Skip to main content

tv   Worlds Apart  RT  July 18, 2021 2:30am-3:01am EDT

2:30 am
new law got plenty puzzled. initials. good. as a peculiar. yeah, i me the me i don't the welcome to world support. the great gentleman right are go to sad that the solution to every problem is in the other problem and no worries that more visible than in the history of technology. the current dance or threat of climate change is ultimately the total sum of all our efforts to improve the human condition can be ever be satisfied with that and keep the planet green at the same
2:31 am
time. well, to discuss with them now joined by a lie qual chung principal, advisor to the un secretary general on climate change and 2007 noble peace prize, florida. it's a chunk, it's a great pleasure, great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for finding this, my pleasure. you've been advocating for a low carbon green economic growth for many, many decades. but you've got your noble peace prize for that. but it's only recently, dad. the green agenda has become a practical consideration for many countries. have been included in their policies . i wonder how do you feel about it. i am more excited that it's finally getting traction or more frustrated that it has taken such a long time. my feeling is mixed to brush side as where there are certain downside . my basic idea about the concept or paradigm of green gross was the idea that investing and the testing environment and climate change can be
2:32 am
a driver of the economy grows and job creation rather than the burden and cost on our economy. so at the moment we're struggling between the 2 conflicting ideas that investing and protecting nature, and even people social welfare is a cost and burden on economy. but are the thinking, school of ideas that it is actually an investment, long term investment for a much more inclusive and the green, or economic growth and job creation. so we still see clash, all 2 big ideas. one idea is actually back what they're looking. the idea that investing in the environment, people ease or cost, that is, i see as a conventional thinking. but we have to shift away from that kind of conventional thinking, tours new idea. they're protecting climate change and the people ease on investment
2:33 am
. i think that sort of paradigm, at least with directly, has been adopted by many governments because i'm sure you're watched very carefully . the recent climate change on line climate change hosted by the bite and ministration and pretty much every leader said that they see environmental protection. the fight against climate change, as you develop mental paradigm societies. now, while they all agree that something needs to be done, what they want to do is actually very, very different in the devil is always in the details. is there more agreement or disagreement on the practicalities? let me tell you my personal engagement with this a history of climate change in negotiation. i stuck in my divorce ration from 99 to one, when the 1st and who has started since then on. on 92, we are the earth real real or something more than 100 ahead of us face came to real did here all night and i did too. i heard enough so many head of state repeatedly
2:34 am
may my walking? yes. are importance of protecting environment. i've been actually heard it too much, but while we are not saying, is there a certain concern and fear the fear is on the deep of their mind? is that what you find in best for environment? well, can it be really compatible real or short term economy, gross and industrial competitiveness? they have that kind of deep concern even though they don't talk about it. so there's always this kind of a very implicit, very deep under current concern scare fear that the diverting investment from a short term production will be detrimental for the economy. now this, this kind of short term is and i heard some extra suggest that it's actually linked to the assurance election cycles in many sources because elective leaders have to
2:35 am
provide immediate result. do you see any correlation between the political system and they're willing to undertake such course? of course there's a certain limitations of our current democratic part because system as well as capitalism itself. we are, we're operating market mechanism and everything is based on market mechanism. like a mechanism by definition, it is depending on the supply on demand, over a short term. it does not function on long term like a 30 years later, we cannot imagine what kind of market there will be after 30 years. there's no way we can do it against the human. interesting. so there's a intrinsic and limitations on market mechanism yourself in dealing with the long term challenges and also intrinsic limitations on political system. as you say, for years 5 years in the office, they are very got to deliver something for
2:36 am
a special sha tommy's. so we have a struggle between extreme shelton museum versus long tongue gore as we approach you. so there's a clear gap, and we are not talking about, i want to ask you about the strategy. and i see that the distinction in that strategy in comparing the russian in the american approach, for example, because the russians, it's more about cleaning the immediate mass around you, cutting down emissions, waste management, energy efficiency, etc. putting your own house in order for denmark and it's more about global implications of their policy. and i think more abstract goals. this is ultimately about the choice of strategy. do you start with your immediate environment or do we all a for a planetary change from get go? what's your take on that? what do you think will be more efficient? very interesting question. yes. oh, i appreciate the recent present ro,
2:37 am
biden's leadership for net 010 to 15. richie has revive the sort of momentum to drive the globe are actually for climate change. it is a very laudable and i welcome you so much. but as you a question regarding your customer, global kind of dry board local actions, i think we cannot distinguish the differentiate that the 2. yes, to go hand in hand. we have to have a global target set 1st. and then we have to come down to a local election. we have to translate that girl by go means one for each country. so that kind of exercise has to be done because i worked in the us as well. but i have some kind of frustration there. i don't think you any, it's capable of delivering that kind of a scheme to each country. actually it is a left to, to each government to decide on their own commitment. it has to be bottom
2:38 am
up rather down be because the top down approach has been actually tact is well preached, at least for the allies in the history, climate negotiation. the top down approach has failed. the parish climate agreement adopt in 2015 symbolizes the effect that we gave up the top down. it is n d c national lead time in the contribution contribution means it's a ball and contribution. so over the n d c means bottom up. so we don't have any kind of pub gown, globe our system to impose on each country. so we all pull totally depend on each country, is a good, we'll just leaving it to the voluntary commitment. now you've been complimentary of the job by then of the, by the ministrations initiatives on climate change. and indeed they have been driving this effort internationally. but there are some experts in russia who, i,
2:39 am
suspecting that this new interest in the environment on the part of americans is just a pretext for a new wave of globalization. and for a sort of upgrade of capitalism without challenging its basic premise, which is an ever increasing consumption which led to the degradation of the planet in the 1st place. in that a credible concern that instead of protecting meaning, fully protecting the environment, we will just witness another way a very good question and a very good consent and, but i think it's better to take a constructive interpretation of the mr. president, job items intention, because of course, anybody can have that kind of console and suspicion, but we are only at are beginning early stage. are in gauging in real
2:40 am
actions, full see what their mission reduction. in fact, we don't know much about how to do it. even the european union, or even united states european union due to something very on in earnest. they did it very seriously. but the case of united states, i don't think there was any real honest actions on emission reduction because they don't talk about at all about consumption reduction. it is only about production reduction. so there are a lot to be done. so because these kind of issues are not covered by the pledge of a prism by and that's why some people have that kind of a concern. but it is not because all of us on kind of a conspiracy. but i think it's because we are only at the beginning stage or in gauging in real action initial just to learn from each other. mr. try. it's not about the conspiracy thinking if we have had the
2:41 am
last he 100 years of capitalism and i think we can draw certain inference inferences from the way to operate. if again, we put all the emphasis older responsibility on producers without taking meaningful action to reduce consumption. and i think you would agree that in the developed world, people are consuming far beyond the basic means. in fact, far beyond that is that's healthy for them. the take, the ability of damage take these waste management problem it's, it's clear that this kind of consumption has run the way a way to fly. and in the current discussions about this issue, the consumption aspect, as you pointed out, is not being voiced at all. this really isn't that something that is a little bit suspicious. it's not because of it. there's a 2nd kind of a conspiracy behind it by rather it is because the basic intrinsic dynamism of a capital is and you self is based on consumption. and if you reduce consumption dam
2:42 am
scans here, that g d p will go down economy to go down. this is the kind of scare. so this is why everybody is scared about talking about reducing consumption at the same time, day or so schedule climate change. so that you, she's, can, you reduces your emission taking kind of climate change while we are not failing the dynamism of a capital in other way of putting it. can you have a cake and easy to just, you know, does it how, how does that applied today? so that is the i am what i'm saying is best. why these so difficult. so you're not talking about dealing with their consumption and asking people to drive a small car, for example, like a ascii or americans stop driving. big, huge s u v 's and go and move on to public transportation. dust saw difficult challenge to demand the people and the consumers are on the word. that's why the
2:43 am
political leaders are not a scare das gear that cannot, they are to say there's no politicians in the or underwear who can even they are to say to, to people, oh, we have to reduce the comes i'm so this is why the sofa, the consumption issue did not was not taken up very seriously. so, but it's a very serious issue. so we cannot address the climate change issue unless the people are on the word realize that we cannot continue our over consumption as we are doing now with mr. chuck, it's not that, let's not talk about people around the world because in some parts of the world, people don't have access. still don't have access to clean water to proper food to even, you know, dirty electricity or duty energy. i mean, there are many children around a world who don't enjoy the luxury of an electron bulb. it's rather i think
2:44 am
about the much smaller proportion of this planet, a well off proportion of the pool for some reason right now, things that if they can drive an electric car that will solve the issue. but from what you're saying, it's not about driving an electric hybrid car versus a diesel car. it's about why a bigger sacrifice or something. yes is very good point. i was saying to the best, the solution for transportation mobility is not electrical. actually it is walking, walk in to the better for your house as well. i call the bmw w plus metro walking to be in or law. com is better the electric car. so even the electricity is coming from a cor fire to power plants. so that's not a solution, so we have to be very clear that we cannot only focus on production side. or we have to think about consumption side. for example, i will tell you one story, you k, for example,
2:45 am
they say that we see from the data data reduced the emission 40 percent duty last 30 years. and the economy has grown a lot. but when you dishes based on the consumption or the production side, because the british has a relocated. busy a lot of industrial sector or overseas, and they shifted to a service economy, receiving the good pleasure or do most of their consumption from overseas. so when you calculate the consumption bases, the technician never changed their having the same in, during the same level over time. you some particular, since 1990 and a 2020 duty the 30 years doesn't change. it's almost same level, but it's better than some other country because in some of the country that is going up sort of a big and so, but we are not looking at we're still not looking at issues. for example, many countries criticizing china for increasing their mission, but the affair,
2:46 am
china is exploiting to the united states and europe and union and that those people are using the mission from china. so let them then blame china's get all the blame for making those people enjoy the expand. it's not only china, but also much of the asia that after that, those goods that consume, they're also receiving be the, the, the, the waste and the, the garbage and everything else. wasting a lot of energy on transporting the garbage from. the developed parts of the world to the developing one, the strong. we have to take a very short break right now, but we will do back in just a few moments. stay tuned the for me or she wanted to take a little a little don't go by seriously. well, the girls come to see me when you
2:47 am
switch to a meeting in the room, initial pathetic stamey. i'm go, i'm going to spell them the one which was going to fail and we'll get you started with you soon. this news i was looking here. when you mentioned that came quickly. illusion initially, thinking gripped on the, on the financial young hoody an illusion you lose could, you could shoot it to the lower the news for me or
2:48 am
i welcome back to worlds apart for the right one channel principle advisor and climate change to the un secretary general mr. trunk, before the break, rehab this, there is still a discussion about consumption and i want to ask you about one more aspect of this whole question of c o. 2 emissions, which is important for the countries with large for some talking about russia. i'm talking about brazil, some exam canada maybe when the united states, because see what you can not only be admitted, it could all also be absorbed. and this is one of the sticking points. and then english ations right now, whether the absorption capacity should be taken into account. and one of the arguments that i'm hearing here in russia, that is not only be good for the economy, but it's also a way of protecting those land masses. because if there is a way, if there's any economic benefit in keeping those for us, in fact,
2:49 am
it would be easier to protect them or, you know, of course, there is a certain method, methodological calculation already done is recognized. so in the calculation of c o 2 emission of each country, we have a certain rulers, this already agrees, are produced by ip is she into the parent on climate change? so is there so of countries like russia can invest in reforestation or forest racial? then you can be, while positive about the russia has a calculation of short emission. this whole issue involves a lot of calculations, a lot of statistics. and as he said before, they break, read the british example. statistics can sometimes be very misleading on the figures that we side. they often reflect not the actual state of affairs, but rather the vested interest. speaker, how trans darren, how straightforward is our numerical thinking about those things. you know,
2:50 am
the bigger is the volumes that are being cited as you may receive a short term problems of how we look at we're analyzing the issue. so certainly the code on statistical information is we get needs to be improved and a just too much based on the production side. but we have to also see the product consumption side. and regarding the 43 show that your opinion is not against accounting and but we are having some issues about the scope, how much can be accounted for it. so there's a show of the school rather than or come to or not. so there's some recognition for you, but for me, i think i know the history of i've since i've been engaged in 1991. we have all the so many times about the very ambitious, nice looking targets in 1992. we agree either to reduce your technician
2:51 am
522000 at the level of 99 to level by the develop the country. you've seen the commission, but 20 years already passed, but it was all need. the european union will cross toys, but nobody out law law it blogger. and after that, we agreed into the protocol to do so, 6 percent, 70 percent, or something like that. but we didn't care about it. so we had the history of repeatedly failing on target step for emissions scores. so that you, she's not a matter of setting the gore just a matter of how we can actually take actions and practice it practice rather than try your call. history is i thing with the, the price on carbon us, we have softball, very much failed on putting a price on cobble as a market economy is functioning, result giving the property the price on cobble very mr. chung then the
2:52 am
question is, how fair it really easy because i'm in a people in, in the developed world, a very disdainful of carbon and fossil fuels. but as far as i remember, there are more than 800000000 people around the world who don't have access secure access to any energy sources. and if the european union, for example, introduces this common carbon tax, which you have been supportive of, that will cut off many poor countries, all the luxury luxury markets would that no disadvantage of the part of the planet that is already in not getting and now there is a kind of a, to me, is a kind of was a view about issue. if we take a more dynamic view of the pollution of international trade and all these things the, even the developing country can take time to improve their manufacturing methodology
2:53 am
. so that they can improve. this is why even in the climbing the wish ations globe, our partnership has been very much emphasized. and as you know, global partnership is always emphasized. and i know you said before that it's absolutely crucial for the development of the green growth agenda. but as we have just witnessed with the comb, with 19 pandemic, everybody called for equitable access to vaccines. but when pushed to seem to shop to show it was everybody is out for themselves. can he actually, i mean, we all strive and dream about global partnership, but realistically, based on what we just witnessed with the last year and a half. kennedy realistically count on the countries not being selfish. that is a very difficult question. actually. we have been talking of as you say, the globe are for a long time. but as we witness in the case of vaccine,
2:54 am
so that everybody running for their own life. so everybody for themselves, you know, but nevertheless, i think we're to take a more constructive view and then we have to and i would like to emphasize that the roar and the leadership of a rich countries. nice so critical because we cannot ask of developing countries. the poor countries are sacrifice to any father because as you say, they already have being sober. a problem. so we cannot put more burden on them. this is why the law role of the leadership will reach country is much more critical and they have to take a leadership. otherwise there's no hope. do you think they will take a leadership given that if they reach countries right now that are hoarding many times more vaccines than they need without sharing it with countries who are. and i mean, even if they're holding vaccines, which are absolutely crucial for life. do you think they will not hoard the energy?
2:55 am
when the for example, we all transition to, let's say, you know, renewable energy generation. my, my interpretation is ones some, the rich country get their, a mini mom, quantity of vaccine, secure the for their own consumption. then they can be ordered, be more flexible to be corporate. mr. john, come on, for example, now has 6 times more than it needs for the entire population, the european union, i think 2 times more than they need for everybody. i mean, they have contract it 2 times more, i think the united states 4 times more than they need for the entire population, but they keep contracting and using that trade leverage to secure for themselves. and by doing the disadvantages, much poor countries, by the way, africa has to pay for the vaccines much more than the united states or western europe. if we use that experience and apply that to energy,
2:56 am
do you have confidence that again, if we agree on being fair to one another data for me, the case of a renewal of energy and energy transformation can be a little different directions case because because of transforming to our new energy system is going to be a kind of a new opportunity for industrial revolution and in the future, industrial competitiveness. this is the in the own interest, self interest. this is why i think it could be, i'll be more optimistic that i stay up in union and the rich countries can push forward because they see that d. c, the future. otherwise they will fall behind. so like electric battery and all use electric, car, hydrogen technology. so they are rushing very fiercely to be in the forefront rather than falling behind. so did there's something kind of
2:57 am
a coincidence of the industrial interest where the climate change interest. so i think that is a kind of a more optimistic now, i think you mentioned the share of electric cars that i actually want to talk to you about. because the production of those batteries requires a lot of rare earth materials, which i'm lined in a very dirty way with lots of environmental and health risks. the recycling is not the clear cod process is very energy intensive. it's very complicated. i don't think it's even fully worked out yet. at this point of time. how would we are at understanding all the extra analogies to all the potentiality is good and bad of these green growth agenda? because as you know, progress always goes hand in hand with degradation and band of the day. all of our current problems as a result of our efforts to improve our live. i'd rather take a more more for the looking and the more well, there's always forward looking,
2:58 am
but don't look back. well, of course, and you transform ation has never been perfect. whenever, for example, the 1st industrial revolution, the core of power, the local motives, a lot of pollution. so nothing has been perfect from the beginning. yes, there is some kind of environment, a problem for electric batteries, a whole dissing. but my point is the my perspective is we will do learning by doing so as we focus more on the transformation we will come up with or not technological innovations to address those issues. so now we're only at, but early stage of transforming our system. this is why there's a lot of issues, but you do take time, but in the long run, you push it consistently for long term. then those issues came to address. this is a micro optimism about it. so this is why we have to work together. i don't think one country can sort of all the problems. well mr. chang has been great pleasure
2:59 am
talking to thank you very much for your time. and thank you for watching hope to see you again next week. worlds apart from me. the me. oh i i the drug started as a way to come back, a great problem. what's the one? it's part of the attitude of the nation, not just of north dakota, and it got to be something that you could get elected. this time, the fight against drugs took a tragic,
3:00 am
told us that andrew was competing short form. this is way too dangerous for him to be doing. clearly they put him in harm's way. a rural college student does interest get shot in the head and found in a river like something else had to be happening with the sleeping and then the water comes, then he can open the door. you're just in your room and you're drowning europe. struggles to deal with the aftermath of devastating floods. parts of germany declare a state silver emergency. while neighboring countries were also headline torrance of water leaving at least 180 people are corresponding reports from the disaster.

18 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on