Club convened a gathering with Dmitry Konov
Chat Transcript:
Nikolai Uskov: Alright, let's dive into some chat about your situation, Dmitry. First off, being on our list sure as hell ain't doing you any favors, 'cause it gets you labeled as shady by the haters. Take that burglary incident, for example. Nothing to do with our website, but still, folks are quick to name you a modern-day Robin Hood who stole the cash and splurged it on coke. Talk about misplaced blame!
Dmitry Konov: You bet it gets messy. Look, here's an example. Our humble abode was burgled, but folks on social media are buzzing about some alleged shady dealings and drug use because, hey, I'm on this list, right? I guess the causal link is lost on 'em, so I come across as a bad egg to a broader audience.
N.U.: I see you're one of the exceptional few on our list who's not your own boss, but manages to make waves in a big corporation as a high-ranking exec. Ever feel tied down by the chains of employment, or is the juicy taskload worth the compromise?
D.K.: Nah, it ain't a problem. The opportunity to tackle significant and diverse tasks is what keeps me here. If I worked for a smaller, less ambitious company, the tasks and challenges would be way more limited, IMHO. And the freedom? Well, loop me in if you find a spot on a beach in Goa that offers full freedom without no-nos.
N.U.: Joining Sibur was a brave move, given your background in finance. Did you feel lost taking over a chemical company, or was that just par for the course?
D.K.: Look, the nineties and all that specialization stuff ain't nothing to brag about. Yeah, I was in finance, but I'd already dealt with Sibur even before I joined the team. They were one of my clients back then, so I had a hint of what Sibur was all about. When they came calling, it was an opportunity too good to pass up, even if it meant potentially ruining my career if I couldn't turn things around.
N.U.: Was it a ballsy move? If I were in your shoes, the thought of taking control of a chemical company would've sent me fleeing for the hills, but you seemed cool as a cucumber.
D.K.: Nah, I didn't feel lost. The inside scoop on Sibur helped, and I could see huge potential for positive change. I guess the upside was far greater than the downside, so the risk was worth the gamble.
N.U.: I caught your interview with Andrei Vandenko of TASS, where you talked about the new owner, new shareholder, and the current shareholder sticking with your team. You seemed delighted about the trust they showed in what you were doing. Did you have complete faith in Mikhailson, or were you skeptical about his understanding of the industry?
D.K.: He bought the joint, so if I wasn't digging him, I needed to either walk away or adapt. I guess it's all about governance: rules, trust, and understanding. It was never a walk in the park, but it was a choice I made at certain moments.
N.U.: We're here talking about the environment, and it seems like some eco-warriors have got it all wrong with their naive ideas of a Golden Age of nature untouched by humankind. I'm more inclined to agree with Thomas Hobbes, who said that life in the past was harsh and cutthroat, but we've made progress despite the environmental impact. What do you think?
D.K.: Ecology, or the fight against environmental problems, goes hand in hand with prosperity. Think about it: fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise, so we gotta cut back. But then there's the debate between developed and developing countries, and their complaints about being unfairly targeted. Developing countries argue: "You've had your growth, your prosperity, now it's our turn. Don't stifle our growth and improvement by limiting our emissions." On the other side, wealthy nations have a point when they argue that developing countries are emitting more now, so they should be the first to be limited.
N.U.: I get it, but developing countries may not have the financial means to address ecological challenges. Trying to sell 'em wind turbines is like trying to sell 'em the Hope Diamond - nice in theory, but practicality ain't there yet.
D.K.: Wind and sun power could potentially be their best bet, given the abundance of sunlight in many developing countries. Granted, there's a hefty price tag for building the infrastructure, but what if they skipped the traditional fossil fuel-based path and went straight to renewable energy? Imagine having electric cars that cost the same as cars with internal combustion engines, but provided cleaner, cheaper transportation. Sounds too good to be true? Maybe, but it's possible.
N.U.: A day is coming when powerful economies will cut ties with us and refuse to touch our goods, like oil, gas, machinery, and steel, because they'll accuse us of polluting the planet. What if that happens, man?
D.K.: Let's tackle that EU border carbon adjustment, shall we? The idea is to levy additional taxes on products coming from countries that haven't reduced their carbon emissions as much as the EU wants. It's a contentious issue, but their main argument makes sense: "We're going carbon-neutral, and our companies are investing in tech that minimizes their carbon footprint, so we shouldn't negotiate fair competition with companies from countries that are still polluting."
N.U.: So, what about us? Are we naive to think that our vast forests will save us from the wrath of these environmentalists?
D.K.: I'm afraid it ain't about counting trees anymore. Europe's plan seems to be to go against every other nation, and the EU's logic is there to some extent. You bet it'll be tough for us, especially for certain industries. Some might struggle because they'll face higher costs and reduced marketability.
N.U.: Is the chemical industry public enemy number one, then?
D.K.: Nah, it ain't all bad. Chemistry has been solving humanity's problems for centuries, and it continues to do so. For example, synthetic materials are lighter and more durable than their natural counterparts, which means they save fuel and emissions when used in cars or as packaging. Plastic does get a bad rap, but it's mainly due to perceptions about packaging waste. Let's not forget that the chemical industry is accountable for just 15% of plastic waste, while the remaining 85% offers valuable solutions that can't be achieved with other materials.
N.U.: I'm all for waste sorting and recycling, reuse. What do you think, Dmitri?
D.K.: Reuse, definitely. It's about adopting technologies that allow us to reuse recyclable waste, like plastic bottles, multiple times. However, we're not quite there yet, especially when it comes to recycling trash like plastic bags or food containers. Right now, the ideal solution is finding a balance between enforcement, incentives, and a circular economy. For example, banning red plastic bottles and promoting shared or reusable consumption would increase recycling rates.
N.U.: What's the most promising recycling technology on the table, Dmitri?
D.K.: Diversity is key here. We're not putting all our eggs in one basket. The path to sustainable recycling lies in multiple directions, including bio-based or biodegradable materials and cleaner technologies. For example, Europe might require a certain percentage of recycled content in any primary product, encouraging the use of secondary recycled materials.
N.U.: So, how much more will life cost us if we meet all these eco-friendly standards you're talking about?
D.K.: If we look at nominal prices, it could potentially raise costs by tens of percentage points. In other words, decarbonization could lead to increased expenses across the board. But don't be surprised if we start building houses out of plastic in the future.
N.U.: Thanks for hanging with me, Dmitri.
D.K.: My pleasure.
- Dmitry Konov finds it frustrating that being on a list can label him as shady, despite his burglary incident having no connection to the website.
- Dmitry Konov manages to excel in a big corporation as a high-ranking executive, finding the diversity of tasks appealing compared to a smaller, less ambitious company.
- Dmitry Konov felt confident when he took over Sibur, a chemical company, due to his prior relationship with the company and the potential for positive change.
- Dmitry Konov believes that the environmental impact of technological progress should be weighed against the benefits it offers, and that developed countries should consider more practical solutions for developing countries instead of imposing restrictive regulations.
- Dmitry Konov sees potential in renewable energy solutions, such as wind and solar power, for developing countries, as they may enable cost-effective, clean transportation.
- Dmitry Konov acknowledges the potential difficulties that industries may face due to increased carbon taxes, but believes that the chemical industry has the capability to continue providing valuable solutions and adapt to new environmental standards.
