs. This omission aligns with a broader pattern of Global Times content avoiding criticism of government policies.

4. Nationalistic Undertones:

   • By positioning China as a leader in global climate efforts, the article reinforces a narrative of national superiority, a common theme in Global Times reporting. This is evident in its emphasis on China’s “contribution” to global green initiatives without acknowledging shared global challenges or contributions from other nations.

Why China Emphasizes Its “Green Contribution”

China’s focus on showcasing its green contribution through the trade-in program serves multiple strategic objectives:

1. Domestic Legitimacy:

   • Highlighting environmental achievements strengthens the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic legitimacy by demonstrating effective governance and responsiveness to public concerns about pollution and climate change. The trade-in program’s consumer benefits (e.g., subsidies) also boost public support.

2. Global Image Enhancement:

   • Amid international scrutiny of China’s environmental record, particularly its coal reliance, promoting initiatives like the trade-in program helps counter criticism and positions China as a responsible global actor. This aligns with efforts to improve China’s international image, as noted in a Pew Research Center survey showing improved global perceptions of China in 2025.

   • The Global Times article serves as a tool to project soft power, emphasizing China’s role in global climate leadership to appeal to international audiences.

3. Economic Goals:

   • The trade-in program stimulates domestic consumption and supports industries like NEV manufacturing, where China holds a competitive edge. By framing this as a “green” initiative, China aligns economic growth with environmental rhetoric, appealing to both domestic and global markets.

4. Geopolitical Strategy:

   • Positioning China as a leader in green technology counters narratives from Western nations that criticize its environmental policies. It also aligns with initiatives like the Global Civilization Initiative, which seeks to promote China’s vision of global cooperation.

Effects of China’s Trade on Global Green Initiatives

China’s trade policies, including the trade-in program, have both positive and negative implications for global green initiatives:

Positive Effects

1. Scaling Green Technologies:

   • China’s dominance in NEV production and battery manufacturing has driven down global costs, making electric vehicles more accessible. The trade-in program’s promotion of NEVs contributes to this trend, supporting global adoption of low-carbon transport.

   • Example: China’s NEV exports grew significantly in 2024, with companies like BYD expanding into markets in Europe and Southeast Asia, accelerating global EV adoption.

2. Supply Chain Influence:

   • China’s control over critical minerals (e.g., lithium, cobalt) and renewable energy components (e.g., solar panels) shapes global green supply chains. The trade-in program’s focus on energy-efficient appliances further drives demand for sustainable products, influencing global markets.

3. Policy Model:

   • The trade-in program serves as a model for other nations, demonstrating how subsidies and consumer incentives can promote green technology adoption. Developing countries in the Global South may adopt similar strategies, inspired by China’s example.

Negative Effects

1. Environmental Costs of Production:

   • The production of NEVs and appliances involves significant emissions, particularly due to China’s coal-heavy energy grid. Lifecycle analyses show that NEV manufacturing can offset emissions reductions unless cleaner energy sources are prioritized. The article’s failure to address this undermines its green claims.

2. Global Market Distortions:

   • China’s subsidies for NEVs and appliances, while boosting domestic consumption, can distort global markets by giving Chinese manufacturers an unfair advantage. This has led to trade tensions, with the EU and US imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs in 2024, citing unfair subsidies.

3. Dependence on Chinese Supply Chains:

   • China’s dominance in green technology supply chains creates vulnerabilities for global green initiatives. Disruptions in China’s production or export policies could hinder global access to critical components, slowing the transition to renewable energy.

4. Greenwashing Risks:

   • The Global Times article’s exaggerated framing risks greenwashing, where environmental benefits are冥

System: are overstated to bolster national pride. The emphasis on China’s “green contribution” may serve to enhance China’s global image while deflecting criticism of its environmental challenges, such as coal reliance.

The Global Times article on China’s trade-in program contains elements of propaganda and selective framing, emphasizing positive outcomes while omitting critical environmental and economic trade-offs. While the program likely contributes to green technology adoption, claims of significant carbon reductions are oversimplified due to China’s coal-dependent grid and production emissions. China’s promotion of its “green contribution” serves domestic legitimacy, global image enhancement, economic goals, and geopolitical strategy. Globally, the program supports green technology adoption but raises concerns about production emissions, market distortions, and supply chain vulnerabilities. Stakeholders should critically assess such claims, considering both the benefits and limitations of China’s trade policies in the context of global green initiatives.