The Labour government went on the offensive today, not against the lurking authoritarian nation accused of spying on Parliament and bolstering Britain’s Russian adversary, but against carbon in their bid to reach net zero by 2030.

Speaking in separate but related events, energy secretary Ed Miliband and foreign secretary David Lammy emphasised the centrality of climate not just to the government’s domestic policy, but to foreign policy as well. Miliband framed crushing nimby opposition to wind turbines as a matter of “national security”. Whereas Lammy made the brazen comparison between the importance of combating climate change and that of countering terrorism and aggressive autocratic regimes.

Conveniently, both forgot to mention China’s overwhelming dominance in all things net zero, from wind power turbines to solar panels to electric car batteries. 

While Labour’s top-ranking officials prostrated themselves beneath the shrine of decarbonisation, an influential member of the party’s past made a plea to the Chinese government from the University of Hong Kong. In his speech, Lord Mandelson requested China to reciprocate the Labour government’s renewed friendliness, highlighting the potential economic benefits of improved bilateral ties. 

A Labour minister also refused to call China a threat today after her Tory peers in the Lords pressed for an official government position. Instead, a pragmatic but vague response was provided indicating that cooperation and competition will be sought when necessary with the nation that the last PM labelled a “challenger”.

Earlier this year, then energy secretary Claire Coutinho fretted over Labour’s plans which would make the UK “over-reliant” on Chinese metals. Her fears appear to have merit as a comprehensive report from RUSI indicates that the UK push for renewable components could present a “coercive risk”, providing China leverage over the UK’s foreign policy. However, as Giga Watt points out, the Conservatives net zero plans were also quite duplicitous, failing to acknowledge China’s dominant position in the renewables industry. 

One “green” domain the Chinese are especially preeminent in is the electric vehicle sector. The US and EU have already instated crushing tariffs against mass imported, state-subsidised Chinese EVs to protect their own burgeoning industries. Analysts predict that the UK will not follow suit and that hundreds of thousands of Chinese EVs are likely to end up on British streets in the coming years.

The drive for rapprochement comes as the UK is mulling over a potential Shein IPO in the city. The fast-fashion magnate’s listing could bring billions into the country and boost the competitiveness of the sluggish UK market, spurring growth Labour is pining for. However, serious concerns have been raised as to the ethical risks involved with listing a Chinese company which has been accused of using Uyghur slave labour to manufacture its garments. The company’s rejection from a New York listing has been tied to this concern, but geopolitical tensions between the States and China also certainly played a role in the decision.

Labour’s fixation with net zero by 2030 and its permissive stance towards Chinese business is further complicated by China’s growing collaboration with Russia. In an interview today in The Times, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called China the “decisive enabler” of Putin as he wages war on Ukraine. China’s vital support, through significant fossil fuel purchases and the export of dual-use technologies like drones, has been credited with sustaining Russia’s capacity to continue the deadly conflict. 

Labour is trapped in a bind. Reaching net zero or anything close to it means greater cooperation with China is obligatory. By forging greater ties, China’s technologies and companies may boost the UK economy and facilitate an energy transition, but doing so also risks emboldening China’s aggressive spycraft against Britain and its support for Russia’s war. In this way, Labour’s aggressive net zero drive could turn out to be a risk to national security.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life