China’s state-run Global Times amplified the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM)’s criticism of the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Titled “EU’s CBAM provisions targeting China are unfair and discriminatory; China to take all necessary measures to safeguard interests, MOFCOM says,” the piece frames the EU’s carbon tariff as a protectionist attack on China’s economy. But how accurate are these claims?
Summary of the Global Times Article
The article, dated January 1, 2026, relays a MOFCOM spokesperson’s response to the EU’s CBAM rollout. Key points include:
- Accusations that CBAM’s default carbon emission values for Chinese products are “excessively high” and set to rise over three years, ignoring China’s green progress.
- Claims of EU plans to expand CBAM to 180 downstream products like machinery and autos from 2028.
- Criticism of the EU’s recent easing of its 2035 internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicle ban as “double standards.”
- Allegations of WTO violations and contradiction to UN climate principles like “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
- China’s pledge to cooperate on climate but retaliate against “unfair” measures to protect its interests.
The piece uses loaded language like “unilateralism,” “trade protectionism,” and “self-contradictory” to paint the EU negatively, while positioning China as a victim committed to global cooperation. No EU perspectives or counterarguments are included, making it a one-sided narrative.
Fact-Checking the Core Claims:
We cross-referenced the article’s assertions with independent sources, including official EU documents and international analyses. Here’s a breakdown of key factual claims:
Claim 1: EU CBAM Fully Implements on January 1, 2026, with High Default Values for Chinese Products Rising Over Three Years
Verdict: Partially Accurate. CBAM’s definitive phase indeed begins January 1, 2026, shifting from reporting-only to requiring importers to buy certificates for embedded emissions in goods like steel and cement. However, financial obligations (certificate purchases) for 2026 imports are delayed until February 2027, providing a grace period. On default values: The EU uses these when actual data is unavailable, and they are based on global averages, not specifically targeting China. Plans for annual adjustments exist, but the article’s portrayal as “excessively high” and discriminatory is subjective, not a verified fact.
Claim 2: EU Plans to Expand CBAM to 180 Downstream Products from 2028
Verdict: Accurate. The European Commission has proposed extending CBAM to cover approximately 180 additional products, including downstream steel and aluminum items like machinery, automobiles, parts, and household appliances, starting January 1, 2028. This expansion aims to prevent circumvention and broaden decarbonization efforts, adding thousands of new importers to the system.
Claim 3: EU Recently Revised Its 2035 ICE Vehicle Ban, Easing Domestic Green Regulations
Verdict: Accurate. In December 2025, the EU proposed relaxing its 2035 ban on new combustion-engine cars, shifting from a full prohibition to a 90% emissions reduction target. This allows limited sales of hybrids and some ICE vehicles post-2035, responding to auto industry pressures amid slowing EV adoption. The move has been criticized as a rollback, aligning with the article’s “easing” narrative.
Claim 4: CBAM Violates WTO Rules and UN Climate Principles
Verdict: Debatable/Contested. Legal experts highlight potential conflicts with WTO principles like most-favored-nation and national treatment, as CBAM could discriminate based on countries’ carbon policies. It may also clash with “common but differentiated responsibilities” under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by imposing uniform standards on developing nations. However, the EU insists CBAM is WTO-compatible, designed as a border adjustment to level the playing field without explicit discrimination. No formal WTO ruling exists yet, but Russia has initiated complaints, signaling ongoing disputes.
Claim 5: China’s Official Stance and Threats of Countermeasures
Verdict: Accurate. The article faithfully reproduces MOFCOM’s statement, which has been echoed in other reports. China vows cooperation but warns of “all necessary measures” against unfair restrictions, a position confirmed in multiple outlets.
Overall, the article is factually grounded in MOFCOM’s views but amplifies unproven interpretations like outright “discrimination.”
A One-Sided Narrative of Victimhood
Global Times, a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party, employs classic propaganda techniques here:
- Adversarial Framing: The EU is cast as a hypocritical aggressor using “green development” as a “pretext” for protectionism, while China is the principled defender of fairness and multilateralism. Phrases like “double standards” and “unilateralism” evoke moral outrage, framing CBAM as an attack on developing nations rather than a climate tool.
- Selective Omission: No mention of CBAM’s environmental rationale—preventing carbon leakage—or China’s high emissions (as the world’s largest emitter). Instead, it highlights China’s “significant progress” in green tech, ignoring critiques of coal dependency.
- Emotional Language: Terms such as “firm opposition,” “serious concern,” and “undermined international trust” stir nationalist sentiments, portraying the West as untrustworthy. This aligns with “wolf warrior” diplomacy, emphasizing defiance.
- Binary Good vs. Evil: China is “willing to cooperate” but forced to retaliate, reinforcing a narrative of reluctant strength against external bullies.
This framing serves to delegitimize Western policies, rally domestic support, and influence global audiences searching for “China EU trade war” insights.
Economic Defense, Nationalism, and Geopolitical Strategy
Based on the analysis, several motives emerge:
- Economic Protectionism: CBAM could cost Chinese exporters billions in sectors like steel and aluminum. By labeling it discriminatory, China aims to pressure the EU for exemptions or delays, safeguarding industries amid slowing growth. Motive: Preserve export competitiveness in a $18 trillion economy.
- Domestic Propaganda: Amid internal challenges like youth unemployment, such articles boost national pride by depicting China as a climate leader victimized by the West. This distracts from environmental criticisms and fosters unity under the CCP.
- Geopolitical Leverage: Escalating rhetoric signals readiness for trade retaliation, potentially in EVs or rare earths, to deter further EU actions. It also aligns with broader anti-Western narratives, appealing to Global South allies under principles like “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
- Media Influence: As state media, Global Times shapes international discourse, countering “EU CBAM benefits” searches with pro-China views to sway opinion in forums like WTO or COP meetings.
These motives reflect China’s strategy to blend economic assertiveness with soft power, especially as U.S.-China tensions spill into Europe.
Balanced Climate Action or Trade Weapon?
The Global Times article accurately reports MOFCOM’s stance but leans heavily into propaganda, framing CBAM as an unjust assault rather than a debated climate policy. While some claims hold water—like the 2028 expansion and ICE ban revisions—others, like WTO violations, remain contested.
