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 certain brush site 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 are just 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 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 of 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 that protecting climate change and the people either an investment. i think that sort of paradigm, at least we thoroughly has been adopted by many governments because i'm sure you watch very carefully the recent climate change align climate change hosted by the bite and ministration and pretty much every leader said that they see environmental protection defied against climate change as it then you developmental paradigm for their 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 devotion 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 states came to rio de janeiro. when 1992. i heard enough so many head of state repeatedly 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 time experts 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 such of course there's a sort of limitations of our current democratic part because system as well as capitalism itself. we are we operating mark can 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. 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, for years 5 years in the office, they are very eager to deliver something for a special and show communism. so we have a stroll 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. so 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 actions 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, to us to go hand in hand. we have to have a global target step 1st. and then we have to come down to

a local election. we have to translate that girl by gone 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, 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 up rather down because the top down approach has been actually tact is well preached, at least for the allies in the history of climate negotiation. the top down approach has failed. the parish climate agreement adopt in 2015 symbolizes the fact that we gave up the top down. it is n d c nationally to come 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, or system to impose on each country. so we all pull totally depend on each country is 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, 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 concern and, but i think it's better to take a constructive interpretation of the mr. president jo biden's intention because of course anybody can have that kind of console and suspicion, but we are only at are beginning early stage. your 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, i mean my state, 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 this 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 engaging in real action that mr. we have to learn from each other. mr. turn. it's not about the conspiracy thinking it's, i mean 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 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 initiative damage take the 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 certain kind of a conspiracy behind it by rather it is because the basic intrinsic dynamism of a capital isn't itself, is based on consumption. and if you reduce consumption, they have a skin tear that g d p will go down, you can go down. this is a 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 use trees. can you reduce this 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 eat q because, you know, does it, how does that applied to that?

so that is the i am what i'm saying is that's why you saw difficult. so you're not talking about dealing with their 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 doesn't, nor politicians in the or under war who can even their to say to, to 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 all of our concern as we are

doing now. but mister 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 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 is very good point. i will is saying that the best solution for transportation mobility is electrical. actually it is walking, walk in better for your house as well. i call the b m w plus metro walking. the

b m, or no car is better than electric car. so even the electricity is coming from a cor fire ball plans. so that's not a solution, so we have to be very clear there. we cannot only focus on production side or above . we have to think about consumption side. for example, i will tell you one story, u k. for example. 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 dish is based on the consumption of the production side, because the british has a real ok to them, a lot of industrial sector or overseas. and they shifted to a service economy, receiving the good pleasure or report to most of their consumption from overseas. so when you calculate the consumption bases to see your technician, it never changed. they are having the same,

they're enjoying the same level over time. you some particular, since 1990 and 2020, even during the 30 years, there's no change. it's 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 still not looking at issues, for example, many countries a cookie sizing china for increasing c o 2 emission, but in fact, china is exploiting a lot to the united states and europe and union and the, those people are using the mission from china and then blame china's get all the blame for making those people to enjoy the expand. it's not only china, but also much of asia after that, those goods are consumed. 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 decision. we have to take a very short break right now,

but we will do back in just a few moments. stay tuned. the me are showing me every alec salmon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world. the politic sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me she simply real thing a little funny, which is a little girls, but seriously. well, the girls can go with me when you have a week when you have a meeting in the room, the initial authentic steamy guy, spelled on my wish for the else was good for me. you will give me a list of the wish. nicholas and you, susan,

this new law is when you mentioned the illusion initially going to normal financial young, moody, and delusion, but you least could put it in. you could shoot it to the lower. ah me or i welcome back to where the price was right. one channel principal advisor and climate change to the un secretary general. mr. chung, before the break we had this, there is fear, 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. i'm talking about brazil, some extent canada maybe even the united states because see what you can not only be emitted, it could also be absorbed. and this is one of the sticking points in the new bush 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 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 economic benefit in keeping those forests, in fact, it would be easier to protect them. or of course, there is a certain method, methodological calculation already done is recognized. so in the calculation of your payment from each country, we have a sunroof. this already agrees are produced by i p c. c into the panel 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 short a mission. this whole issue involves a lot of calculations, a lot of statistics. and as you said before, they break from 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 of the speaker. how trans darren, 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 we're 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 opinion isn't 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 something 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, 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 log on in the water. and after that we agreed to go to protocol to reduce the 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 emissions scores. so that you, she's, there'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 think we have to put 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 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 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. global partnership has been very much emphasized and this is shown 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 global partnership, but realistically, based on what we just witnessed them 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 as a full long time. but as a 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 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. if you go, 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 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 it is the rich countries right now that are hoarding many times more vaccines than they need without sharing it with countries for. and i mean, even if they're 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 from the rich country. get there a minimum 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 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, do you have confidence that again, if we agree on being fair to one another data for me, the case of a 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 out of it, we could be be more optimistic that stays european union and rich countries can push forward because they see that d. c, the future. otherwise they will 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, since you mentioned the share of 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 dirty wave as lots of environmental and health risks are 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 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 always forward looking, but don't want to look back. well, of course, any transformation has never been perfect. whenever, for example, the 1st elect industry revolution, the core 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, 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 the are not technological innovations to address those issues . so now we're only at the early stage of transforming our system. this is why there's a lot of issues, but it'll take time. but in the long run, if 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 talking to you. 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. no, but when we get home, i don't, i don't gonna don't go down the limit of all using 40 on looks it up on the i guess it looks like i need it there that i can find the article. but

most of it on the front of it and then we can just go to the middle of kenesha, and these are the most who knew all along the plan. the puzzle, initials going to separate. you'll use the all drugs still did 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, 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 that. something else had to be happening with the years sleeping and then the water comes and he can open the door just in the room and you're drowning. europe's coming to terms with the aftermath of devastating floods of germany declare a state of emergency neighboring countries were also hit by torrents of water left at least 190 people that correspond to results from the disaster period. off i live in the state of rhode island to latin that this one of the worst effected areas by the flooding. you can see over to my left on the building where the water actually reached well above my own head.