琅琊榜
‘Overcapacity’ claim groundless as China’s green tech fuels global growth: Tian Xuan_我的网站
A |
In economic theory, "overcapacity" - for which no universally accepted definition exists - is inherently a recurring feature of the market economy's dynamic "balance - imbalance - rebalance" cycle. The Western narrative that equates China's sizable production capacity directly with "overcapacity" defies economic logic and rigor; in reality, it represents a politicization of trade and economic issues.
First, it confuses the concepts of "capacity scale" and "overcapacity." China's overall industrial capacity utilization remains within a reasonable range. Periodically lower utilization in traditional sectors reflects a normal adjustment as these industries advance toward high-end, intelligent, and green production. Ample capacity in certain emerging industries is precisely what meets surging global demand for high-end, smart, and green solutions. Therefore, equating scale with excess is typical equivocation.
Second, "overcapacity" itself is a dynamic feature of market economies, where no fixed balance persists indefinitely. Judging capacity based solely on static snapshots violates basic economic principles.
Third, it is erroneous to simplistically link trade surpluses or industrial subsidies to overcapacity, while ignoring the macro context of global specialization and cross-border savings-investment structures. It also disregards the reality that reasonable capacity utilization ranges differ across economies at varying stages of development. Imposing a single standard on China is neither scientific nor rigorous.
China's global competitiveness in green technology stems from sustained, large-scale investment in innovation, a comprehensive industrial and supply chain system, massive application scenarios, and intense market competition - not from alleged government subsidies. After decades of long-cycle R&D, Chinese industries have achieved breakthroughs in core technologies such as power batteries and photovoltaic modules.
During the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-25), China's nationwide R&D spending grew at an average annual rate of 10 percent. Economies of scale have continuously diluted production costs. China's ultra-large domestic market and full-chain supporting ecosystem provide an optimal testing ground for new technologies - from pilot verification to mass deployment. With more than 200 million market entities driving fierce competition, enterprises are constantly compelled to cut costs, raise efficiency, and upgrade products, thereby forging dual advantages in price and performance that we see today.
There is no direct causation between subsidies and overcapacity. Industrial subsidies are a globally recognized practice, typically aimed at correcting market failures and advancing critical technologies. China's subsidies are granted on an impartial basis to all types of market entities, in full compliance with WTO rules, and have not triggered disorderly capacity expansion.
Currently, capacity utilization in China's green industries remains within a reasonable range. Support is primarily directed toward R&D, technological breakthroughs, and consumer-side incentives through market-based mechanisms - not toward fueling overcapacity. Crucially, China's high-quality capacity has reduced the global cost of green transition, representing an opportunity rather than a shock to world development.
Against the backdrop of global carbon neutrality goals, labeling China's new energy capacity as "overcapacity" is entirely untenable. According to the International Energy Agency, global data center electricity consumption will approach 1 trillion kWh by 2030, with 40 percent of incremental power needing to come from renewables. Demand for wind power, photovoltaics, power batteries, and related green energy solutions remains far from saturated - so claims of "overcapacity" are groundless.
China's capacity plays a central role in advancing the global energy transition. Over the past decade, the levelized cost of electricity from wind and solar globally has fallen by more than 60 percent and 80 percent respectively - improvements largely attributable to Chinese innovation and manufacturing, which have directly lowered the cost threshold for worldwide green transformation.
The US journal Science crowned the global renewable energy surge led by China among its Top 10 Breakthroughs of 2025. Leveraging its technological and scale advantages, China is well positioned to supply abundant, high-quality green energy equipment and solutions, meet fast-growing renewable demand from data centers, industrial production, and other sectors, and tangibly support countries in implementing the Paris Agreement. In short, China is a pivotal force driving the global low-carbon transition.
The so-called "China Shock 2.0" is fundamentally a protectionist narrative rooted in Cold War thinking - a politically motivated claim inconsistent with facts. The rapid development of China's modern industries is driven by innovation and sustained institutional reform, not by dumping allegedly excess capacity abroad. Rather than posing a shock, China's industrial progress offers a "China Opportunity 2.0." It delivers multiple dividends to global development - innovation dividends, market dividends, and growth dividends - while injecting stability and vitality into global industrial chains through an open and win-win approach.
China's high-quality green and high-tech exports have tangibly accelerated the global green transition and reduced production costs worldwide. Meanwhile, as the world's largest goods consumption market and the second-largest importer for 17 consecutive years, China provides enormous market opportunities for economies around the globe. Moreover, China's open-source collaboration and technology sharing in frontier fields such as artificial intelligence and the digital economy enable developing countries to bridge the digital divide at lower cost and share in the benefits of the technological revolution.
The facts demonstrate that China's emerging technologies and products represent a "China Opportunity 2.0" - driving global technological progress, accelerating the green transition, improving livelihoods across nations, and bolstering the industrialization of developing economies. This open and mutually beneficial cooperation stands as the true engine of global economic recovery and sustainable development.
This article is compiled based on an interview with Tian Xuan, dean at the Guanghua School of Management and Boya Distinguished Professor of Finance of Peking University. [email protected]
。 8 月 24 日消息，据外媒 Phys.org 今天（24 日）报道，卡迪夫大学和墨尔本大学的一项新研究发现，生成式人工智能（GenAI）目前还无法像人类教师一样可靠地评判学生的书面作业。研究人员使用 ChatGPT 的两个版本，对 50 篇生物科学专业本科生论文进行评分，以测试大模型评估学生作业的能力。
B | ChatGPT 需要按照 7 项标准批改这些论文，研究人员还采用了 4 种不同的提示方式，随后将大模型与人工评分的平均分和分数波动情况进行比较。
C | 图源：Pexels卡迪夫大学生物科学学院威廉 · 凯博士指出：“研究结果显示，模型给出的分数波动很大，无法准确预测人工评分。生成式 AI 与人类批改同一批论文时存在明显差异。只看论文总分，两者给出的结果相对接近；一旦具体到每项评分标准和每一篇论文，大模型与人工评分之间的差距就相当明显。”除一种情况外，AI 模型给出的平均分普遍高于人工评分。平均分方面，AI 模型与人工评分的最大差距达到 16.1 分；具体到单篇论文，最大差距达到 40 分。获悉，威廉 · 凯还发现，AI 往往会压低高分论文的成绩，又把低分作业的成绩抬高，最终使分数系统性地向中间集中。
D | 研究结果说明，至少现阶段，即使经过大量训练，AI 仍无法可靠地对主观性较强的书面作业给出与人类相当的分数。“我们测试的大模型目前并不适合取代教师，为学生预测作业成绩。”研究人员指出，高等教育领域确实很关注大模型能否利用模式识别能力，让学生作业评分更加客观，同时提高批改效率、减轻教职人员压力。但这项研究表明，目前并不适合这么做。此外，未经学生明确同意便把作业提交给 AI 工具，本身还涉及伦理问题；大模型也不能、也不应该被依赖来给学生的长篇书面作业评分。“随着大模型继续发展，未来模仿人类判断的能力可能会提高。但从这项研究来看，要让 AI 给出的分数与人工评分真正保持一致，恐怕并不容易。
Current article:http://1ddx.xuanliaruamibinmilangca.shop/4ztfbg/p0rn.html
Published on:20:47:31
