A progressive candidate aiming to become Maine’s next Democratic senator has put forth a rather controversial plan for energy security. His approach? Essentially, to “surrender to China.”
Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine veteran, carries visible tattoos linked to Nazi ideology and has gained endorsements from notable figures like independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren. Current polls suggest he’s in a strong position to challenge Republican Senator Susan Collins, and recently, he shared his views on dealing with America’s significant geopolitical challenger.
“Our stance towards China should be one of cooperation, not aggression,” he remarked, dismissing a confrontational attitude towards the country as “ridiculous.”
His reasoning? A collaborative effort is essential to address climate change. The idea is that by working with China on renewable energy initiatives, the United States could phase out fossil fuels and enter an era characterized by peace and clean energy.
However, this perspective raises numerous questions. For starters, China stands as the leading global polluter and seems largely indifferent to climate issues. Additionally, the next energy conflicts will likely revolve around clean energy technologies rather than traditional fossil fuels. Finally, the solution to climate change appears to hinge on increasing energy production and fostering innovation within the U.S., rather than reducing it.
Looking more closely at the proposition to ally with China on climate policy strikes me as rather far-fetched, almost like trusting Iran with nuclear negotiations or expecting the Amish to spearhead AI advancements. It simply doesn’t add up.
China may boast of being a clean energy frontrunner while simultaneously operating one of the dirtiest major economies globally. Most of its electricity still comes from coal, and it emits more greenhouse gases than all developed nations combined. The manufacturing standards in its factories are often far beneath what would be permissible in the United States, reflecting a startling lack of environmental concern.
While it’s true that China produces a vast majority of solar panels, it does so at the cost of neglecting environmental standards, thereby harming both its own workforce and neighboring countries while leveraging lower prices.
On that note, I suspect China would welcome Senatorial applications from figures like Platner, who seemingly embodies the spirit of greenwashing. Communistic regimes have a knack for finding sycophants eager to cover up their injustices.
Furthermore, the notion that future energy disputes will lead to idyllic collaboration around solar-powered campfires, singing together with China, seems more fantasy than reality. Even progressive politicians like Ro Khanna have pointed out that investment in sustainable technologies could avert energy crises, sounding picturesque until we remember that China holds the reins on essential minerals necessary for such innovations.
According to the International Energy Agency, China is the main refiner for 19 of the 20 critical strategic minerals, claiming an average market share of about 70%. It commands over 80% of the global battery supply chain and holds near-monopolies in some areas.
This leads one to question the wisdom of seeking closer ties with China. Alarmingly, the Chinese government has already begun wielding its dominance as a leverage tool; for instance, in 2025, it instituted stringent export restrictions on components related to lithium-ion batteries, driving prices to unprecedented levels.
That said, this shouldn’t imply that the United States ought to forsake clean energy altogether. The ongoing oil and gas challenges make it even more crucial to diversify our energy sources. Instead, it signifies the need for a competitive edge over China by ramping up domestic production of critical minerals and clean energy—a path that has already seen movement under the Trump administration.
The crux of the matter is that environmental health thrives when the U.S. makes independent strides, not when it pursues partnerships with monopolistic and environmentally detrimental entities like China. The shale boom under Trump illustrated how domestic efforts reduced emissions to a 25-year low. There’s a huge potential for a clean energy renaissance in America driven by market forces. Plus, U.S. manufacturing is four times more efficient in terms of emissions compared to its Chinese counterpart.
In conclusion, we can achieve growth, innovation, and rational environmental regulations that tackle egregious human rights violations, helping to cut carbon emissions far more effectively than any international agreements driven by China. There’s no necessity for China to lead the charge on climate change; rather, an “America First” approach to environmentalism is what’s needed.
While Graham Platner may prefer a cooperative stance towards China, his perspective is misdirected. A prospective senator falls into folly if he believes that partnering with a nation that habitually pollutes and monopolizes clean energy supplies will lead to peaceful outcomes. It’s a perilous path.
