From K-pop Hallyu to climate Hallyu

Columns

From K-pop Hallyu to climate Hallyu

Published: 01 Sep. 2024, 20:15

Chang Se-jeong
The author is an editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.

Climate disasters like heavy rain, sweltering heat and frequent wildfires are sweeping the globe. The scourge of weather extremes calls for a drastic reduction of carbon emissions more than ever. But last November, the UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai (COP28) evaluated the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) pledged by each country under the 2015 Paris Agreement as “not being properly implemented.”

The climate crisis can’t be solved by a single country. It can only be addressed when 8 billion people on Earth tackle climate disasters together and minimize damage to life and property. To overcome the existential threat, the United Nations, governments and companies of each country must lead the battle with consumers’ active participation in the crusade.

The JoongAng Ilbo met with Chung Rae-kwon, 70, Korea’s first ambassador for climate change at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2008 to 2010. It was Chung who first proposed the concept of “green growth” — aimed at transforming the climate crisis into an opportunity for economic growth — at the United Nations in 2005. Starting public service in 1977 after passing the 10th Foreign Service Examination, Chung led the establishment of the Science and Environment Division handling environmental diplomacy in the Foreign Ministry in 1991. The JoongAng Ilbo asked him what we must do to effectively solve the conundrum.

Chung Rae-kwon, Korea’s first ambassador for climate change, does an interview with the JoongAng Ilbo about creative ways to reduce carbon emissions in Gwanghwamun, central Seoul, on July 15. It was Chung who first proposed the concept of “green growth” at the United Nations in 2005. [KIM JONG-HO]

Q. Is humanity’s approach to the climate crisis appropriate?
A. The current climate change response system focusing on reducing carbon emissions from the production sector takes a top-down approach implemented by the government and companies. But such an approach has failed to achieve tangible results in the transition to carbon-free energy, which requires changing the framework of the entire economy and industries. We cannot waste time warning of a climate apocalypse and stressing the need for achieving carbon neutrality. We must urgently find specific ways to attain carbon neutrality and reach a social consensus on this.

What’s the root cause of the climate crisis?
It is an inevitable offshoot of our economic principle of maximizing the total amount of GDP based on cheap fossil fuels. That growth model must change toward prioritizing quality over quality. Not only the top-down approach by the government and companies in the manufacturing sector but also a bottom-up approach through consumer participation is needed to simultaneously cut the carbon emissions in the consumption sector. Without consumer participation, it’s difficult to achieve substantial results.

How can we shift to qualitative growth?
Quantitative growth seeks to maximize production regardless of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the fundamental cause of the climate crisis. But qualitative growth is a growth model seeking to maximize production while minimizing emissions. The simplest market approach to this is to put a price on carbon, but most governments and companies worry about the impact on the economy. Green growth is a new model that maximizes positive effects — such as technological innovation and job creation — while minimizing negative economic burdens. I proposed this when I was the director of the Environment and Development Division of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in 2005.

Should the government lead the paradigm shift?
Up until now, the government has taken the lead and companies have implemented it. We need to shift from this unilateral top-down approach to a bottom-up approach. Of course, the introduction of various government policy tools is essential. But shifting the paradigm to qualitative growth can’t be done through unilateral government pressure alone. This shift is only possible when consumers voluntarily pay additional costs for green energy and ‘carbon-free’ products.

But consumers are sensitive to prices.
Of course, we cannot expect all consumers to pay additional costs for ‘carbon-free’ products. However, as the climate crisis has reached serious levels, there has been a big change in consumer awareness. In particular, the perception that they would voluntarily pay extra costs is spreading fast among the younger generation in particular. In Korea, 48% of all consumers expressed their willingness to pay additional costs.

Can you give a specific example of this?
The fashion brand Patagonia sells products made from recycled plastic at a higher price. In other words, an increasing number of consumers — frustrated by the lack of a system that allows them to voluntarily share responsibility for reducing carbon emissions — want to pay a higher price for products from companies who sympathize with their concerns. Let me show you an example in Korea. A representative of residents of an apartment complex in the district of Gangnam, Seoul, expressed his intention to take the lead in adopting a “voluntary green premium electricity price payment system” if it is introduced in Korea. When another apartment complex representative heard this news, he responded, “The price of that apartment will likely go up.” His response shows that the perception that participating in fighting the climate change looks cool and is a worthwhile thing is spreading among general consumers.

But there’s no way to pay extra for green energy under the current system.
That’s true. But that’s why we need to establish a price differentiation system which introduces premium prices for green energy and carbon-free products, and asks people to pay a higher price for them voluntarily. For instance, the government can provide consumers, who want to travel without carbon emissions, with the option to buy a ‘green ticket’ for the high-speed KTX train at a slightly higher price, as Germany does now. The additional cost paid this way can be invested in purchasing renewable energy.

Compared to other countries, Korea has particularly cheap electricity prices. According to the International Energy Agency, Korea’s electricity rates are the lowest among the OECD countries. Korea is well-known for its overly cheap utility prices and low energy efficiency.

People say Korea is addicted to cheap electricity prices.
It is time to consider introducing a green premium electricity price system in Korea. If companies participating in the RE100 initiative to accomplish the goal of using 100 percent renewable energy pay a green premium price, this can be considered as using “renewable electricity.” The green premium electricity price payment can be accepted as part of a company’s ESG management.

Would qualitative growth be possible with consumer participation alone?
Consumer participation is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. The government has various policy tools to reflect carbon costs in a gradual manner to minimize the impact on the economy and industry while maximizing technological innovation and job creation.

What specific cases are possible now?
The simplest — and most immediately applicable — measure is to utilize a preliminary feasibility study. This is to reflect the increase in carbon emissions as a “cost” and the decrease as a “benefit” in the preliminary study applied to large-scale investment projects. There has been much controversy over the preliminary feasibility study of the Great Train Express (GTX), but if the amount of carbon reduction expected from the GTX operation had been converted into a carbon emission trading price from the beginning — and included as a “benefit” in the preliminary feasibility study — the construction project would have passed the preliminary test long ago. If the carbon benefits can be reflected in the preliminary feasibility study, investments on various green transportation infrastructure will be promoted. Then, we can expect a sharp reduction in carbon emissions and traffic congestion costs in the transportation sector, which accounts for 20 percent of our total carbon emissions.

Can Korea lead the novel consumer movement?
There is no such social movement in any country yet. If the millions of fans of BTS — the famous K-pop group with positive influence on the international community — voluntarily purchase green energy and carbon-free products, it could serve as a catalyst for a voluntary responsibility-sharing movement among global consumers. The K-pop-centered Hallyu could evolve into a K-climate Hallyu.

Any advice to the Yoon Suk Yeol administration?
The government needs to adjust its policy focus rather than rushing to fulfill the obligations of the Paris Agreement, which is top-down and focused on the production sector. For instance, a green premium pricing system should be built so that many consumers worrying about climate calamity can voluntarily choose carbon-free energy and products. The government also must concentrate on establishing a win-win relationship between carbon neutrality and the corporate sector. I hope that the Yoon administration will demonstrate “global climate leadership” by aggressively promoting this bottom-up approach to the rest of the world.