Who would win from European degrowth—the planet, China, or nobody?

Europe consuming less while China produces more changes nothing for the planet. In 1977 I founded the Green Belt Movement because I learned that environmental problems are governance problems. If Europe shrinks its economy but keeps importing Chinese solar panels and batteries, it has outsourced production, not reduced consumption. Real degrowth means Europe transfers green technology to the Global South and stops extracting resources to fuel someone else's growth.

Maathai is wrong about who pays. In November 1973 I told the Bundestag that energy dependence is a sovereignty question. Europe cannot shape Chinese behavior on climate if it has no economic leverage left. Voluntary degrowth while China grows at 5% annually hands Beijing the keys to global environmental policy. The 2024 anchors prove this: China controls 60-80% of clean energy supply chains because it stayed in the growth game while Europe hesitated.

Schmidt misses the point. In 1978 I opened China selectively because development is the hard truth. European degrowth creates market opportunities for Chinese manufacturers, but we were already winning the clean energy race. The anchors show China leading solar, wind, and battery production not because Europe retreated, but because we invested in industrial capacity while others debated. European economic decline might slow global green technology development by reducing demand and competition.

Deng understands what Europe has forgotten. In 1965 I accepted Singapore's separation from Malaysia because survival requires making hard choices about what matters most. Europe's 0.8% growth versus China's 4-5% growth means Europe is choosing irrelevance. You cannot influence Chinese climate policy from a position of economic dependence. European degrowth benefits nobody: not the planet, because China will fill the production gap; not Europe, because it loses leverage; not the climate, because global emissions continue rising.