the moment that she is not going to none of my new middle child on the me the me i welcome to world support. the great gentleman, right. i go to sad that the solution to every problem is in the other problem and no worries that's more visible than in the history of technology. the current exist,

actual 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 time. well, to discuss with them now joined by ry chung principal advisors to the un secretary general on climate change and 2007 noble piece price lower it's, it's a chunk, it's a great pleasure, great honor for me to talk to thank you very much for finding that 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 that 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. so my feeling is mixed. there are some 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 of ideas that it is actually an investment, long term investment for a much more inclusive and degree in 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, tours new idea that protecting climate change and the people either an investment. i think that sort of paradigm, at least we thought rickly has been adopted by many governments because i'm sure you watched very carefully the recent climate change line, 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 in my divorce years from 9 to 9

to one. when the 1st level has started since then on, on $9.00 to $2.00, we have the earth real, real or sunny. more than 100 ahead of us face came to rio de janeiro. well, 1992. i heard enough so many head of states repeatedly made my walking. yes. are importance of protecting environment. i've been actually heard it too much. but what we are not saying is there are 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 such of course there's a certain limitations of our current democratic part 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 and 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 intrinsic limit, hey, sean,

this own mark can 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. busy 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 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 i have some kind of frustration that 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 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 effect that we gave up. the top down 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 a good, we'll just leaving it to the voluntary commitment. now you've been complimentary of

the job by them 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. very good question and a very good consent and, but i think it's better to take a constructive interpretation of the miss president joe biden,

his intention because of course, anybody can have that kind of console and suspicion. but we are on the actor beginning stage, your engaging in the 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 know, the union did something very on in earnest, didn't go to seriously, but the case, i mean, i 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 they're all not to get 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 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. 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 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 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 the 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 capitalism itself is based on consumption. and if you reduce consumption, they have a scam here that g d p will go down economy to 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 you, she's can, you reduces 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, get, does it, how, how does that applied to that? so that is the, i'm, what i'm saying is, that's why you saw it 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 there's no politicians in the or under war who can even their to say to, to people, oh, we have to reduce the consumption. this is why so far the consumption issue did not was not taken out 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. chung, it's not, 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 for 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, the solution for transportation mobility is not 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 cor fireball plans. 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, u k. for example. they say that we see from the data data reduced to 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 their having the same in, during the same level over time. you some port debit since 1990 and 2020, even during the 30 years there's no change. almost same level,

but use better than some other country because in some of the country that's going up. so they take an idea the so, but we are not looking at we are still not looking at issues. for example, many countries are criticizing china for increasing your emission. but in fact, china is exploiting a lot to the united states and europe and union. and that 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 the 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 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 or

i better survival guide is going to storage federal reserve shirts. so there you go. oh, heck, no. refrigeration came. well, look at the right to 7 years, bill it separately, or what kind of report? join me every thursday on the alex simon show. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics, sport, business and show business. i'll see you then me the me.

i welcome back to world the park bridge, right, one child principal advisor and climate change to the un secretary general with the trunk. before the break we had this, there is still 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 the rush. i'm talking about brazil, some extent canada maybe even the united states because see what you can not only be emitted, it could all also be absorbed. and this is one of the sticking points in the new nations 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 love 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, there is a certain met, methodological calculation already done is recognized. so in the calculation of fuel, of each country, we have a certain rulers, this already agrees, produced by ip c into the pen on climate change. so is there, so of countries like russia can invest the in reforestation or forest ration, then you can be while positive about the russia as calculation of the 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 on statistical information is we get needs to be improved and 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 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 was born in the 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. this is a matter of how we can actually take actions and practice it practice rather than try to call you she is. i thing with the, the price on column us, we have softball, very much failed on putting a price on cobble as a market economy is functioning, revalue 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 and 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 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 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 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. they are manufacturing methodology

. so that they can improve. this is 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 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 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 we have to and i would like to emphasize that the roar and the leadership of a rich countries be 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 over 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 in a pretty i mean, even in their 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 a 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 and 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 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 out of every could be be more optimistic that i stayed up and uni own 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 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 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 are the result of our efforts to improve our live. i'd rather take more more for the looking and the more well,

there's one boys always forward looking, but don't want to look back. well, of course, any transformation has never been perfect. whenever, for example, the 1st look industry revolution, the core for power, the local motives, a lot of pollution. so nothing has been perfect from the beginning. yes, there is some kind of environmental problem for electric batteries and whole leasing. but my point is 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 do take time. but in the long run, 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 so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. development only really i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

a very critical time. time to sit down and talk with your sleeping and then the water comes and you can open the door. it just any room and you're drowning europe is coming to terms with the aftermath of devastating floods. in parts of germany declare a state of emergency on neighboring countries. we're also have white horns of water leaving at least a 180 people day. corresponding reports from the disasters, theory and all phyla in the state of rhode island latin. this is one of the worst affected areas by the flooding. you can see over to my left on the building.