Kazakhstan could supply carbon-free cotton to luxury brands like Louis Vuitton and Gucci - Rae Kwon Chung

You have been working on climate issues for decades. How has the global approach changed since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio?

The change has been very significant. From 1992 until around 2009, countries were trying to agree on legally binding commitments, meaning that if a country failed to meet its targets, there would be penalties. That was the core idea behind the UN climate regime and agreements like the Kyoto Protocol.

However, after the failure to reach such an agreement at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, the system shifted. Instead of legally binding targets, countries moved to voluntary declarations. The current Paris Agreement is based on this non-binding approach.

This is a major transformation. The key question now is whether we can actually meet global climate targets without enforcement. That uncertainty remains.

As the author of “green growth,” do governments treat it as a real strategy or just a slogan?

It is not a slogan, but it is very difficult to implement. Green growth requires governments to prioritize long-term goals over short-term needs such as economic growth, jobs, inflation or social welfare.

The challenge is that the results of green growth come in the long run, often after 10 or even 20 years. Political leaders, however, are expected to deliver immediate results. This time gap makes it difficult to convince people.

Another issue is public understanding. Many people focus on short-term economic concerns and do not see climate action as a priority. Without public support, governments alone cannot push long-term strategies effectively.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly developing. Is it a risk for the environment?

It has both positive and negative sides. AI can improve efficiency and help optimize systems, which is beneficial. At the same time, it consumes a large amount of electricity.

At this stage, it is difficult to say whether the overall impact will be positive or negative. It really depends on how we use the technology.

How are geopolitical tensions affecting climate cooperation today?

The impact is very strong. Conflicts such as those in Ukraine and tensions involving Iran have shifted global priorities. Climate change is no longer at the top of the agenda as it used to be.

We also see less attention to climate issues in the media. This is a serious concern, because without sustained focus, progress becomes much slower.

Who should bear the main responsibility now: developed countries with historical emissions, or fast-growing emerging economies that are now major producers and exporters?

This is a very complex and sensitive issue. The current system calculates emissions based on production, not consumption.

For example, China produces a large volume of goods that are exported and consumed in other countries, including Kazakhstan and Europe. However, the emissions are counted as China’s responsibility.

This creates a fundamental imbalance. Exporting countries, which are often developing economies, carry a heavier burden, while developed countries with service-based economies generate fewer emissions.

But we also need to look deeper. Many developed countries rely on sectors such as finance, insurance, and design, which do not produce significant carbon emissions. At the same time, developing countries depend on manufacturing and exports for their economic survival. Without exports, they cannot sustain their economies.

Yet they are under pressure to reduce emissions, even though they are producing goods consumed elsewhere. This makes it very difficult for them to cut emissions without harming their growth.

As a result, the gap between climate targets and actual emissions is not closing. We are placing too much responsibility on producing countries, while consumption-driven emissions remain largely unaddressed.

What about funding? Who should pay for the climate transition?

Many people believe that governments should pay, but this is not correct. The cost must be shared by all of us, as consumers.

We use products and energy that generate carbon emissions, yet we expect governments to solve the problem alone. That is unrealistic. The financial burden ultimately has to come from people’s consumption choices.

At the same time, there are still not enough systems that allow individuals to directly contribute or pay for their carbon footprint. This is something that needs to be developed further.

Kazakhstan remains dependent on fossil fuels. What is the biggest risk of delaying the transition?

Kazakhstan has strong potential in renewable energy, including wind, solar, and biomass. The main barrier is investment. Transition requires funding, and again, this comes back to the same question - where will the money come from?

In my view, it should come from consumers. That is why I promote the concept of Personally Determined Contributions, or PDC. While governments set national targets, individuals must also take responsibility. Without personal contributions, national goals cannot be achieved.

Which sectors in Kazakhstan could drive green growth in the next decade?

Agriculture is one of the most promising sectors. I am currently promoting the idea of carbon-free cotton produced through smart farming technologies. In particular, I am planning to introduce a smart farm system from Korea.

This system, based on greenhouse technology, can reduce water usage by up to 90% through recycling. It can also be powered entirely by solar energy, allowing cotton to be produced without carbon emissions.

Such carbon-free cotton could receive international certification and be supplied to European luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton and Gucci, which are willing to pay a premium for sustainable materials.

This approach would not only increase farmers’ income, but also help conserve water resources and support environmental sustainability. The same principle can be applied to industrial production, with goods manufactured using green energy and sold at a higher value.

If you could change one global decision immediately, what would it be?

I would reform the tax system by reducing income tax and increasing carbon tax.

If people pay less tax on income but more for carbon-intensive consumption, they will naturally change their behavior, using less energy, choosing greener products, and adopt more efficient practices.

The same applies to companies. Lower taxes on profit combined with higher costs for energy use would encourage investment in efficiency and clean technologies. This would shift both consumption and production patterns toward sustainability.

What is the most important point you would like to emphasize at this stage?

Over the past 30 years, climate policy has mostly followed a top-down approach led by governments. However, this alone has not been sufficient.

We need a bottom-up approach where individuals actively participate and take responsibility. We also need to shift our focus from quantity to quality, and from production to consumption.

Without this broader change in mindset, it will be very difficult to achieve meaningful progress.

Earlier, in an interview with Qazinform News Agency, IPCC Chair Jim Skea warned that Central Asia is increasingly vulnerable to climate change, with glacier melt and water scarcity posing serious risks to the region.