Climate Change in Russia's Court

Climate Change in Russia's Court
Op-Ed The Moscow Times
Summary
If Russia can create the right incentives for cutting energy consumption, it has the opportunity to become a leader in energy efficiency in the coming decade.
Related Media and Tools
 

There is one boat only, and we are all in it. Science is clear on what needs to be done to avoid rocking the boat: The world needs to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius to prevent catastrophic climatic events.

But not much time is left to ensure that the next generations sail as safely as we have. The International Energy Agency, in its recently released annual report, has a stark warning: We have about five years for enacting drastic carbon emission cuts before getting “locked in” to a global temperature increase that could be excessive. Despite ongoing financial strains around the globe, delaying action is economically unreasonable. And yet, leaders convening in Durban to look for a global solution remain locked in a game of “passing the buck.” No one nation is willing on its own to take the first step and commit to a drastic new path of decarbonization. Waiting for a collective buy-in remains the first choice politically.

The time to act is now because the window of opportunity is rapidly closing. The world’s leading carbon emitters must assume leadership. With most of the attention centered on the United States and China, expectations have been far lower for another major emitter — Russia. Recently overtaken by a narrow margin by India, Russia ranks fourth in carbon emissions, and it has a lot to offer to global negotiations. Indeed, Russia played a critical role in global climate talks in the past when, by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty went into effect in 2005. But since then, Russian leaders have shied away from any further commitments that could constitute a potential economic burden.

Such a stance is not surprising. Russia remains a land of skeptics about climate change, where policymakers face little public pressure to act. Furthermore, Russian officials feel that their country has already outperformed others in cutting carbon emissions. They proudly boast that in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2009, Russia’s emissions were almost 40 percent below their 1990 levels. And, as the argument goes, Russia has been a leader in improving its energy efficiency as well: The energy intensity of its economy dropped 34 percent in the 2000-08 period.

These numbers are not false. But when officials from Moscow base their international climate policy on them, they miss the point. Leadership is about surmounting big challenges. When targets are perceived as too easy to meet, claims for being a leader in decarbonization lay on weak foundations. By selecting 1990 as the base year for carbon reduction targets, the Kyoto Protocol never posed a real challenge for Russia to start with. The country’s economic collapse in the 1990s brought a drastic drop in carbon emissions. Thus far, Russia has needed no additional efforts to meet its commitment not to exceed the emission levels of 1990. This has been true even for the 15 percent to 25 percent emission cut target promised by President Dmitry Medvedev following the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.

Likewise, improvements in Russia’s energy efficiency look remarkable at first sight, but it was primarily an outcome of the post-Soviet economic restructuring rather than a deliberate effort aimed at cutting energy consumption. Also, the declining energy intensity in the past decade came against the backdrop of a more than 20 percent rise in the preceding decade, when the economy contracted much faster than the fall in energy demand.

Yet, energy efficiency remains one area where Russia has the opportunity to truly demonstrate its leadership in the upcoming decade. This may well be the best and most cost-effective path toward a lower carbon future for the country.

The opportunity for change is enormous. Russia remains one of the least energy-efficient economies in the world. It is much less efficient than any other G8 member and the other so-called BRICS countries. The IEA estimates Russia’s annual energy saving potential is about the size of Britain’s energy consumption in a year.

As a step in the right direction, two years ago Medvedev signed legislation that called for a 40 percent reduction in energy intensity by 2020. A long list of proposed measures leaves no major sector of the economy untouched.

But the perennial concern is still there: Will the new law be implemented successfully? An order from above is rarely enough, as proved by numerous energy efficiency laws in the past. What Russia needs is to create the right incentives for cutting energy consumption. Limited financing for energy efficiency projects, slow progress in retrofitting buildings, a growing gap in transportation policy in Europe and Russia, and the uncertainty that a domestic emission trading system will be ever set up in the near future indicate that the right incentives are not there yet. Energy efficiency is Russia’s low hanging fruit. It should not be left rotting again. If not now, when?

End of document

About the Energy and Climate Program

The Carnegie Energy and Climate Program engages global experts working on issues relating to energy technology, environmental science, and political economy to develop practical solutions for policymakers around the world. The program aims to provide the leadership and the policy framework necessary to minimize the risks that stem from global climate change and to reduce competition for scarce resources.

 

Comments

 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/11/27/climate-change-in-russia-s-court/h9gd

More from The Global Think Tank

Eurasia Outlook

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。