both his prize florida chung is a great pleasure, great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for finding this one. 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, the 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. 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 the protecting environment and climate change can be 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 we go to our, the thinking, scrub 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, bank was looking the idea that investing in the environment, people ease or cost daddy, as i see as a conventional thinking. but we have to shift away from that kind of conventional thinking course new idea. they're protecting climate change and the people either an investment, i think that sort of paradigm, at least with doric lee, has been adopted by many governments because i'm sure you're watched very carefully . the recent climate july climate change hosted by

b bite and ministration. and pretty much every leader said that they see environmental protection, the fight against climate change as it then you developmental paradigm for their societies. now, while they all agreed 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 the nation. i stuck in my divorce ration from 99 to one. when the 1st and we'll start to that. since then on. on 92, we are the earth real real or the summit? more than 100 a head of a stace came to rio de janeiro by 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 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 won't, can it be really compatible with 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 arkansas 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 provide immediate result. do you see any correlation between the political system and they're willing to undertake such story? of course there's a certain limitations, although

a current democratic part because system as well as capitalism itself. we are, we're operating market mechanism and everything is based on mac. a mechanism like a mechanism, by definition, it is depending on the supply and demand over shot them. 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 is against issue an 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, 4 years, 5 years in the office, they are very eager to deliver something for a space for shortcomings. and so we have a strong within extreme shelter museum versus long tongue gore as we approach it. 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 and that strategy in comparing the russian and the american approach, for example, because they are 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. and 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 job biden's leadership for net 010 to 15, which he has a revival. so the momentum to drive the globe, our 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 differentiator, the 2. yes, 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 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, 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 be because the top down approach has been actually practice well preached, at least for the last, really in the history of climate negotiation. the top down approach has failed. the

parish climate, the agreement adopt in 2015 symbolizes the fact that we gave up the top down. it is n d c national lead time in the contribution contribution means it's a baldwin contribution. so over the n d c means bottom up. so we don't have any kind of pub down globe or system to impose on each country. so we'll pull totally depend on each country is a good we'll just leaving it to the balloon to come in. now you've been complimentary of the job by then of the biden 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 set of upgrade 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, we'll say this is 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, jo biden's intention because of course, anybody can have that kind of console and suspicion. but we are only at their beginning stage, your engaging in the real actions full see what their mission reduction. in fact, we don't know much about how to do it. even the european union or you me and i station, you know, you not the union did something very on arnie's day,

did it very seriously, but don't for the case of united states, i don't think there was any real honest actions on emission reduction because they don't talk about all about consumption reduction. it is only about production reduction. so there are a lot 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 over in gauging in real action initial you have to learn from each other. this is, 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 wants ability 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 housey for them. the take, the ability of damage take the waste management problem it's, it's clear that this kind of 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 isn't itself, is based on consumption. and if you reduce consumption, they have a skin tear that g d p, we 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, day or so schedule climate change so that you, she's, can you reduce your emission or taking kind of climate change while we are not failing. the dynamism of a typical in other way of putting it, can you have a cake and eat it q because, you know, does it, how does that applied today? so that is the, i'm, what i'm saying is that's why you saw 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. just saw a difficult challenge to demand. the people and the consumers are on the word. that's why the political leaders are not scared scared. they cannot, they are to say there's no politicians in the or,

or who can even they are 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 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 overconsumption as we are doing now with mr. chung, it's not letting us 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 tool. 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 this is cool 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 5 bigger sacrifice is very good point. i was saying to the best, the solution for transportation mobility is electrical. actually it is walking, walk in better for your house as well. i call the bmw w plus metro walking. the b m, or an old car is better than electric car. so even the electricity is coming from a cor fire to pump plants. so that's not a solution. so we have to be very clear that we cannot only focus on production side or to think about consumption slide. 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 due to the last 2 years and the economy has grown a lot. but when you are dishes based on the consumption, the production side,

because the british has a real ok. busy to them, a lot of industrial sector will overseas, and they shifted to a service economy and they're still receiving the good pleasure for do most of their consumption from overseas. so when you calculate the consumption base is the c o 2 emission, it never changed. they are having the same, enjoying the same level over time. particular since 1990 and 2020, even during the years, there's no change. it's almost same level, but it's better than some other country because some of the country has gone up. so they is taking a theater. so, but we are not looking at still not looking at issues. for example, many countries are criticizing china for increasing short term issues. but in fair china is exploiting a lot today. and i states and europe and union, and those people are using the initial from china and then blame china,

get the 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 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. this is young. we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned for me . i, i is your media a reflection of reality. the in a world transform the what will make you feel safer?

tyson lation community, are you going the right way or are you being direct? what is truth? what is faith in the world corrupted? you need to this end. the so join us in the depths will remain in the shallows, ah, driven by shaped control. those in me who dares

thing we dare to ask me ah, the me or i welcome back to world the part for the right one child principal, advisor and climate change to the un secretary general with the trunk before the break rehab this there is still 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 exam canada may be when

the united states because see what you cannot 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 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 for us, in fact, it would be easier to protect them. or of course, there is a certain math methodological calculation already done is recognized. so in the calculation of short chambers from each country, we have a certain rulers, this already agreed on the produced by ip you see into dependent 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 as

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 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 the production side. but we have to also see the pro, the consumption side. and regarding the 43 show that you're been using 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 coming 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 agreed to so many times about the very ambitious, nice looking targets in 1992. we agree either to reduce your technician 522000 at the level of ally bank 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 at law law. it blogger, 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 emissions scores. so that you,

she's not a matter of setting the gore this a matter of how we can actually take actions and practice it practice rather than try your call. she 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, revalue giving the property the price on cobble very mr. chung and 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 off,

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 in 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 their manufacturing methodology so that they can improve. this is why, even in the climbing the wish ations globe, our partnership has been very much emphasized and this is young 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, so 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 we have to and i would like to emphasize that the roar and the leadership of a rich countries the 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 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 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 their mini mom, quantity of vaccine, secure the for their own consumption, then they can be ordered, be 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 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 renewable energy and energy terms formation can be a little different directions case because because all 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 we could be already more optimistic that organized a issue of union and the rich countries can push forward because they see that d. c, the future. otherwise they've, you 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 where the 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 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. but lots of environmental and health risks. 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 always forward looking, but don't know the if you look back, well, of course, any transformation has never been perfect. whenever, for example, the 1st industrial evolution, 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 environment, a problem for electric batteries, a whole dissing. 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 are not technological innovations to address those issues. so now we own the 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 pcsing. 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

ah. join me every thursday and the alex simon 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 this is your media a reflection of reality. the in a world transformed what will make you feel safer. tyson lation, whole community. you going the right way? where are you being somewhere? direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted,

you need to defend the join us in the depths. all remained in the shallows. ah, ah, you're sleeping and then the water comes and we can't open the door. you just in your room and you're drowning. europe is coming to terms with the office of devastating floods policy to germany, declare a state of emergency while laboring state school flu hit by tolerance of water. at least 180 dead. correspondent reports from the disasters, a theory and all phyla in the state of rhode island, latin that is one of the worst effected areas by the foot. you can see over to my left on this building where the water actually reached. well a ball from my own head.