[INTERVIEW] 'We should learn from nature that leaves no waste': IPCC chair

IPCC Chair Lee Hoe-sung speaks during the opening ceremony of COP27 in Egypt's Sharm El-Sheikh, Nov. 6. Courtesy of IPCC

IPCC chair underscores circular economy as realistic solution to climate change

By Ko Dong-hwan

Energy transition is now a byword for a solution to the much-touted goal of "carbon neutralization by 2050" that many countries have committed to so far. It calls for discontinuing the use of fossil fuel to reduce carbon emissions that are incrementally raising global greenhouse gas emissions and replacing them with clean, pollutant-free renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal power.

But Lee Hoe-sung, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says many people are mesmerized by the rosy prospects of carbon neutralization and fail to spot potential loopholes.

"To harness those natural resources, we need machines," Lee told The Korea Times in an interview at his office in Seoul. "To produce those equipment, we need earth minerals that should be mined like nickel, lithium, copper, silver and bronze. From mining them to produce those machines and shipping them to final users, the entire supply chain means a whole lot of carbon emissions and production of waste. Bronze has been scientifically proven to require lots of energy to create and is especially harmful to the environment in the mining stages. So achieving net-zero through energy transition shouldn't be our ultimate goal."

The real silver bullet, says Lee, is the circular economy. Just like how everything circulates and revolves around the natural ecological system ― species feeding each other on the natural order of food chains and carcasses and excrements returning to the environment ― our system should also produce zero waste and circulate.

"People now talk about carbon neutralization by 2050 like it's a paradise or the end goal of history," Lee said. "But that's just irresponsible of them. Nature has limits to how much human-made waste it can take. Pouring out that waste in nature is like stabbing ourselves with a knife."

Lee Hoe-sung, center, speaks during a panel discussion, Climate Forward, hosted by The New York Times on the sidelines of COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, Nov. 8. Courtesy of Hoesung Lee's Korean office

The professor at Korea University's Graduate School of Energy and Environment also criticized the country's energy-mix agenda that seems stagnant and lacks drastic changes.

Last November, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy announced the country's latest 10th Basic Plan for Long-term Electricity Supply and Demand. It showed that until 2030, the country's power generation mix will consist of 33 percent nuclear power, 20 percent coal, 23 percent LNG and 22 percent renewable energy sources. Some observers and activists had criticized the plan as it still heavily relied on nuclear power and fossil fuels, overshadowing the importance of renewable energy in achieving carbon neutrality.

Lee said he was "surprisingly dumbfounded" by the energy policy direction the country keeps adhering to, insinuating cynicism against the country's unrelenting reliance on fossil fuels and idleness in rigorously utilizing renewable energy sources.

"And yet the country's central government seems unaware of that even though the problem is right under their nose," Lee said. "Every country has its own ideal energy mix. They shouldn't emulate some advanced countries, but study what could be their own. That involves finding optimal efficiency and reaching a social agreement among the public who will be divided into those who benefit more from the new energy-mix policies and those who benefit less."

Stop talking, start implementing

Having spearheaded IPCC since 2015, Lee joined the 27th General Assembly for the Conference of Parties of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt last November. The biggest annual gathering of climate experts and policymakers from around the world seldom creates sensational headlines or findings.

But this year was different. The meeting eventually reached an agreement among the member states to start discussing how to financially compensate climate-vulnerable countries, mostly small island countries sinking under the rising sea level. A cornerstone of the decision was the participants' selection of "Loss and Damage" as a new topic to discuss involving the poor countries under immediate climate threats. The progress came after a decade-long debate between the desperate countries, which demanded restitution from advanced countries that were responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions, and advanced countries refusing to admit their responsibilities

In Indonesia's Pari Island, home to more than a thousand people and located around 56 kilometers north of Jakarta, rising sea levels forced residents to deal with tidal flooding more often. Four Pari Island residents took legal action against Holcim, a Swiss cement company, demanding compensation and flood defenses. The company is also urged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent by 2030 and 69 percent by 2040 to prevent future damage. According to one of the plaintiffs, smaller Islands around Pari Island have become submerged in recent years. EPA-Yonhap

"The official theme for COP27 was 'COP for Implementation'," Lee, the younger brother of former Korean Prime Minister and presidential candidate Lee Hoe-chang, said. "In 2014, the official theme of COP in Lima, Peru, was 'Momentum for Implementation.' It took eight years to take out the 'momentum' and actually launch an action plan," he added.

But when it comes to calculating how much should be compensated and which countries should open up their wallets, things get quite complicated.

"Nearly one third of Pakistan was flooded earlier this year," Lee said, referring to a devastating event that lasted from June to October, killing over 1,700 people and described as the worst natural disaster in the country's history. "If 30 percent of the disaster's causes were bound by manmade consequences of climate change, which countries should be responsible for that particular event? How do we calculate the monetary value of those who died? With the system we've got, this objective monetization of loss and damage will make us sweat for a while."

Lee said the difference between energy or food crises and climate crisis is that while the former can be autonomously controlled by the market, the latter cannot. Even under serious climate threats, some people can become numb to them. That's why to deal with the climate crisis, the international community needs a separate organization based on science, like the IPCC, to monitor the situation and inform the world whether it is under immediate threat and whether it must take immediate action.

"Countries aren't taking enough action because one, the climate crisis isn't their priority. And two, they are hardly motivated by the idea that the benefits arising from their investment for climate purposes won't be their own, but will be shared by others," Lee said. "No country can solely invest in climate policies. They've got to improve their economy, expand local employment, invest in infrastructure, as well as strengthen national security and defense. So there are many hurdles to overcome before they choose to spend money on climate policies. That's why as the chair of the scientific climate organization, I keep nudging politicians across the world to implement climate policies using hard facts."