Author name: 胡思

nThe global energy landscape is quietly being reshaped. In the first half of 2025, wind and solar power generation surpassed coal for the first time, marking a watershed moment in the history of human energy. According to the latest report from the energy research organization Ember, global electricity demand is growing by about 2.6% annually, while the total contribution from wind and solar meets 109% of this new demand. In other words, all growth in global electricity is now coming from renewable energy. This is the result of years of policy promotion, technological maturity, and cost reduction, revealing a critical turning point: energy growth is no longer at the expense of carbon emissions.n

nHowever, at this historic moment, former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized China at the United Nations General Assembly for having “almost no wind farms” while “selling wind turbines worldwide.” Although his remarks drew applause, they were completely detached from reality. China is not only the world’s largest wind energy market, with wind power installations accounting for about 40% of the global total, but also a leader in solar manufacturing, controlling more than 80% of production capacity. Trump’s criticism reflects the simplification and misguidance of political rhetoric, obscuring the real issue: the world is indeed overly reliant on Chinese supply. With China’s monopolistic advantage in photovoltaics, batteries, and wind turbine components, geopolitical risks and industrial security have become concerns for the global green energy transition.n

nOver the past decade, China has driven a cost revolution in renewable energy. Due to large-scale production and supply chain integration, the prices of wind turbines and solar panels have fallen globally by 60% to 80%, making renewable energy economically competitive with coal for the first time. However, the side effects of centralized production are becoming increasingly apparent. If Sino-Western relations deteriorate, exports are restricted, or transportation is disrupted, global projects will face delays and price increases. The International Energy Agency warns that to maintain the net-zero path by 2030, global photovoltaic capacity must still double, and supply chain concentration could slow progress. Thus, de-risking has become a new consensus among countries—not decoupling from China, but establishing more production bases in Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and the Americas to make manufacturing more dispersed and resilient.n

nThe rise of renewable energy also exposes bottlenecks within power systems. The output of wind and solar is limited by weather and time of day, and if grid and storage infrastructure do not keep pace, a paradox of “having power but unable to deliver it” will arise. The growth of wind and solar in China and India is sufficient to offset demand expansion, but in Europe and the U.S., due to insufficient hydropower and aging grids, there is still a short-term reliance on fossil fuels. The real challenge is not whether more wind turbines and panels can be built, but whether the grid can be upgraded in parallel, with investments in storage and cross-regional dispatch to ensure stable and reliable green energy supply.n

nIn contrast, many developing countries are taking a completely different path. For them, green energy is not a supplement but a starting point. In Chad, sub-Saharan Africa, where the national electrification rate is only about 6%, the recently launched Noor Chad solar power plant and microgrid project is expected to provide stable electricity to approximately 274,000 households for the first time. For villages long reliant on diesel generators, this is not just an energy revolution but a social leap. Solar energy is much cheaper and quicker to deploy than building refineries, laying pipelines, or setting up gas stations. Similarly, Argentina is benefiting from the transition, with its wind and solar installations doubling in just five years, becoming a new engine for attracting foreign investment and creating jobs.n

nThese examples prove that energy transition is not the preserve of wealthy nations. For developing countries, green energy represents a leapfrogging opportunity—it allows them to skip the fossil fuel era and directly enter a low-carbon economy. If the international community can provide financing, technology, and insurance support, these emerging markets could become new drivers of global energy growth. The equitable distribution of green energy also helps reduce reliance on Chinese manufacturing, achieving a truly multipolar energy order.n

nTrump’s misjudgment may seem absurd, but it inadvertently reminds the world: if the energy transition is overly concentrated in a single country, its achievements will ultimately be fragile. The future green era cannot rely solely on one supplier or one continent. The surpassing of coal by renewable energy is just the beginning. The real turning point is whether the world can establish a safer, more diversified, and fairer energy system. As wind and sunlight illuminate the globe, whether they can simultaneously brighten the future for all will determine the sustainability of this revolution.n

nAt the annual Conservative Party conference in Manchester, party leader Kemi Badenoch unveiled a series of new policies, claiming they would reshape Britain’s future. From withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to cutting foreign aid, abolishing business and stamp duties, retracting the net-zero carbon emissions target, establishing a deportation force, cutting £47 billion in spending, and introducing a ‘first job bonus’, these slogans appear formidable but lack coherent logic and long-term vision. For a party losing public support, such policies seem more like manifestations of political anxiety rather than planned reforms.n

nThe proposal to withdraw from the ECHR is the most destructive. The ECHR is a legal pillar of the Belfast Agreement and a crucial condition of the UK-EU trade agreement. Exiting it would cast uncertainty over Northern Ireland’s peace and trade with Europe. This is not merely a legal issue but a destabilization of constitutional and diplomatic foundations. Under the guise of ‘sovereignty’, the Conservative Party risks dismantling institutions, potentially losing Britain’s credibility as a stable democracy. With Brexit externally and power reduction internally, this political trajectory is hard to reassure.n

nThe regression in climate policy is even more disappointing. Badenoch claims the net-zero target is too costly, ignoring the sharp decline in renewable energy prices. Offshore wind and solar power are now the cheapest sources of electricity. In the next two years, several large wind farms and solar power stations are set to commence operations in the UK. Had the Conservatives continued to push for transformation, they could have reaped both economic and environmental benefits. Instead, retreating not only misses investment opportunities but also shirks responsibility to future generations. While the world races for green economic leadership, Britain steps backward, which is neither smart nor conservative.n

nToday’s Conservative Party is a far cry from the one familiar to Hong Kongers. The party of Margaret Thatcher, who championed free markets and union reforms, John Major, who maintained a stable European cooperation route, and Chris Patten, who implemented democratic reforms in Hong Kong, represented rationality, pragmatism, and responsibility. The Conservatives have long been the most successful party in British politics, governing for most of the past century. However, under Badenoch’s leadership, it is rapidly losing its centrist stance and sense of reality, pandering instead to right-wing populism. Former party chairman Lord Chris Patten warns that the further right the party leans, the more populist it becomes, the less popular it becomes, and the less popular it becomes, the further right it leans. This vicious cycle is the true reflection of today’s Conservative Party.n

nFiscal and foreign policies appear equally superficial. Badenoch proposes reducing foreign aid to 0.1% of national income, claiming it is a ‘return to national interest’. Yet for a still-wealthy nation like the UK, foreign aid is not just charity but an extension of influence and security. As Britain withdraws from the aid arena, the vacuum will be quickly filled by other countries—such as China. She also claims to cut £47 billion in spending to fund tax reforms and new plans. The problem is that this spending cut promise lacks a solid foundation. Many commentators describe it as ‘almost impossible to fulfill’, and the media points out that the Conservatives have never explained specific reduction methods or funding arrangements. If the basic assumptions are untenable, the entire fiscal blueprint becomes mere rhetoric. While abolishing business and stamp duties is principled, the former can ease the burden on high streets, and the latter can promote housing fluidity and economic vitality. The issue lies not in the concept itself but in the lack of thorough funding planning. Without clear, sustainable solutions, even the best policies will be seen as political rhetoric rather than feasible reforms.n

nThe latest YouGov poll shows the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both have 17% support, only five percentage points ahead of the Green Party. For a party that has long dominated British politics, this is a historic low and a warning sign. Voters are not buying into Badenoch’s new policies, responding instead with indifference and detachment. When a major party is marginalized, it is not because it is not radical enough in its reforms, but because it has lost a credible direction. If the Conservatives continue to lean right and cater to extreme voters, they will not gain the support of the Reform Party but will lose centrist voters. The wisest strategy should have been to wait and watch for the Reform Party’s internal divisions and self-destruction; unfortunately, Badenoch has chosen the opposite path, leading the party into a cycle of self-destruction.n

nBadenoch may genuinely believe in ‘brave reform’, but courage is not about going against the tide. When slogans replace reason, short-termism overshadows the long-term, and fantasy obscures reality, politics becomes mere posturing. What Britain needs is leadership that can face facts, make decisive choices, and is willing to cooperate, not politicians who pride themselves on confrontation. If the Conservatives continue accelerating in the wrong direction, they will ultimately lose not just power, but their raison d’être.n

nA fierce debate has reignited in British politics in recent months. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch announced at the party conference that if they return to power, they will lead the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), replacing it with a ‘British Bill of Rights.’ Reform UK has long advocated the same stance, claiming that the European Court obstructs the UK’s ability to deport illegal immigrants. Both parties now echo each other, framing the exit from the ECHR as a symbol of ‘reclaiming sovereignty.’ While such rhetoric may resonate with some voters, it risks undermining the foundations of the British system, potentially plunging the United Kingdom into division and isolation.n

nThe ECHR is not a foreign imposition but was drafted under British leadership in the post-war era. Winston Churchill sought to prevent Europe from relapsing into tyranny and conflict, leading to the creation of the convention and the Council of Europe. Should the UK leave now, it would join Russia as the only European country to exit, with Belarus never having joined. Transforming from an advocate to a deserter symbolizes the UK’s abandonment of its post-war legacy and damages its international reputation as a guardian of the rule of law and human rights.n

nTo understand the consequences, one must begin with Northern Ireland. The Belfast Agreement brought Northern Ireland out of thirty years of conflict, establishing a framework for peace and autonomy. The agreement explicitly requires that Northern Irish law fully comply with the ECHR, allowing citizens to appeal injustices to the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. This is not merely procedural design but a pillar of peace. If the UK exits, the principle of ‘no diminution of rights’ in Northern Ireland will be undermined, and the parity of esteem provisions under the Windsor Framework will become ineffective. The EU could then initiate dispute procedures, and the Irish government, along with nationalist factions, would demand a review of border and constitutional arrangements. Consequently, pressure for a referendum on Irish unification would rapidly increase.n

nFor the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,’ Northern Ireland is not just a territory but a symbol of ‘union.’ Losing it would destabilize the entire nation. Scottish independence voices have already resurfaced, and Welsh autonomy sentiment is strengthening. If Northern Ireland falls into turmoil, the federal structure will struggle to survive. Maintaining peace in Northern Ireland is not just diplomatic courtesy but a constitutional necessity.n

nThe economic repercussions of leaving the ECHR would also be significant. The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement stipulates that if either party is no longer bound by the convention, judicial and police cooperation can be immediately suspended. This would freeze Europol data sharing, cross-border extradition, and criminal intelligence. More importantly, once trust is lost, European businesses will reassess the legal stability of the UK, leading to increased trade barriers, supply chain delays, regulatory overlaps, and soaring compliance costs. Research from the London School of Economics indicates that non-tariff barriers post-Brexit have already significantly increased UK food prices. If judicial cooperation breaks down again, imported food inflation will worsen. When milk and bread on supermarket shelves become 10% more expensive, the sweetness of political slogans will turn into the bitterness of everyday life.n

nThe economy is just the beginning; more severe is the erosion of the rule of law and international reputation. The European Court of Human Rights has been the last resort for UK citizens facing government actions. Many controversial cases—detention rights, freedom of speech, family reunification—have required government compliance due to Strasbourg’s oversight. If the UK exits, it will become a defendant in its own court. Government power will lose external constraints, and judges will struggle to maintain independent scrutiny. In the long run, this will weaken public trust in the judicial system and cause foreign investors to doubt the legal protections of London’s financial center. When international businesses no longer trust that contracts will be fairly adjudicated, capital will quietly depart.n

nSome argue that leaving the ECHR would ‘regain border control,’ but this is merely a populist illusion. The crux of immigration issues lies in policy and enforcement, not the convention itself. Blaming all difficulties on the human rights court is merely a distraction. True sovereignty comes from trustworthiness and self-discipline, not arbitrary treaty-breaking. If the UK is unwilling to adhere to its own designed system, how can the outside world trust its treaty commitments?n

nThe rights protected by the ECHR—life, liberty, fair trial, speech, and belief—form the baseline of modern civilization. These principles are not imposed by Europe but are extensions of the British legal tradition. The convention provides everyone with tools to counterbalance public power, ensuring the state is under the law, not above it. Withdrawing from this system weakens not only individual protections but also society’s belief in fairness.n

nNorthern Ireland’s existence reminds us that the UK’s union is not natural but maintained by systems, trust, and consensus. The current withdrawal proposals by the Conservative Party and Reform UK effectively challenge these foundations. When peace structures are loosened, trade agreements are torn apart, and international trust is eroded, the United Kingdom will no longer have ‘union’ to speak of. This is not the rebirth of sovereignty but the beginning of a gradual national disintegration.n

nThe UK can reform and introspect, but not at the cost of destroying its institutions. Exiting the ECHR may earn short-lived applause but will lead to long-term decline. A truly strong nation is not an isolated one but one that seeks balance between freedom and responsibility. Today’s choices will determine whether tomorrow’s Britain is a robust United Kingdom or a fragmented island.n