[5th EAI Academy] ⑥ Climate Change and International Political Economy

YouTube 링크 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IJ0ypA3YWQ

■ Lee Tae-dongA distinguished professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Yonsei University and Director of the Center for Environmental, Energy, and Human Resources Research. After majoring in Political Science and International Relations at Yonsei University, he obtained a Master's degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the Graduate School of Environmental Studies at Seoul National University and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Washington with a dissertation on "Global Cities and Climate Change: The Translocal Relation of Environmental Governance" (published by Routledge).

His main research interest lies in analyzing urban climate change and energy policy from the perspectives of international relations and comparative policy. He teaches courses such as Environmental-Energy Politics, Introduction to Village Studies, and Politics of Civil Society and NGOs. He has authored "Introduction to Village Studies" (2017), "The Politics We Make" (2018), "Environmental-Energy Living Lab" (2019), "The Politics of Energy Transition" (2021), and "Climate Change and Cities" (2022), along with over 60 papers in prominent domestic and international journals.

Video Script

Today's topic is climate change and political economy, and I have sent out a paper along with this presentation. If you refer to it, you will understand that the content is structured accordingly. First, since we cannot cover the entire field of climate science in a short time, we will take some time to briefly understand climate science through a few numbers. The answer is already somewhat hinted at, but what is the amount of greenhouse gases emitted globally per year? Yes, you got it. It's around 60 billion tons.

It seems quite important to remember a few key numbers. It's not about knowing the exact proportions, but about knowing the absolute numbers to make comparisons. Approximately 60 billion tons are emitted annually. Korea emits about 700 million tons per year. It might be hard to grasp, but if you look at it this way, Korea's share of the total emissions is about 1.2%. As we will discuss later, who emits the most? China emits the most. Historically, who has emitted the most up to now? The United States and Europe have emitted significantly more.

After looking at these figures, Korea has also declared carbon neutrality by 2050, meaning we aim to reduce emissions to zero from the current 700 million tons. Many other countries have also declared carbon neutrality. You might think it's an overstatement, but they plan to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030. I've been thinking about how to make this relatable, and I've decided to use dieting as an example, which I believe everyone is interested in. I'm always on a diet, starting tomorrow, of course. I won't ask for your weight, but let's assume you weigh around 70 kg.

By 2030, have any of you who weigh around 70 kg managed to lose 10% of your body weight? Has anyone here lost 10% of their body weight? Not many, I assume. Even fewer have lost 20%. Losing 40% means that someone weighing 70 kg would need to lose 28 kg by 2030. Looking at Korea, losing 28 kg seems almost impossible. Of course, if we achieve carbon neutrality and reach zero, we might 'die' as humans. It seems incredibly difficult. It's difficult not just because we need to survive, but because there are so many enjoyable things in the world. There's samgyeopsal, and with samgyeopsal, you crave soju. After eating, you might want a macaron for dessert. There are so many delicious and good things.

It's not just individuals; it's the same for countries. We are so accustomed to the fossil fuel system, and it's convenient. Changing human behavior is truly difficult. If it's difficult for one person, it's even more so for a nation. But it's not just difficult; there's another aspect. I'll give you a few numbers annually. Do you know Korea's GDP, not per capita, but total GDP? It's important to know these numbers for comparison. Like the 60 billion tons and 700 million tons, it's essential to remember these figures. What is Korea's annual GDP?

It's around 2,000 trillion won. Korea's annual GDP is 2,000 trillion won. What is Korea's annual budget? It's about 650 trillion won. The budget for public enterprises and institutions is slightly larger than the national budget. The remaining one-third is private. So, it's 2,000 trillion won. One more thing: what is the size of Korea's energy market? This is also difficult. Korea imports about 97% of its energy, making it highly sensitive to exchange rates. Depending on the exchange rate, it fluctuates between 150 and 200 trillion won.

This is about 10% of Korea's GDP. So, consider this: it's not just about fossil fuels being convenient. This means that if the energy mix changes by just 1%, how much does it fluctuate? In a 200 trillion won market, it fluctuates by 2 trillion won. And is this a continuously growing market? No, it's a zero-sum game. If energy source A gains 1%, energy source B loses 1%. It's not a market that continuously grows. So, if renewable energy gains 1%, someone else has to give up 1%. Is that easy?

Is it easy? It's very difficult. That's the political economy of energy. Simply put, for climate change, we need to move towards renewables. Even a 1% change involves a fluctuation of 2 trillion won, and a 10% change is significant. So, carbon neutrality is challenging for various reasons, and these are the problems. There's the concept of a carbon budget. What is a carbon budget? The IPCC estimates that if the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds a certain level, leading to a temperature increase beyond 1.5°C, significant damage will occur.

That's in the next slide. To prevent exceeding 1.5°C, the cumulative amount of greenhouse gases we can emit is about 460 billion tons. There are naturally occurring emissions, but anthropogenic emissions are about 400 billion tons. If we emit around 400 billion tons out of 60 billion tons annually, it is projected that we will exceed 1.5°C in about 10 years at this rate. That's what a carbon budget means – we have only about 10 years left.

So, what happens in 10 years? Many things will happen. And this is not something that will happen in 2050. As someone who studies both mitigation and adaptation, it's almost a professional habit to observe how these events unfold globally. Even when I watch the news, such things catch my eye. Last week, or up until this week, there were major wildfires in Canada, from British Columbia to the Northwest Territories. Did you happen to see that news? You might not have, since it's not about Korea, and we all have personal lives. For me, it's my job and my interest, but the area burned in Canada is comparable to the size of South Korea's territory.

South Korea's territory is about 100,000 square kilometers. 100,000 square kilometers. Look, today a fire broke out in a building in Gangnam, and it caused chaos. Even a single building fire can devastate an area. If a whole district caught fire, not even a district, but an area the size of Seoul, which is about 600 square kilometers (30 km by 20 km), caught fire, it would be shocking. But in Canada, an area the size of South Korea, 100,000 square kilometers, has been affected by wildfires, not entirely burned, but the affected areas are that large.

This is not something that will happen in 2050; it's happening now. Given these events, climate change cannot be considered a distant future problem that has nothing to do with us. The same applies to Korea. In Korea, for instance, the subway underpass incident in Osong, although a man-made disaster, was caused by heavy rain and inadequate embankment maintenance, leading to fatalities. The Canadian wildfires, on the other hand, have multiple causes. One might ask if climate change is simply causing fires. The fires are occurring over a large area due to specific mechanisms.

Fires do occur. Fires occur in large regions due to specific mechanisms. Climate change causes prolonged droughts, which dry out the trees completely. These dry trees die. While human actions can cause fires (arson) or accidental fires (negligence), natural causes also exist. There are two main natural causes: First, lightning strikes can cause fires. Second, trees can become extremely dry and die. When they fall, they can create friction, generating heat. If the surrounding vegetation is also dry, it can ignite. Imagine a fire covering an area the size of South Korea! I was worried and asked a friend living there if they were okay. They said it was chaos, they had to evacuate, and their homes were gone. The same is happening in Hawaii and Europe. These events are occurring simultaneously and widely. These are not events of 2050 or 2100; they are happening this year. Last year, Typhoon Hinnamnor, which most people don't pay attention to unless it directly affects them, hit Pohang in early September.

At that time, approximately 100 mm of rain fell in 4 hours. What happened was that a small stream called Naengcheon, which was dry, next to the Pohang Steel plant, overflowed. A dry stream is literally a dry riverbed. That dry stream, which normally has little water, overflowed with 400 mm of water in 4 hours and hit the Pohang Steel plant. Pohang Steel and Fukushima have some similarities. When the tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the biggest problem was that the power generation facilities and electrical equipment were mostly located underground. This was because the area was complex with many mountains, so they were placed underground. But when water filled the underground areas, electricity could not be supplied. Cooling and other essential functions rely on electricity. That's why the incident occurred. Pohang is similar. At Pohang Steel, most of the power generation, transformation, and transmission systems were located underground. When Typhoon Hinnamnor's impact reached the underground facilities, all the blast furnaces stopped. Blast furnaces are enormous, about 4-5 stories high.

When they stop, they cannot be restarted by simply melting down the material; the entire furnace must be discarded. They are discarded entirely. It's hard to grasp the scale, but it's a tremendous amount of money. A loss of 2 trillion won is an enormous sum. Also, in Pohang, during the broadcasts, residents in apartments were trying to move their cars, worth 20-30 million won each, from the underground parking lot, and about ten people died. Such incidents will occur much more frequently. Why? Because the ocean is warming, meaning it holds more heat. When typhoons and other weather events have more heat, they need to dissipate it somewhere. This increases the frequency and intensity of these events. We've always had typhoons and wildfires, but their scale is now incomparable to the past. Events that never happened before are now occurring, and if we were to list these examples, there would be no end. Just two or three weeks ago, as part of my research, I visited Tongyeong.

Tongyeong has various industries, including a significant amount of fisheries and aquaculture. The ocean has become too warm. The surface water temperature, normally around 25°C, is now reaching 27-28°C. Fish like flounder and rockfish, which we commonly eat, are very sensitive to heat. Normally they survive at 25°C, but at 27-28°C, they die off. This is having a tremendous impact on industries. It's happening now. Given these issues, isn't it crucial to pay attention to international politics and policy, conduct research, share the results, and implement policy changes?

This paper, therefore, starts with the question: how can climate change be viewed from the perspectives of political science and international relations? I've heard this question a few times today. When I mention studying climate change in political science, people ask, 'Isn't this primarily the domain of natural scientists? I haven't seen many political scientists working on this.' While that might be true, it hasn't been a heavily researched area, especially in Korea. However, the need for research and policy development is precisely why it's important. Natural scientists are adept at understanding the causes and consequences of climate change. But when working with natural scientists, we often face the question, 'So what?' That's not our domain.

This diagram visualizes how climate change affects security, based on my research on climate change and economic security. While the definition of security can vary, it ultimately involves protecting national territory, the survival of citizens, and their property. Economic issues, such as natural disasters, can weaken infrastructure. We need to consider these factors. These issues were not as prevalent in the past. However, they are occurring more frequently now, necessitating the development of adaptation capabilities. Since these issues are relatively new, there are no established manuals. For example, in 2015, during a university freshman orientation event in Gyeongju, held in a large gymnasium, 70 cm of snow fell in late June. The roof collapsed, crushing several students who were about to enter university. This resulted in over a dozen fatalities.

Such incidents are occurring across the globe. Climate change directly impacts people's lives and property. This leads to increased insurance premiums and significant budget allocations for disaster response. With an annual budget of around 650 trillion won, severe typhoons, floods, or heatwaves require substantial funds not only for immediate relief but also for addressing related issues like agricultural and food supply disruptions. These events place a considerable burden on the national budget.

Ultimately, climate change is not a distant problem that causes fires elsewhere; it has significant negative economic consequences. The question arises: can climate change trigger conflicts and even armed conflict? This is also a conventional security issue. Furthermore, climate change significantly affects food production. Before coming here today, I had several meetings. I had a meal with a researcher studying soil erosion in Indonesia, and they reported serious issues there as well. Soil erosion occurs naturally, but excessive rainfall or sudden droughts can severely degrade the soil. Consequently, climate change reduces food production. As mentioned earlier, fisheries and aquaculture are also affected. Fishermen in Tongyeong can no longer catch the fish they used to. Species like squid and pollack have largely disappeared, replaced by fish that have migrated from warmer waters. These new species are not traditionally consumed in Korea, raising concerns about their safety. The aquaculture industry faces challenges from rising water temperatures and pollution, and people are hesitant to engage in it. It's a dire situation that evokes a strong sense of urgency.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

Third, there is the aspect of security. While conventional security issues like nuclear weapons or military defense are important, the concept of security, in my view, ultimately encompasses protecting people's lives, property, and assets. Simply put, the losses are in the trillions of won, as mentioned earlier. We haven't had major wars for quite some time, but a single typhoon can cause trillions of won in losses and result in tens of deaths. If security means protecting the lives and property of citizens, what could be more important than this? Beyond direct fatalities, there are also significant indirect impacts. How climate change becomes a security threat is a major question. Another characteristic of the climate change issue is the conflict between developed and developing countries, stemming from historical responsibilities. Therefore, how should this issue be approached in terms of international development cooperation? And finally, or rather, not finally, but in this research and lecture, we will discuss new actors.

While nations are central, there are other significant actors. Who are these actors, and what roles do they play? These are the main topics. Although it's a bit small, regarding the responsibilities and roles of developed and developing countries in addressing climate change, those who have historically emitted more greenhouse gases should bear more responsibility. China is currently number one, and the US is second. Looking at this graph, light green represents North America, and red represents Asia. This shows cumulative emissions from around 1751, when the Industrial Revolution began. The US has the largest share. China's emissions, though starting later around the 1970s-80s, contribute significantly to cumulative emissions due to their sheer volume. In contrast, the EU, comprising 28 countries, emits less than the US, considering its size. Meanwhile, countries in Africa and other regions, despite their large landmasses, have very low emission levels. South and West Asia also have relatively low emissions. However, who suffers the most? Typically, it's regions in Africa and Asia, particularly South and Southeast Asia. For instance, floods in Pakistan can cause up to 1,500 deaths. So, in terms of climate change response responsibilities and roles of developed and developing countries, when you go to climate change negotiations, developing countries always argue, 'You should take responsibility because you've emitted more historically.' Developed countries might respond, 'We're not sure about that; we need financial assistance.' These disputes continue. Therefore, a principle was established: Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR).

The first point is the interaction between political processes and markets concerning international economic issues, particularly trade, finance, energy, and resources. This interaction is at the core of what is called IPE (International Political Economy), and climate change is central to IPE. We need to understand this aspect well. Furthermore, this is not just a broad concept of IPE; it manifests concretely in policies, such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which is emerging as a trade regulation. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) also has similar characteristics.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

Then, who addresses that? It's people like us in social sciences and policy fields. How can we use those findings to develop solutions at the international, national, and regional levels? That's what we believe our role is. Therefore, rather than delving into each specific topic, this research focuses on identifying the crucial questions and themes when viewing climate change through the lens of international relations. I will now discuss these points.

This doesn't mean developed countries alone should bear responsibility. The biggest issue is that given the current pace of economic development and greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, even if developed countries significantly reduce their historical emissions, it won't be enough without the participation of developing countries. Thus, the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' suggests that developed countries should reduce emissions further, and developing countries should be supported in their emission reduction efforts. According to a source from the JoongAng Daily, although the unit might be different, China emits about 10 billion tons annually out of the total 60 billion tons. This is more than a tenfold increase compared to the 1960s, about a 13-fold increase. The US now emits about half of China's amount, around 5 billion tons. The US has entered a phase of decoupling, where economic growth occurs while greenhouse gas emissions decrease. Decoupling can be applied in various contexts, but in climate change, it refers to economic growth with reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Looking at the historical data, from 1850 onwards, developed countries accounted for 61% of emissions, and developing countries for 39% (or around 40%), resulting in a ratio of about 70:30. Therefore, responsibility lies not solely with developed countries or developing countries, but with both, considering historical emissions and current trends. International agreements prior to the Paris Agreement, such as the Kyoto Protocol, differed significantly. The Kyoto Protocol was based on 'common but differentiated responsibilities,' obligating only 38 developed countries, those that had historically emitted significant amounts of greenhouse gases, to reduce emissions.

However, many countries withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, leading to its ineffectiveness. Recognizing this, the Paris Agreement shifted the emphasis towards 'common' responsibility. All countries are now obligated to reduce emissions. This is embodied in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Each country has pledged to reduce emissions according to their NDCs. The goal is to collectively limit the global temperature increase to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels.

This figure lacks a clear source, but it's from one of my research projects. The question is about compliance. While many countries set ambitious targets, the real question is whether they actually meet them. Under the Kyoto Protocol, not all countries were required to reduce emissions by the same amount. Even among Annex I countries, those with a long history of high greenhouse gas emissions were required to reduce more, while some developed countries that were later industrializers were allowed to reduce less or even increase emissions slightly. For example, the UK was required to reduce emissions by 8% by 2012 compared to 1990 levels, while Canada could increase emissions by 10%. On average, the reduction target was about 5%. This was the Kyoto Protocol. Although the graph is unclear, the idea is to show whether countries actually met their targets. If the red line represents the target, going below it means not meeting the target. Going above it means exceeding the target. If a country pledged to reduce by 5% and actually reduced by 7%, it overachieved by 2%. But if it pledged to reduce by 5% and emitted 10% more, it was 15% non-compliant. Many countries were found to be below the target line, meaning they were non-compliant. People focus on plans, like the carbon neutrality plan for 2050 or the 40% reduction plan by 2030, but the Kyoto Protocol also saw significant non-compliance.

Looking at the period from 2000 to 2010, this study, using a panel data approach, found that countries with higher consumption levels were less likely to comply. In essence, the message is that while climate agreements and NDCs are important, NDCs are ultimately about 'doing your best.' Not everyone can achieve everything. However, the Paris Agreement mandates Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) at the international level, while countries determine their own contributions (NDCs). This MRV process has just begun. Future research will examine whether countries will truly adhere to their roadmaps. Action is more important than plans. There is ample room for research in this area, from the negotiation processes within climate change agreements to compliance. If you are interested in research, the field of international relations related to climate change agreements offers many research opportunities. Second, let's discuss trade and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Trade significantly influences international production and consumption, and trade itself is related to greenhouse gas emissions. Research explores how trade impacts climate change.

Does increased trade lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, or does it lead to lower emissions? What is the impact of trade on greenhouse gas emissions? In the field of IPE, this is a common area of study. If you have studied IPE, you might be familiar with research on the impact of trade on labor markets and its connection to domestic politics. Similarly, in Climate Change IPE, we can research how trade affects climate change.

Beyond the volume of trade, there are other issues. Free trade is no longer feasible due to various problems, particularly those related to carbon emissions. This leads to the creation of trade barriers under the guise of climate change mitigation, such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Research questions include why these mechanisms are created, how they function, and what their impacts are. For example, some studies analyze how trade openness and financial development reduce CO2 emissions, while increased consumption of non-renewable energy through trade increases emissions.

So, what's the takeaway? The proposal is to create a 'climate club.' A club implies that members receive certain benefits while non-members are excluded. For instance, in Europe, companies face higher production costs due to carbon taxes. If other countries export goods without considering carbon emissions, their products will be cheaper. Therefore, Europe plans to impose a tariff equivalent to the carbon tax on goods from non-member countries. This is the concept of a climate club. Nobel laureate William Nordhaus, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics, proposed the Carbon Border Mechanism (CBM). While it can be seen as a way to protect domestic industries under the pretext of climate change, it also addresses the issue of exporting companies producing goods without considering carbon emissions. Nordhaus argued that agreements are ineffective without sanctions against non-participants. As we saw with the Kyoto Protocol, non-compliance was rampant because there were no penalties. Economists proposed that non-compliant entities should face penalties, such as tariffs. This is the idea behind imposing retaliatory tariffs on non-participants in a climate club, forcing them to consider the issue more seriously to sell their goods.

Currently, companies exporting to Europe, especially those in carbon-intensive industries, are facing significant challenges. This is why ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is not just about corporate social responsibility or donating money. The reality for businesses is far more pressing than you might think, as it directly impacts their revenue. They might have to sell their products at higher prices. While these mechanisms are still in the design phase and some are being piloted, for those interested in international political economy, understanding the impact of CBAM on different industries and countries offers a wealth of research opportunities. Moreover, this research is not merely academic; it can have significant practical implications for businesses.

This is also a major research topic. The third topic is security. This is research I have recently submitted for publication, though it's not yet published. As mentioned earlier, climate change is increasingly being discussed as a security issue. Extreme heat, floods, and wildfires severely impact ecosystems, infrastructure, and human lives. Conflicts over shared water resources, such as the dispute between the US and Mexico over the Rio Grande, are escalating. The southern regions of the US, like San Diego, California, and New Mexico, are arid areas. Rivers flow through these regions, but severe droughts can render them unusable. Water is essential for everything. If the US faces water shortages, Mexico does too. Mexico might seek to divert water, which the US would likely oppose. Issues related to shared rivers can lead to significant conflicts. If not resolved properly, these can escalate into serious disputes.

However, this is about what we should do about it. There are also arguments for creating a 'climate club.' A club, by definition, offers benefits to its members while excluding non-members. In other words, Europe, which imposes high carbon taxes on its industries, making products like steel more expensive, faces competition from countries that export goods without similar carbon considerations at much lower prices. Therefore, the EU plans to impose a tariff, similar to a carbon tax, on such imports. This is the concept of a climate club and related mechanisms. William Nordhaus, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics, proposed the Carbon Border Mechanism (CBM). While it can be seen as a way to protect domestic industries under the guise of climate change, it also addresses the issue of exporting companies producing goods without considering carbon emissions. Nordhaus argued that agreements are ineffective without sanctions against non-participants. As we saw with the Kyoto Protocol, non-compliance was rampant because there were no penalties. Economists proposed that non-compliant entities should face penalties, such as tariffs. This is the idea behind imposing retaliatory tariffs on non-participants in a climate club, forcing them to consider the issue more seriously to sell their goods.

This diagram visualizes how climate change affects security, based on my research on climate change and economic security. While the definition of security can vary, it ultimately involves protecting national territory, the survival of citizens, and their property. Economic issues, such as natural disasters, can weaken infrastructure. We need to consider these factors. These issues were not as prevalent in the past. However, they are occurring more frequently now, necessitating the development of adaptation capabilities. Since these issues are relatively new, there are no established manuals. For example, in 2015, during a university freshman orientation event in Gyeongju, held in a large gymnasium, 70 cm of snow fell in late June. The roof collapsed, crushing several students who were about to enter university. This resulted in over a dozen fatalities.

Such incidents are occurring across the globe. Climate change directly impacts people's lives and property. This leads to increased insurance premiums and significant budget allocations for disaster response. With an annual budget of around 650 trillion won, severe typhoons, floods, or heatwaves require substantial funds not only for immediate relief but also for addressing related issues like agricultural and food supply disruptions. These events place a considerable burden on the national budget.

Ultimately, climate change is not a distant problem that causes fires elsewhere; it has significant negative economic consequences. The question arises: can climate change trigger conflicts and even armed conflict? This is also a conventional security issue. Furthermore, climate change significantly affects food production. Before coming here today, I had several meetings. I had a meal with a researcher studying soil erosion in Indonesia, and they reported serious issues there as well. Soil erosion occurs naturally, but excessive rainfall or sudden droughts can severely degrade the soil. Consequently, climate change reduces food production. As mentioned earlier, fisheries and aquaculture are also affected. Fishermen in Tongyeong can no longer catch the fish they used to. Species like squid and pollack have largely disappeared, replaced by fish that have migrated from warmer waters. These new species are not traditionally consumed in Korea, raising concerns about their safety. The aquaculture industry faces challenges from rising water temperatures and pollution, and people are hesitant to engage in it. It's a dire situation that evokes a strong sense of urgency.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

These are major research topics. The third topic is security. This is research I have recently submitted for publication, though it's not yet published. As mentioned earlier, climate change is increasingly being discussed as a security issue. Extreme heat, floods, and wildfires severely impact ecosystems, infrastructure, and human lives. Conflicts over shared water resources, such as the dispute between the US and Mexico over the Rio Grande, are escalating. The southern regions of the US, like San Diego, California, and New Mexico, are arid areas. Rivers flow through these regions, but severe droughts can render them unusable. Water is essential for everything. If the US faces water shortages, Mexico does too. Mexico might seek to divert water, which the US would likely oppose. Issues related to shared rivers can lead to significant conflicts. If not resolved properly, these can escalate into serious disputes.

This diagram visualizes how climate change affects security, based on my research on climate change and economic security. While the definition of security can vary, it ultimately involves protecting national territory, the survival of citizens, and their property. Economic issues, such as natural disasters, can weaken infrastructure. We need to consider these factors. These issues were not as prevalent in the past. However, they are occurring more frequently now, necessitating the development of adaptation capabilities. Since these issues are relatively new, there are no established manuals. For example, in 2015, during a university freshman orientation event in Gyeongju, held in a large gymnasium, 70 cm of snow fell in late June. The roof collapsed, crushing several students who were about to enter university. This resulted in over a dozen fatalities.

Such incidents are occurring across the globe. Climate change directly impacts people's lives and property. This leads to increased insurance premiums and significant budget allocations for disaster response. With an annual budget of around 650 trillion won, severe typhoons, floods, or heatwaves require substantial funds not only for immediate relief but also for addressing related issues like agricultural and food supply disruptions. These events place a considerable burden on the national budget.

Ultimately, climate change is not a distant problem that causes fires elsewhere; it has significant negative economic consequences. The question arises: can climate change trigger conflicts and even armed conflict? This is also a conventional security issue. Furthermore, climate change significantly affects food production. Before coming here today, I had several meetings. I had a meal with a researcher studying soil erosion in Indonesia, and they reported serious issues there as well. Soil erosion occurs naturally, but excessive rainfall or sudden droughts can severely degrade the soil. Consequently, climate change reduces food production. As mentioned earlier, fisheries and aquaculture are also affected. Fishermen in Tongyeong can no longer catch the fish they used to. Species like squid and pollack have largely disappeared, replaced by fish that have migrated from warmer waters. These new species are not traditionally consumed in Korea, raising concerns about their safety. The aquaculture industry faces challenges from rising water temperatures and pollution, and people are hesitant to engage in it. It's a dire situation that evokes a strong sense of urgency.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

Ultimately, climate change is not a distant problem that causes fires elsewhere; it has significant negative economic consequences. The question arises: can climate change trigger conflicts and even armed conflict? This is also a conventional security issue. Furthermore, climate change significantly affects food production. Before coming here today, I had several meetings. I had a meal with a researcher studying soil erosion in Indonesia, and they reported serious issues there as well. Soil erosion occurs naturally, but excessive rainfall or sudden droughts can severely degrade the soil. Consequently, climate change reduces food production. As mentioned earlier, fisheries and aquaculture are also affected. Fishermen in Tongyeong can no longer catch the fish they used to. Species like squid and pollack have largely disappeared, replaced by fish that have migrated from warmer waters. These new species are not traditionally consumed in Korea, raising concerns about their safety. The aquaculture industry faces challenges from rising water temperatures and pollution, and people are hesitant to engage in it. It's a dire situation that evokes a strong sense of urgency.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

These are the problems. Climate change also affects the environment for food production, including water availability. As mentioned, nothing can be done without water. Water scarcity is particularly severe in the Jeolla provinces of South Korea. This water shortage significantly impacts agriculture. Although a report for this year is not yet available, last year, Taiwan, home to the semiconductor company TSMC, experienced severe drought. Semiconductor factories require vast amounts of water for cooling and processing. The lack of water led them to divert agricultural water, as it was more profitable. Farmers received some compensation, but such situations are becoming increasingly common. Discussions are underway with companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix about these issues. Physical resources are critical. We need to understand how these factors will unfold not only now but also under various climate change scenarios, such as RCP and SSP scenarios. In the future, water scarcity could impede semiconductor production, not just market access. These issues can lead to a decline in food security and have complex interactions with other factors. Therefore, climate-related elements can contribute to international conflicts, disputes, national economic security, and human well-being. Security, whether referred to as new security, emerging security, or non-traditional security, fundamentally aims to protect the nation, its people, their lives, and property, along with the ecosystem. Climate change is a critical issue that requires serious consideration, research, and policy recommendations.

We also need to make proposals. The fourth point is about development cooperation, which I believe many students interested in will be curious about. Regarding the previous point about how to respond to other responsibilities, specifically the historical responsibilities of developed and developing countries, what does it mean to reduce emissions overseas? It means that reducing one ton of emissions in Korea is more expensive due to labor costs and other factors. Therefore, reducing one ton of emissions in Indonesia or Vietnam costs less. However, with this lower cost, the same amount of emission reduction is recognized as Korea's reduction. Previously, this was called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and now it is the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), which is a win-win situation.

Specifically, how does this proceed? Greenhouse gases, particularly methane (CH4), have a significant impact on global warming. Methane is also largely generated from landfills. The smell and other issues are mainly due to methane. So, what did we do to reduce methane? Do you know the place called Nanjido? It is now Haneul Park and Noeul Park. It was a 100-meter-high landfill, and they covered it all with concrete.

Then, they extract methane from within it. Methane is used. This allows for greenhouse gas reduction. This is what they are doing in places like Mongolia. So, Mongolia benefits from waste treatment, and we can use the reduction as our overseas reduction credit. Development cooperation, in practice, is not just academic research; there are tangible targets. Therefore, how to identify good projects is one of the areas that KOICA and GIZ are most interested in.

For example, the research on 'Decoupling' that I mentioned earlier is currently being revised after its completion. My first research on decoupling focused on Europe. Some European countries are experiencing decoupling, meaning that while the economy grows, greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing. Why is this happening? It was found that countries using carbon pricing mechanisms like the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) are experiencing decoupling. While conducting such research, I wondered if this was only happening in Europe and decided to examine developing countries. Decoupling must also occur in developing countries. While advocating for degrowth might be appealing, a shrinking economic pie tends to lead to job losses as well.

Therefore, shouldn't growth be sustainable? While opinions differ, I believe so. Even with a small growth scale, a certain level of stagnation or similar scale is necessary for continuous job creation. If that decreases, for example, if South Korea's GDP of about 2,000 trillion won grows by 1.1%, that's 20 trillion won. That's how it is now. But if that decreases by 20 trillion won, it would be a huge blow.

In any case, I have my thoughts, but everyone's opinions differ slightly. However, when I analyzed about 90 developing countries, there were countries that decoupled from climate change. The main reason these countries could decouple was climate change aid. This is based on empirical analysis using panel data. Ultimately, there aren't many technologies, and often they cannot be empirically applied. Therefore, by providing education and equipment to enable such actions, jobs, companies, and industries can be created in developing countries as well.

This also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When considering FDI and various other variables, aid was found to have the most positive impact on decoupling. This research is not yet published, but it likely will be soon. Finally, there is research on actors, and as mentioned earlier, research on international organizations is very important. International organizations play diverse roles. I strongly recommend two programs not only for those in the UK but for anyone interested in these issues. One is the International Environmental Experts Training Program. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it involves sending students as interns to international environmental organizations. After about a month of training, they cover airfare and provide some living expenses for a six-month internship at an international organization.

These days, there are many such programs. When I interned at an international organization, interns typically received no pay and had to cover their own expenses, including airfare. However, the government offers such programs for young people. Yonsei University has consistently offered such programs, and Dr. Sung has continued them. Although it's currently on hold, there's also the International Climate and Environmental Experts Training Program run by the Korea Meteorological Administration. It's similar in format. These programs allow people to understand what international organizations do. People often have an idealized view of international organizations when they think of diplomacy. You have to see it to understand. I found it interesting, but it wasn't quite the right fit for me.

They do a good job. Your seniors have done well. I hope more of you will participate in such programs. International organizations are also very diverse. For students I advise who are interested in these issues, I encourage them to explore opportunities. There are international organizations related to renewable energy like IRENA, as well as RPCS and UNSC, among many others. Depending on your interests, you can gain practical experience and conduct research. I won't introduce all of them here, as there are papers and resources available.

Regarding international organizations, research is important, but I want to emphasize the value of gaining practical experience if you are interested. Another important actor is the city. I am actually a researcher in this field, studying cities and climate change. It's interesting for a political scientist to focus on cities rather than just nations. When I interned at an international organization, I worked on a project called 'Provincial Climate Change.' At that time, there was a lot of turmoil, and countries were withdrawing. While national governments were disengaging, provinces and states in the US, and even smaller entities than provinces,

cities, took a stance of 'You may not do it, but we will.' They formed networks not just as individual cities but among cities, which I call 'translocal relations.' I will elaborate on this later when answering questions. At that moment, I realized I had to write my dissertation on this topic, and I wrote my doctoral dissertation on 'Global City Climate Change,' which became this book. I continue to research this area. This demonstrates that not only nations but also cities can engage in international relations beyond borders, with climate change being the most prominent example.

This is the concept. Translocal relations – this term didn't exist before. When translated into Korean, it became 'chojisbang gwangye' (super-local relations), which sounds like a type of milk. As briefly mentioned earlier, corporations are also a crucial subject. In South Korea, the annual emissions are... I keep forgetting the numbers because so many are mentioned. It's 700 million tons. If we consider only companies emitting over 1 million tons, they account for 85%, nearly 600 million tons. Among these, the top 10 emitters, each exceeding 1 million tons, are responsible for half of the total 700 million tons.

Individual efforts are important. I carry a tumbler and use public transportation, trying to minimize my impact. This might be amplified by my field of study. Individual efforts are important, but we need to address the root causes. Corporations are the cause. The top emitters alone account for 85%; the top 10 account for 50%. Without addressing the primary causes, shifting the blame to individuals for not carrying a tumbler, driving a car, or using air conditioning excessively – while these actions are not unimportant – is misdirected. The crucial point is not to focus on the root cause while shifting responsibility.

Indeed. That's why I work extensively with corporations these days. Corporations don't emit greenhouse gases intentionally; it's inherent to their industry. It's often unavoidable, and they make significant efforts. I've been advising students since receiving my doctorate in 2010 and working as a professor in Hong Kong for three years before joining Yonsei University in 2013. It's been about 10 or 11 years, and I've supervised approximately 27 students.

All of my master's and doctoral students have either found employment or pursued further studies. Nowadays, not everyone believes they need to pursue higher education; opportunities are limited, and it's challenging. However, many of these students are moving into ESG. Most recently, they've focused on ESG. Although I specialize in political science and social sciences, a good understanding of 'E' (Environmental) and 'S' (Social) can be acquired through other courses. A student who recently graduated has gone into consulting, and another, who graduated just before, joined Patagonia, a T-shirt company that allocates 1% of its revenue to environmental campaigns. They provide support to about 60 small but solid environmental organizations facing difficulties in their local communities.

They don't just provide financial support; they actively engage with the organizations, fostering a sense of shared purpose. Witnessing these activities, I conduct research and provide education on these aspects. Tomorrow, a book I co-authored, 'Future Careers in Political Science and Diplomacy,' will be published. When I was the director of BK21, we published a book titled 'Career Development in Political Science Education' with students. The subtitle was 'What Can You Do with Political Science to Make a Living?' I believe that while the content of education is crucial, universities should also assist in career development, though they are not vocational training centers.

Career development is an individual endeavor, but curricula can support it. Therefore, I offer such courses and write books. While everyone has different interests, if you've developed an interest in climate change, you can pursue research in this diverse field. Alternatively, you can leverage this interest to work in the field, not just through altruism or volunteerism, which have limitations. Instead of saying 'we must do this,' let's earn a living while doing good for the environment and the community. I believe this is the core of 'shadow work' – the most effective approach. When more such activities take place, corporate sustainability and climate change responses will likely become more effective.

In conclusion, climate change is indeed a difficult problem to solve. What problem isn't difficult? However, it is particularly challenging due to conflicting national interests and responsibilities, and the varied impacts of climate change. Firstly, research on climate change response and responsibility between developed and developing countries, along with development aid, constitutes a significant area of international development cooperation and corporate engagement. A book on this topic is likely to be published next year. Additionally, issues like climate clubs and trade are extremely pressing concerns for corporations, demanding immediate attention. There is a need for theoretical, academic, and policy-oriented interest in these areas. Security issues are also relevant, as extreme weather events continue to increase. We need to consider how to respond to each of these. Today, before meeting with representatives from Indonesia, I met with individuals from SK. We are collaborating on these matters. One reason for this is that I am leading a national R&D project funded by the Ministry of Environment focused on climate change adaptation living labs, a six-year project involving about 40 researchers.

The project has a budget of approximately 6.6 billion won. A crucial component is how corporations can adapt to climate change. Currently, companies are primarily focused on mitigation—reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and are less knowledgeable about adaptation. This presents an opportunity for people like us. It's an opportunity for corporations too; excelling in this area positions them as leaders. Therefore, instead of merely viewing companies as being at risk or in crisis, understanding that adapting to climate change can reduce costs and generate profits is key. If POSCO had avoided a 2 trillion won loss, it would be equivalent to earning 2 trillion won.

So, with a scale of about 6.6 billion, a very important component within that is how companies will adapt to climate change. However, companies are currently more interested in mitigation, that is, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and are less familiar with adaptation. This presents an opportunity for people like us, as it is also an opportunity for companies. If they do well in this area, they can become leaders. Therefore, it's not just about companies facing risks or crises; it's about turning crises into opportunities. Reducing costs associated with these risks is equivalent to making money. If POSCO doesn't incur a 2 trillion won loss, isn't that equivalent to earning 2 trillion won?

That was a loss. Furthermore, operations were halted for about six to seven months due to the pandemic. How could they operate? Beyond that, how can market value be created in this area? Corporations exist to make money. They are not charities; they must first generate profits to distribute them. Therefore, we are researching with corporations on how to create market value related to mitigation and adaptation. Local governments are also participating in this project. While these efforts are important domestically, they are all interconnected and represent crucial elements in international development cooperation and international relations. In essence, climate change is an area within political science and international relations that, while not extensively studied yet, offers significant scope for research. Therefore, even in this single lecture, I hope you will develop an interest and pursue further study. You might find it enjoyable, and who knows, it might become a part of your future career, allowing you to consider environmental factors while working.

In summary, climate change is a complex issue. There are many areas that have not yet been extensively explored in political science or international relations, but offer substantial research potential. Therefore, even though this is just a single lecture, I encourage you to cultivate your interest and engage in further study. You might find it enjoyable, and perhaps it will become part of your career, allowing you to incorporate environmental considerations into your work. This could lead to opportunities where you contribute positively to the environment and society while pursuing your professional goals.