United(US:UAL) Sou Hu Cai Jing·2025-10-19 05:32Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the contradiction between political rhetoric regarding the dangers of Chinese waste cooking oil and the reliance of American companies on this oil for sustainable fuel production [1][3]. Timeline A: Public Panic - Media and some politicians conflate legally sourced used cooking oil (UCO) with illegal "gutter oil," exaggerating food safety risks and industrial dependency. In reality, UCO is a crucial raw material for biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel, representing a model of the circular economy [7][9]. Timeline B: Industrial Dependence - In 2024, the U.S. imported a record 1.27 million tons of UCO from China, making it the largest supplier of waste cooking oil to the U.S. This is due to the inability of the domestic market to meet the surging demand for renewable fuels. The Biden administration's goal of carbon neutrality by 2030 necessitates increased use of biofuels, with waste cooking oil being a key ingredient [11][13]. Media Influence - From a communication perspective, this situation exemplifies agenda-setting, where selective media reporting creates public focus on "Chinese waste cooking oil." However, once the truth of the supply chain is understood, the perceived threat dissipates, revealing that the political narrative is more about performance than reality [15]. Economic and Political Discrepancy - The disconnection between political statements and economic actions is evident, as politicians call for resistance against perceived threats while businesses continue to rely on Chinese products. This pattern has been seen previously with other industries, such as the tech sector and textiles [16]. Underlying Motivations - The divide in American public opinion and the supply chain stems from differing objectives: politicians seek votes, media aim for traffic, and companies pursue profits. This results in a scenario where political leaders publicly defend national security while simultaneously depending on Chinese oil for operations [17]. Conclusion - The case serves as a reminder that when public discourse raises alarms about threats while the supply chain continues to procure necessary materials, the truth often lies in the actual operations of businesses. Political performances, no matter how compelling, do not alter the underlying economic realities [18].