/ world today news/ Many have heard about the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Green Deal promoted by Western countries. However, not everyone understands exactly what follows from these common goals and how they will affect every person in the world. Ray Kwon Chan, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former UN Secretary-General’s Chief Adviser on Climate Change, is well aware of this issue. It was he who developed the “Net Zero 2050” concept to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Ray Kwon Chan has already spoken in Russia on the topic of climate change several times, but his presentation at the October “All-Russian Science Festival” clearly went beyond the announced framework and was filled with so many frank statements that it deserves closer attention.
At the very beginning of his speech, Chan “took the bull by the horns” and stated that in order to achieve zero carbon emissions in the atmosphere by 2050, traditional science cannot be relied on, new science is needed. Later, in the course of his speech, he explained that science is not only technology, but also social sciences, which he believes are much more important than natural sciences.
According to Chan, our civilization was built on cheap, very cheap fossil fuels, and before we did not notice the contribution of carbon emissions to the atmosphere, which affects the climate, but now climate change, especially the increase in temperature, has reached a certain level, and this cannot be ignored as it calls into question the survival of humanity. I can’t help but put an end to the matter in these statements by Chan.
First, I would immediately address his words about cheap fossil fuels. This has not always been the case, and the “oil wars” are proof. Such a manipulative step on Chan’s part is by no means accidental – this will become clear later in his speech. Second, the major role of anthropogenic impact on the Chan climate is self-evident, although scientists have not yet reached a consensus, even on the dynamics of atmospheric temperature rise.
Chan also tries to explain to the audience that “Net Zero 2050” is a new paradigm for human development that has received a new impetus after Joe Biden took office as the President of the United States, and the pandemic has become another reason to move away from the old rules of “free market capitalism” and the extraction of huge amounts of hydrocarbons to factor the price of carbon emissions into the final price.
This is what the “market economy of sustainable development” will look like, and in the course of his speech, Chan gave it the name “climate economy”. Then Chan made another loud statement that new viruses must emerge due to the melting of the permafrost in Canada and Russia.
In today’s free market economy, Chan argues, the climate problem is a zero-sum game in which there is always one loser. When the need to pay for carbon emissions arises, profits decrease, which is why countries themselves do not seek to reduce carbon emissions, as this would reduce their GDP. Therefore, it is necessary to switch to a game with a positive sum, when everyone will be in the plus – both the climate and the economy.
Chan then moved on to technology, where he believes there is a vast ocean of opportunity to decarbonize the world and, most importantly, to develop an economical way to extract hydrogen. He said governments and private companies are looking to become leaders in hydrogen production because hydrogen energy is cheaper. It is hydrogen that will help move to a positive-sum climate-economy game.
This passage needs to be highlighted separately, that is, first, Chan says that an economical hydrogen production technology has not yet been developed, that it does not actually exist yet. However, he later says that hydrogen energy is one of the cheapest.
Chan sees Russia’s future in the development of hydrogen energy. Earlier in his speeches, he already talked about this, focusing on the industrial scale of our country, since small European countries are not even equipped to store hydrogen. Rising temperatures in the Arctic, melting permafrost in Siberia and related anthrax outbreaks should heighten Russia’s interest in climate change, Chan said.
He then returned to the global economy, blaming all governments and businesses for the short-term plans to grow the economy and generate profits, which leaves climate problems unsolved. That is why the UN proposed a new paradigm for the goals of “sustainable development and green growth”. Chan believes that investing in the fight against climate change will spur economic growth. At the same time, he admits that in this way the achievement of zero carbon emissions by 2050 may be called into question.
The next challenge Chan suggests we consider is: Can we sustain economic growth if we reduce our carbon footprint? However, he does not give a substantial answer to this question, but gives the example of Great Britain, which transfers heavy industry with its harmful emissions to China.
Answering his own question about whether it is possible to significantly reduce global carbon emissions, Chan explains that it depends on our choices. Of course, carbon emissions will have to be paid for, but for him personally, it’s not a matter of technology or any other factor, it’s all about human choice.
After finishing his lecture, Chan began to answer questions from the audience. The first question refers to the research of a number of economists who say that reducing carbon emissions by 5% per year, no economic growth can be expected around the world. Chan said he does not believe (good word from a “scientist”) these economists because their research is based on static models that do not account for innovation and structural changes in the economy.
According to him, traditional economists can’t even predict next month’s inflation, so they can’t be trusted. Such economists mislead and misinform people. That is why there is a need for a new economy that has a dynamic character. You can’t rely on economists, it’s better to rely on the humanities rather than economic calculations, Chan explains. We must rid ourselves of these delusions or we will not live to see the future, he warns.
When answering a follow-up question from South Korean environmental activists, Chan said the concerns of businesses and citizens about rising electricity bills should be weighed against the question of their actual survival. In South Korea, 70% of the population is willing to pay $20 more for electricity to fight climate change. Thus, he emphasized once again that the cost of the climate problem does not matter.
I think one more remark should be added here to understand Chan’s train of thought. The fact is that in his speech in June this year at St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Chan said that the current decarbonization efforts undertaken by society are clearly not enough, and the transition to electric cars will definitely not save us, people will have to completely abandon private transport and use only public transport.
Listening to this lecture, I assumed a lot, but it became a revelation to me that those who dictate the global agenda of the world are often guided not even by conflicting scientific research, but by their own ideological attitudes that completely ignore the natural sciences. Ray Kwon Chan has been working on climate issues since 1991 and is clearly not the only one in UN structures with similar approaches, as his ideas are embodied in the UN strategy.
As a result, I have personally become even more convinced that the issue of combating climate change is motivated more by the twisted agenda of some of the world’s political and business elite than by a real threat to humanity.
Translation: V. Sergeev
#global #economy #Russias #place
