This article is first published in South China Morning Post on November 13, 2021.

Liu Jun, Member of IMI Academic Committee, President of Bank of Communications.

·Business as usual with a coat of green paint is not enough to ensure the survival of future generations

·Moving to a green economy is a process full of vision, value, cooperation and hard work that can turn creative destruction into creative construction

Go green before green goes. Otherwise, the “green swan” - a devastating climate event with far-reaching social, economic and financial impact - is likely to shock humanity in a disruptive way, much like its cousin the “black swan”. Climate change is real and the challenges are too severe to be ignored, even temporarily.

The core of climate risk mitigation lies in transitioning from a brown economy to a green one. A brown economy prioritises economic performance over environmental capacity. Its self-reinforcing nature requires a dramatic correction and reconstruction.

According to the Banque de France, a business-as-usual approach could see climate change cut global GDP by 12 percent through to 2100. Therefore, a green economy is essential and a more sustainable substitute.

A green economy, according to the UN Environment Programme, is one that brings about improved human well-being and social equity while reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcity.

A green economy is not about “greenwashing” - disguising carbon emissions under a coat of green paint - or “greenflation”, or striving for green goals without any budgetary constraints. Going green in both heart and deed is required.

Six relationships need to be balanced to achieve sustainable, green development. First, there is balancing sustainable development and geopolitical competition.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals call for a global partnership to combat climate change, but that is lacking at the moment. At the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, developed economies pledged US$100 billion a year by 2020 for developing countries, but they have failed to deliver.

Another example is that US-China cooperation on climate change often encounters setbacks. The United States views China's electric vehicle batteries as at hreat and included high-capacity batteries in its review of supply chains earlier this year.

Second, there is balancing decarbonisation with development needs. Historical emissions and different stages of development must be taken into account. The US and Europe have contributed the majority of global emissions since the Industrial Revolution.

Ultra-low emissions technology and clean-coal systems have demonstrated some promise. In 2020, China's carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour of thermal power were down by 20.6 per cent compared to 2005 levels.

Fourth, there is balancing mature, emerging and future technologies. The International Energy Agency has developed a maturity model with 11 levels covering more than 400 green technologies. Only 6 per cent are at full maturity while 60 percent are below the demonstration level, which is referred to as the “valley of death”.

Few technologies have a proven record of large-scale, tangible decarbonisation. Technology development requires generational progress, with feedback from former generations improving the feasibility of their successors. If certain technologies boast theoretical effectiveness yet overlook scalability, they are unlikely to contribute much.

Fifth, there is balancing environmental and non-environmental factors. Green development is not solely an environmental issue but can be social, political and technological as well. Renewable energy projects sometimes trigger “not in my backyard” sentiments when social and public interests come into play.

Besides, efforts from all nations might not translate to global action as progress and commitment differ from country to country. In the pursuit of carbon neutrality, only about a dozen countries have set legally binding targets while five have proposed legislation in the works. The rest have only issued policy agendas.

In terms of technology, what is true for individuals is not always true for the whole. Hybrid electric vehicles are seen as a green option because of their lower emissions, but drastic growth in their numbers could lead to an overall rise in emissions even without including the added emissions from electricity generation.

Finally, there is balancing losses and gains over the generations. Climate change affects multiple generations as the actions of previous generations translate to present-day pain. Since 2000, flood-related disasters have risen by 134 per cent and the number and duration of droughts by 29per cent compared with the previous two decades.

With that in mind, we should ensure the right of survival for future generations. Even as we try to reduce emissions, global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next 30 years. The vast majority of today's teenagers will still be alive in 2050-they are not some irrelevant future generations but our children and grandchildren.

The green economy transformation is a process full of vision, value, cooperation and hard work. Through this, creative destruction can be turned into creative construction.