Integrating research, education, and global Policy: an interview with Min Bae-hyeon

The current wave of competent researchers, business leaders, and climate activists commonly look up to one group of people—the future leaders who tackle climate change. One individual who cultivates such aspiring future climate leaders is Min Bae-hyeon, a professor at Ewha University. 

This extensive fruitful discussion with Professor Min provided substantive insights into the uniqueness of his Climate and Energy Systems Engineering Department and its wide-ranging applications to solving climate change in real life. As an avid researcher of CCS and follower of ETS himself, Professor Min also discussed these strategies' potentials in developing into a promising path to net zero. 

Please tell us about your field of study.

Currently, I am a professor at the Department of Climate and Energy Systems Engineering. There, I am mainly in charge of the energy field. 

In other words, in the process of excessive use or development of energy, the environment can become polluted, so I research how we can produce energy efficiently and in an environmentally friendly way. In our department, there are professors like me who research oil and gas or CO₂ capture and storage, professors who study renewable energy like wind and solar for the future, and professors who research hydrogen energy as a future energy source.

Until now, traditionally, the fields of climate, energy, and environment each had separate departments at universities. Ewha Womans University was the first to create a department in 2017 that teaches climate and energy together. The reason is that ultimately, climate issues arise from the use of energy, and the more we move toward renewable energy, the more it is directly influenced by weather in the short term and climate in the long term. Weather data in particular directly affects how much renewable energy can be produced, and the two are interrelated.

So, since energy is a problem of climate, and climate data also affects energy production, the department was created to solve these issues together. With this vision created years ago, it now feels very timely, as the government announced in September that it would reorganize and merge the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy into a new Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Environment.

This shows that as industries develop and citizens’ awareness grows, perspectives and approaches toward not only present but also future society are changing, and people now realize that energy and environment must go together.

In this field, each has their specialty—climate, environment, or energy—and I am in charge of energy. These days, the focus is on how to organically connect the three and tackle climate and energy together. That’s what we are teaching our students, researching, and applying to solve problems in industry and society.

How do you think students’ interest and passion in these three fields are?

Very high. And it has been continuously increasing over the past 10 years. Just 10 years ago, there was still a fixed idea of “Why are climate and energy studied together?” But now people recognize they must be considered as one. Universities took the lead first, but industry soon clearly recognized this as well.

The government reorganizing departments shows that this integration is not optional but necessary. In industry, concepts like ESG that have been discussed a lot also confirm that climate and energy must be solved together. So for students majoring in this, their opportunities to contribute to society are becoming more concrete.

They are very passionate in their studies, and when they go into society, they are able to find good jobs, while those interested in research find there are many more research topics now. I believe this is a field of study that is especially receiving attention today.

So what career paths can students pursue in climate and energy?

To conduct research, they must enter graduate school. At least a master’s degree is needed, and if they truly want to continue as researchers, the doctoral course is the standard, both in Korea and abroad.

In companies, it is more diverse. Companies usually focus on one area—climate, energy, or environment—and students choose depending on their interest. If they are interested in management, many go into ESG.

ESG stands for Environment, Social, and Governance. In the past, corporate governance was seen as the most important. Now, environmental aspects are included, and companies focus on how to create social value, which in turn strengthens governance. Ultimately, this positive cycle of ESG contributes to corporate growth.

But many companies still don’t know the theories or methodologies. That’s why we are nurturing talent in this area, and I believe our department is more proactive in this than anywhere else in Korea. Compared to abroad, we are also very advanced. Of course, integration is not easy. Just putting different things together doesn’t mean fusion occurs. A real blending process is required, like in physical or chemical reactions. Since we have been doing this for 10 years, we are now in a fairly mature state.

As our activities have become known externally, more proposals come in. For example, how can climate risk be reflected in finance or insurance? If climate change increases, the variability becomes greater than the usual range, making prediction difficult. When uncertainty grows, risks such as flooding—like the Gangnam flooding and Banpo Xi apartment parking lot submergence years ago—cause great damage.

So insurance companies now must consider such risks. They need quantifiable indicators as rational bases for adjusting premiums, making some regions higher and others lower depending on relative risk. New industries are developing from this approach. As time pases, new industries emerge, and old industries find and expand with new opportunities, and this new relationship between climate change and monetary risk exemplifies that. That is why our field leads to many possible career paths.

Do you also address the social impacts of the climate crisis in your department?

Yes, of course. The approach may differ, but we do. As an engineering professor, I focus on technical solutions—for example, how meteorologists can better predict rainfall or typhoon frequency. But solving these as social problems requires connecting science with society.

In ESG, the S is for Social. The social economy focuses not just on profit, like traditional economies that mainly work on supply and demand, but also on supporting vulnerable groups so they can grow together. For example, socially vulnerable people are more at risk to climate impacts—unable to afford air conditioning during heatwaves or heating during cold spells. So we also teach how technology can be applied to create real social solutions.

Our graduate school even has an interdisciplinary cooperative program on social economy, with about 20 professors researching only this area. I also participate there as an adjunct professor.

So in that sense, it’s not something that can be done all in a single field, but rather it connects to related fields, and each person brings their own specialty to create solutions. So, when you go on to university, it’s like entering that long value chain and asking yourself, “I want to take on this much of the problem, I want to see it more broadly, but honestly, which part do I most want to contribute to?” If you think about it that way, then choosing that specific field of study and entering that department would make more sense for students who are preparing for college.

Could you tell us about your own current research?

These days I do a lot of research on CO₂ capture and storage (CCS). Society is becoming more electrified. While gasoline cars may be more efficient in energy terms, they emit CO₂ in small, scattered amounts that are hard to collect. With electric cars, although electricity production has some losses, CO₂ is not emitted at the point of use. But heavy industries that rely on carbon-based materials inevitably produce CO₂, like humans producing waste. Ideally, we wouldn’t create it, but since we do, we must capture it. That’s CCS.

Captured CO₂ can be reused to make products (utilization) or stored underground where it won’t reach the atmosphere. We then research natural phenomena to understand how CO₂ behaves underground and develop solutions to minimize our impact on ocean biodiversity, often using optimization, AI, and other methods.

I also research climate risk. For example, CO₂ trades for about 10,000 won per ton in Korea, but about 100,000 won in Europe. This has implications for carbon border taxes and international markets, as European markets demand higher carbon border tax on emission credits. So with other experts, I research future predictions of the ETS market. 

When you conduct research, do you also sometimes work together with companies or the government?

Yes. In terms of private-sector projects, there are various programs funded by government taxes. Some programs support individual researchers, while others are what we call group projects, where universities, research institutes, and companies all come together to form a consortium. They compete, and only the team that wins first place is able to receive funding and carry out the project. There are many programs like that.

So, by combining different projects, I pursue the kinds of research that I aim to do, which means government support is extremely important. In the first stage, if there is demand from industry, they can separately commission contract-based projects as well. That’s on the project side. And since I also work as a university professor, though this is not limited only to professors, professors generally have broader opportunities. For example, if there is a chance, we may also be given opportunities to work with international organizations.

In my case, although it hasn’t yet been officially announced and is still at the preliminary selection stage, I will likely serve as Korea’s representative at the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has its headquarters in Paris, starting this October and for the next three years. At the IEA, there are various initiatives to solve global energy problems, and among them, we work on greenhouse gases—in particular CCS and CCUS. So for the next three years, I expect to participate there as Korea’s representative. Again, it’s not yet finalized, but preparations are underway. In this way, professors are sometimes given opportunities to be active in international organizations.

From there, my role will also involve reflecting the latest global information back into Korea, while at the same time communicating Korea’s own needs, and asking: how can Korea’s CCS industry develop further, how can Korea’s climate-related industries grow, and how can we find more realistic and achievable climate–energy solutions (a phrase I prefer over “climate tech” because I am an energy researcher). So the focus is not only on research but also on education, and on external service activities as well. A university professor’s role essentially consists of these three: education, research, and service.

Do you think CCS or carbon emissions trading are becoming increasingly popular topics in research?

Yes, that’s correct. First of all, carbon emissions trading involves differences in national positions, so it is not just a purely economic issue but also a political one. That’s how I interpret it. But in the long run, I believe it will inevitably rise.

Right now, the world emits about 50 billion tons of CO₂ annually. If the price of carbon emissions goes up, the amount emitted will go down. At present, emissions are high, and carbon credit prices are often undervalued. As prices rise, emissions must decrease. Why? Because if emissions remain at today’s very high levels while emission costs rise sharply, industries cannot survive.

Ultimately, by 2050, emissions will have to be extremely low, and only by imposing high prices on the small remaining amount of emissions—essentially a kind of punitive tax on carbon—will the total volume decrease. In the long term, this will stabilize the industry. So I see the emissions trading market as one where prices will continue to rise, but as the emission volumes decline, the market will naturally stabilize at a reasonable level.

And in that process, it comes down to how we assign value to the Earth itself in financial terms—how we reflect that value into product prices, as I mentioned earlier—and this will impact our economy.

For example, this is still optional right now, but inevitably it will become standard. You’ve probably flown on airplanes multiple times. When you search for tickets on Google—I travel a lot for work, so I do this often—if I search for a flight from Korea to Paris, Google shows me not only the airline and seat class but also an estimate of how much CO₂ my flight will emit. Of course, it’s not perfectly accurate, but it still gives an estimate.

Then, if there’s an established price for carbon credits, that number can be multiplied. Nowadays, airlines sometimes ask: “Would you like to pay a little extra so that we can offset your emissions by planting trees?” That’s voluntary. If you refuse, then your flight simply adds that much more CO₂ to the atmosphere.

But in the future, it may not remain voluntary. Instead of “please donate if you want,” it could become like a carbon surcharge, similar to a fuel surcharge, which is compulsory. Once society reaches consensus, that will be reflected in ticket prices. Then, when airlines collect that extra money, they cannot simply pocket it; they must use it to offset carbon by planting trees or investing in carbon reduction, making the flight’s emissions net zero.

At present, these offsets are voluntary, but I believe this system will be introduced into industries across the board. Because without such institutionalized rules, we cannot meaningfully reduce carbon. In the end, it requires regulation. Carbon reduction is inherently a regulatory industry rather than a promotional one. And as I mentioned earlier, the question is: how do we implement such regulations at a reasonable level, in a way that society can collectively accept? That requires technical and policy expertise — and that’s part of what we work on.