chung, 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 the nobel peace prize for that. but it's only recently, dad, the green agenda has become a practical consideration for many countries has 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. there are some 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 protecting environment and climate change can be a driver of the economy grows and job creation rather than the burden 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 go to 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 daddy's i see as a conventional thinking. but we have to shift away from that kind of conventional thinking course new idea that protecting climate change and the people either an investment. i think that sort of paradigm, at least with directly, has been adopted by many governments because i'm sure you watched very carefully the recent climate change align climate change hosting be biting administration,

and pretty much every leader sad that they see environmental protection defied against climate change as it then you developmental 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 into my divorce ration from 99 to one. when the 1st and we'll start to finish. then on, on 92, we have the earth real, real or summit. more than 100 as a head of a space came to real it on a roll or 9092. i heard enough so many head states repeatedly made 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 electric leaders have to provide immediate result. do you see any correlation between the political system and they're willing to undertake? so of course, there's a sort of limitations of current democratic party because system as well as

capitalism itself. we are we 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 30 years later, we cannot imagine what kind of market there will be after 30 years. there's no way we can do it is against issue and interesting. so there is intrinsic and limitations on market mechanism yourself in dealing with the long term challenges and also intrinsic limitations on political system. as you say, 4 years, 5 years in the office, they are very eager to deliver something for a space for shortcomings. and so we have a stroll between extreme shelton museum versus long tongue gore's. are we up to 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 the 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 choices 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, biden's leadership for net 010 to 15. richie has revive the sort of momentum to drive the global extras for climate change. it is a very laudable and i welcome so much as your question regarding our 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 strip 1st, and then we have to come down to a local election. we have to translate that girl by gore means one for each country . so that kind of exercise has to be done because i worked in the u. n. as well, but have some kind of frustration there. i don't think you any is 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 off rather down because the top down approach has been actually touches well preached, at least for the last history of 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 nationally determined the contribution contribution means it's a balloon contribution. so over the n d c means bottom up. so we don't have any kind of pub gown, globe, or 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 experience in russia who, i, 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 set of ob,

aid of capitalism without challenging the 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 will 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 concern and suspicion, but we are only at are beginning early stage of engaging in real actions full see with emission reduction. in fact, we don't know much about how to do it. even the european union or even united states, you're not, you're not the union due to something very on in earnest,

didn't go to seriously, but the, for the case of the nice case, i don't think there was any real on your sexual is 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 pleasure 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 of in gauging in real action that mr. we have to learn from each other. mr. turn. it's not about the conspiracy thinking if we have had the last he 100 years of capitalism and i think we can draw certain inference inferences from the way to operate. and if again, we put all the emphasis, all the responsibility on produce service 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 the waste management problem it's, it's clear that this can, consumption has run the way, way too far. 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 certain kind of a conspiracy behind it by rather it is because the basic intrinsic dynamism of a capital is in itself is based on consumption. and if you reduce consumption, they have a skin tear that g d p will go down, you're going to me 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. they are so

scared of climate change so that you trees can you reduce your emission or 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 does that applied to that? so that is the, what i'm saying is that's why you saw it difficult. so you're not talking about dealing with the consumption and asking people to drive a small car. for example, like asking 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 political leaders are not a scare das gear that cannot, they are to say there's no politicians in the or under war who can even their say

to the people. oh, we have to reduce the comes i'm so this is why so far the consumption issue did not was not taken out 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, let's not talk about people around the world because in some parts of the world, people don't have access to still don't have access to clean water to proper food to even, you know, dirty electricity or dirty energy. i mean, there are many children around the world who don't enjoy the luxury of an electron bulb. it's rather i think about the much smaller proportion of this planet, a well off proportion of the school 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 is very good point. i will is saying that the best, the solution for transportation mobility is electric car. actually it is walking walk in to be better for your house as well. i call the bmw w plus metro walking to be in or know car is better than electric car. so even the electricity is coming from a core file to pop lens. so that's not a solution. so we have to be very clear there. 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, they say that we see from the data data reduce the emission 40 percent duty last 40 years, and the economy has grown a lot. but when your dish is based on the consumption of the production side,

because british has a real ok to the, a lot of industrial sector or overseas. and they shifted to a service economy and receiving the good pleasure or report to most of their consumption from overseas. so when you calculate the consumption base is the c o 2 emission, it never changed their having the same, the enduring, the same level over time. you some particular, since 1990 and 2020, even during the 30 years there's no change is almost same level. but it's better than some other country because in some of the country that's 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, a cookie sizing china for increasing your emission. but in fair china, the ex, putting all up to the united states and europe and union, and that those people are using the emission from china and then blame china's get

the older boy for making those people to enjoy the export. and it's not only china, but also much of asia after that. those goods that consume, they're also receiving the, 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. essentially, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will do back in just a few moments. stay tuned. the me or she won't hold simply real thing a little slow, letting them go. a little longer, i was a little to go see me when you have

a question. when you come in in the room, initial authentic premium guy, let me know which one you're looking for. for me. we'll start with you soon as you move in to when you finish the mental thinking completely illusion actually done on the, on the financial young who didn't lose you lose could you could shoot that to the lower the me or i welcome back to the world. the parts for the right one child principal,

advisor and climate change to the un secretary general with the trunk. before the break, we had this very sphere, the 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 force, some talking about russia, talking about brazil, some extent canada maybe even the united states because see what you can not only be emitted, could all also be absorbed. and this is one of the sticking points in the new location. so right now, whether the absorption capacity should be taken into account. and one of the arguments that i'm hearing here in russia, that it could 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 comic benefit in keeping those for us, in fact, it would be easier to protect them. oil, of course,

certain math and methodological calculation already done is recognized. so in the calculation of fuel, of each country, we have a certain rulers, this already agrees by produced by ip you see into a better pen on climate change. so is there, so of countries like russia can invest in reforestation or forest ration, then you can be while positive about the russia as calculation of your mission. this whole issue involves a lot of calculations, a lot of statistics. and as you said before, they break with 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 daren, how straightforward is our numerical thinking about those things. you know, the bigger is the volumes that are being cited as you may receive

a short term problems of how we look at or analyzing the issue. so certainly the code or statistical information we get needs to be improved and a just too much based on production site. but we have to also see the pros, consumption side. and the, regarding the 43 show your pin, you know, use 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 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 always so many times about the very ambitious and nice looking targets in 1992. we agree either to reduce your technician 522000 at the level of 99 to level by the develop the country. you've seen the commission,

but 10 p has already passed, but it was all need. the european union will cross toys but nobody out nor wanted water. and after that, we agreed to go to protocol to do so, 6 percent 70 percent, something like that. but we didn't care about it. so we had the history of repeatedly failing on target step for emission scores. so that you, she's not a matter of setting the gore. it's a matter of how we can actually take actions and practice it practice rather than transfer 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 without giving the property the price on cobble very mr. chung then the question is, how fair it really is because i'm in a people in,

in the developed world, a very disdainful of carbon then fossil fuels. and 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 team union, for example, introduces this common carbon tax, which you've been supportive of, that will cut off many poor countries, all the luxury, luxury markets would that disadvantage you the part of the planet that is already in not getting out? there is a kind of a to me is a kind of was got to 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 . so that they can improve tissues, why?

even in the climate was ations globe. our partnership has been very much emphasized and this is showing, 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 push came to shove to show it was, everybody is out for themselves. can he actually, i mean, we all strive and dream about the 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. yeah, 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, so that everybody running for their own life. so everybody for themselves. but

nevertheless, i think we're to take a more constructive view and 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 leadership to 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 holding many times more vaccines than they need without sharing it with countries who are. and i mean, if they, if they are hoarding vaccines, which are absolutely crucial for life, do you think they will not hoard the energy? 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 mini mom, quantity of vaccine, secure the for their own consumption, then they can be ordered, the more flexible to be corporate. mr. john, come on. it, 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 is 2 times more, i think the united states 4 times more than they need for the entire population, but they keep contracting and using bad 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, do you have confidence that again, if we agree on being fair to one another data for me,

the case of renewable energy and energy transformation can be a little different than fictions 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 at noon and rich countries can push forward because they see that d. c, the future. otherwise they just fall behind. so like electric battery and all this 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 a coincidence of the industrial interest with

a climate change interest. so i think that is a kind of a more optimistic now, i think you mentioned the chef electric cars that i actually want to talk about because the production of those batteries requires a lot of rare earth materials which are lined in a very duty wave as lots of environmental and health risks. the recycling is not the clear cut 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 the end 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 one boy always forward looking. but don't know if you look back. well,

of course, any transformation has never been perfect. whenever, for example, the 1st elect industry revolution, the core of power or 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, the whole issue. 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 the are not technological innovations to address those issues . so now we are only at the 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, if you push it consistently for long term, then those issues can be addressed to susan 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 talking to thank you very much for your time. and

thank you for watching hope to hear again next week. well, depart from me . the me the. ah no, you don't do it. you know it, uncle? nice number. nobody want to get it because i don't, i don't gonna don't go down the phone that i'm using it up on there. i get, it looks like i mean that i think we're pretty all

finally out of the market of it on the front of it. and then we can just go to show the middle, who was nice with those who knew all along the plan. the puzzle, initials going to separate you'll use i use

ah fiercely thing. and then the water comes and we can open the door. it just and you're drowning europe struggles to deal with the aftermath of devastating floods of germany to class states of emergency. all neighboring countries were also hit by turns of water leaving at least 180 people that correspond reports from the disaster scene. here in our fi, in the state of rhode island to latin, this is one of the worst effected areas by the footing. you can see over to my left on the building where the water actually reached well above my own head.