GreeN Growth - Asia-Pacific Business and Technology Report

coverstorycoverstoryI believe that mitigation alone will not solve the problem of climatechange and that in order to change the system, the new paradigmof growth, i.e. green growth, has to be adopted globally. That’swhy Korea’s green growth strategy is timely and this new paradigmof growth will be able to fundamentally solve the problem. The GlobalGreen Growth Institute (GGGI) was created to share Korea’s knowledgeand experience on green growth with developing countries.There are many differences between developedand developing countries. As a leader of the greengrowth technology philosophy, what kinds of solutionscan you suggest so that developed and developingcountries can move forward together?When faced with the problem of climate change, we tend topoint fingers at each other, blaming another party for being moreresponsible. It is true that those countries, i.e. Annex 1 countries definedin the Kyoto Protocol which benefitted greatly from the firstindustrial revolution, are more responsible than the others. Thatis why the principle of common but differentiated responsibility isinscribed as the most important principle of the UNFCCC. However,with the rapid economic development of emerging economies, theirresponsibility is also increasing. That is why the National AppropriateMitigation Action (NAMA) was agreed at the time of COP13 inBali, opening the door for developing and emerging economies totake some responsibility.A paradigm shift is a good idea, and after thenuclear crisis in Fukushima many countries havedecided to shift from nuclear to other sources. Buthow realistic is it for developing countries to have ato work together to support green growththrough public-private partnerships. Morespecifically, the two organizations willwork together to promote low-carbongreen infrastructure and a more intelligentuse of water resources. GGGI has receivedfinancial support and encouragement fromincreasing number of partner countries includingDenmark, the UAE, Australia andJapan. During 2010, GGGI launched workin its first three countries: Brazil, Ethiopiaand Indonesia. Work will continue in thesecountries during 2011 and begin in Kazakstan,the UAE and Cambodia. Not bad afterjust one year of work.The summit emphasized a few key points,and their continual emphasis from manydifferent sources could serve as a measureof the pulse on the current status of climatechange opinion. Every official attending thesummit believed that something shouldbe done about climate change, which is awelcome contrast to the debate still ragingin the popular media of many countries.paradigm shift, like for Korea to shift from nuclearto sustainable energy?When I went to Hannover in 2009, I had a long talk with thePresident of the Max Planck Institute who said that although weare trying to develop new and renewable energy as a major substitutefor massive fossil fuel usage, it will take many years for thisnew and renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, and until then theonly alternative clean energy is nuclear. Unfortunately, because ofthe impact of the tsunami on the Fukushima nuclear plant, publicopinion is now against nuclear plants. At the time of the Three MileIsland incident and at the time of the Chernobyl accident in 1986,public opinion was also against nuclear energy. I think it will takesome time to restore the confidence of the public in clean nuclearenergy. In an age of climate change, nuclear energy seems to be theonly alternative for some time to come.China is the biggest polluter in the world. Until weare able to solve this problem, able to bring Chinaon board, nothing concrete will happen. What areyour proposals to solve China’s crisis?China is now the largest carbon emitter followed by the UnitedStates, Russia and India. They are all heavy polluters. China has actuallybeen doing a lot to solve this problem. For example, theirrecently announced five year plan’s annual growth target was loweredfrom 8 percent to 7 percent. By reducing the growth rate theyare trying to use less fossil fuel. After that, they are trying to replacethe whole system of electricity-generating plants using gas and oilby other hydroelectric and even nuclear plants. So in their own wayChina has been trying very hard to reduce carbon emissions.Members of panels in the first few sessionsspent quite a long time politely agreeingwith each other on the seriousness of thesituation and the dire consequences tohappen if nothing was to be done aboutclimate change. This widespread selfagreementamong the attending membersindicates that one should look to those absentfrom the summit for dissenting opinions.In that case, notable absentee nationsfrom the summit included Russia, China,and the United States. One wonders whattheir reluctance is to participate in suchan altruistic endeavor.Also, another theme that was repeatedthroughout the two days of the meetingwas the need for greater international cooperation.The officials in attendance atthe summit all agreed that the problemwas larger than just one or two countriescould solve together, and any solutionmust be a concerted global effort. The discussionsreminded those in attendance ofthe discussions surrounding the KyotoProtocol in 1997. The solutions recentlyoffered to the problems of global climatechange also require international cooperationon the scale of the Kyoto Protocol,or even beyond that. The GGGI seemsto be an excellent framework throughwhich to encourage such internationalcooperation, and with a few more yearsof work it may be able to engineer a comprehensivepolicy change throughoutmost of the world.The third major point that was emphasizedthroughout the summit was theneed for a technological answer to climatechange. This marks a new step beyond theidea of a simple reduction in pollution.If the ideas of the Global Green GrowthSummit are implemented, this wouldresult in a comprehensive, worldwide effortto develop and use the technologiesneeded to comprehensively change theway the world gets and uses energy. Somecountries have a head start in developinggreen technologies, such as the Netherlands,Denmark, and the United States.The Netherlands and Denmark are knownfor their development in wind power,while the United States has been workingon solar power initiatives for quite sometime and several of the most successfulsolar-power-based companies are locatedthere.Other countries have the unfortunateposition of not having made any investmentinto green growth technologies, andalso not being fully powered by conventionalfossil fuels either. This leads to somepotential for criticism and finger-pointing,as countries which have not fully participatedin the industrial evolution feel likethey have now perpetually fallen behindthe rest of the world, and as industrializedcountries move on to the next step ofgreen technologies, those same countrieswhich benefitted from the industrial revolutionare now trying to discourage othercountries from having their own industrialrevolution. However, hopefully with thecoordination of the GGGI and like-mindedinternational organizations, such problemscan be solved for the betterment ofthe world as a whole.All in all, the summit can be said to havebeen a success. It was encouraging to seeso many different countries on the samepage and working with the same ideas oftechnological solutions to climate change.The boost in visibility that sustainable,technological solutions to climate changehave received through this summit andthe continued work of the GGGI can onlyhelp our home in the long run. A-PIt is commonly said that greentechnology is a luxury of the rich.It is the luxury of countries thathave already achieved everythingelse and now they can care aboutsuch things as the environment.What is your response to such anidea?That is exactly the problem facing uswhen we want to emphasize the need fora growth paradigm shift. I think that thegreen growth paradigm shift is facilitatedby the rapid advancement of informationand communications technology. Many developingcountries are beginning to benefitfrom the development of information andcommunications technology. Green growthis not a luxury which can only be affordedin developed countries but a necessity forany country which wants to grow and atthe same time enhance climatic and environmentalsustainability.Cooperation between India andKorea is very strong, with US$20billion in trade. But cooperationbetween India and Korea ingreen technology is that not thatgreat. Why do you think that is?You have to remember that Korea hasembarked on this new paradigm only twoyears ago and we hope that we will be ableto closely cooperate with India on this issuein due course.What are your future plans, whatis your vision? How can Koreaand your institute play a leadingrole in the adoption of greengrowth technology?Our ultimate vision is for the world toemulate what Korea is trying to do in tacklingthe fundamental problem of climatechange. GGGI was created only a year agobut has been affecting many countries already.We hope to continue to share theexperience and knowledge of green growthwith developing countries where the domesticcapacity is lacking. Developed countrieswill not have any problem in emulatingwhat we have been doing. As the mainfactor of production in green growth is newideas, transformational innovations andstate-of-the-art technology, GGGI has to doits best in promoting green technology. A-P12 | A-P BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY REPORTA-P BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY REPORT | 13