What does the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement mean? Paris climate agreement: Russia in the red? Paris Agreement
It has been ratified by more than 80 states, including the United States, China, India and most of the EU countries.
Russia intends to ratify the agreement no earlier than 2019-2020. The relevant documentation is currently being prepared.
The agreement was adopted in December last year at the 21st Conference of the States Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This treaty will replace the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997.
Parties to the Paris Climate Agreement commit to:
- adopt national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and review them in order to cause less harm to the environment every five years;
- to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and thereby keep global warming on the planet within 1.5-2 degrees Celsius in relation to the average temperature of the pre-industrial era;
— by 2020, develop national strategies for the transition to green technologies and a carbon-free economy;
- annually allocate $ 100 billion to the Green Climate Fund to help underdeveloped countries. After 2025, this amount should be revised upwards "taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries".
Why is this Agreement necessary?
Modern scientists are concerned about the change in the global temperature of the Earth. In 2015, for the first time in history, they recorded an increase in the average temperature of the planet by more than 1 ° C compared to the 19th century. A year earlier, the World Meteorological Organization reported a record high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 30 years.
From this, climatologists have concluded that it is human activity - burning oil, gas and coal - that leads to the greenhouse effect, which causes an increase in average temperature. Experts estimate that to keep temperature rises within 2°C, countries need to halve global emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, and reduce them to zero by the end of the 21st century. If the states do not begin to seriously deal with the problem of environmental protection, by 2100 the temperature on the planet may rise by 3.7-4.8 ° C, which will lead to the melting of glaciers, the formation of typhoons and other serious violations of the ecosystem.
To what extent have carbon emissions been reduced?
According to the international analytical agency PwC, since 2000, Russia has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 3.6% per year, the UK - by 3.3%, France - by 2.7%, the USA - by 2.3%. The average global reduction in carbon emissions over the past 15 years was 1.3%. However, these efforts are not enough. To prevent irreversible climate change, the annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions until 2100 should be at least 6.3%.
The Institute for Natural Monopoly Problems (IPEM) analyzed the main models of carbon regulation, the world experience of their use, the effectiveness and potential of their application in Russia. Forbes got acquainted with the results of the study.
The Paris climate agreement, adopted in December 2015, after 2020 will be a continuation and development of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the previous international document regulating global emissions of harmful substances. In the light of new climate initiatives, Russia (along with 193 countries) signed the Paris Agreement and committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25–30% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
In its study, IPEM notes that if Russia does not begin to stimulate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the obligations are unlikely to be met. Even with an average annual GDP growth of 2% per year, maintaining the current carbon intensity of the economy and the volume of absorption of emissions by forests by 2030, emissions will amount to 3123 million tons of CO 2 equivalent - which is 6% more than the commitment.
Experts have identified four main models that regulate CO 2 emissions:
Direct payments for greenhouse gas emissions
This strategy includes two main market mechanisms to reduce emissions. Firstly, the so-called carbon fee, i.e. the payment rate for a certain amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
Secondly, trading in quotas is possible. This mechanism assumes that initially the allowable total volume of emissions in the territory is set, and then quotas for this volume of emissions are distributed among the sources of greenhouse gases. Secondary trading of quotas between companies with an excess or shortage of quotas is also allowed.
About 40 states use this strategy at the national or regional levels, most of them are developed countries (only two countries are not members of the OECD - China and India).
Carbon tax and cap-and-trade are the most stringent methods of regulation of emissions, they affect a significant share of the economy (in different countries this share provides from 21% to 85% of greenhouse gas emissions), so most countries protect certain sectors of the economy from regulation. In addition, there is an obvious relationship between the value of the payment rate and the structure of the energy sector. Thus, in countries with a high share of thermal energy (more than 50%), payment rates are set at a very low level.
Taxation of motor and energy fuels
According to the OECD, 98% of CO 2 emissions from the combustion of motor fuels are taxed through fuel taxes, and only 23% of emissions from the consumption of energy fuels. Thus, this strategy, although popular in many countries, is fraught with high social risks, since it can seriously affect the cost of motor fuel. Even now, the share of taxes in the final price of fuel reaches 50%.
Stimulating the development of renewable energy sources (RES)
This strategy is acceptable for countries that are highly dependent on fuel imports, such as the European Union, but its implementation imposes considerable additional costs on consumers. According to the study, in a number of European countries that are actively introducing renewable energy sources, the price of electricity for a small business is 50% higher than the cost of electricity in Moscow, where one of the highest tariffs in Russia.
Moreover, as noted in the study of the institute, in Russia there is a constant increase in prices for capacity - the price for it can double in price. These factors do not contribute to the introduction of RES in the Russian energy sector in the next 5-7 years.
Stimulating energy efficiency
According to IPEM experts, this model of regulation is the most promising for Russia. First, Russia has great potential for further energy efficiency improvements. Secondly, Russia already has successful experience in improving energy efficiency in a number of industries: requirements for the utilization of associated petroleum gas are changing, metallurgical plants and refineries are being modernized. Thirdly, currently in Russia there is a transition to the principles of the best available technologies, for example, in the coal industry.
“Russia cannot remain aloof from global trends in the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, as this creates both reputational and economic risks for our country,” said Yury Sahakyan, Director General of IPEM. “Therefore, it is necessary to develop our own model for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which will meet Russian national interests, take into account the peculiarities of the domestic economy, its structure and real opportunities.”
June 1st US President Donald Trump announced that. According to the president, the withdrawal from the agreement will be carried out in accordance with UN procedures and will take up to four years. The president described his decision as "the fulfillment of a sacred duty to America and its citizens."
Withdrawal of the US from the deal means a quarter of UN climate funds allocated to the least developed countries, and slower reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the US itself. If the United States withdraws from the agreement, it will be difficult for the global community to achieve its goals, since the United States is the largest source of funding and technology for developing countries in their fight against the effects of climate change.
Why is the US withdrawing from the agreement?
Trump promised to make this decision during his election campaign last year. He has repeatedly stated that the Paris Agreement harms the American economy and reduces the number of jobs. According to Trump, US participation in the treaty threatened to lose 2.7 million jobs by 2025. According to Trump, the agreement could harm the economic interests of the United States, which he puts in the first place, and would enrich other countries such as India and China.
“This agreement is not so much about the climate, but about giving other countries a financial advantage over the United States,” Trump said. “Other countries applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement. They were crazy with happiness. Because doing so would put the United States we love so much at an economic disadvantage.”
Trump has said he wants a new deal that he says will be fairer to the world's first economy.
What does the Paris Agreement provide?
The Paris Agreement, which replaced the Kyoto Protocol, provides for a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The document also provides for the allocation of $ 100 billion to developing countries by 2020 to solve environmental problems.
The purpose of the agreement is to prevent a rise in the average temperature on the planet by 2 degrees by 2100. Scientists believe that a more significant increase in temperature caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can lead to irreversible consequences for the environment. Each of the parties to the agreement determines its contributions to the achievement of the declared goal on an individual basis.
The agreement was adopted at the Climate Conference in Paris in 2015 and 2016. The agreement was signed by more than one hundred and ninety countries. Of these, 147 have ratified it. Russia has signed the Paris Agreement, but has not yet ratified it.
How did you react to the US withdrawal from the agreement?
Former owner of the White House Barack Obama believes his successor Donald Trump's administration is "giving up on the future" by pulling out of the Paris Agreement.
“I believe the US should be at the forefront of this group,” Obama said. “But even in the absence of American leadership, even as this administration joins the pathetic handful of countries that are abandoning the future, I am confident that our states, cities, and our businesses will do even more to lead and preserve for future generations our common a planet that is one for all of us.
The governors of the states of California, Washington and New York, which account for a fifth of the US economy, Jerry Brown, Jay Inslee and Andrew Cuomo announced the creation of a climate union. They promised to prove to the world community that the US could continue its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including limiting the use of coal in the electricity industry and adjusting its emission quota systems.
Elon Musk- founder of Tesla and SpaceX - left the White House council in protest. He will no longer be a consultant to the US administration.
President Trump's rejection of the deal has sparked frustration among G7 leaders. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a telephone conversation with Trump expressed her regret. French President Emmanuel Macron in a conversation with Trump said that the US and France will continue to cooperate, but not on climate change.
The Kremlin said that there is currently no alternative to the Paris climate agreement. According to Press Secretary of the President Dmitry Peskov, "effectiveness in the implementation of this convention without key participants will be difficult."
Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China Li Keqiang stated that China will fulfill the obligations stipulated in the Paris Agreement. China's state news agency Xinhua called the US decision a "global step backwards."
And about the economic war with traditional energy sources supplied by the Russian Federation to international markets - oil, gas, coal. However, the obvious threat to the energy and economic security of Russia does not stop the supporters of the Paris Agreement.
Last week, Mikhail Yulkin, head of the working group on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions management of the Committee on Ecology and Nature Management of the RSPP, spoke in Nezavisimaya Gazeta about what the Paris climate agreement really is. In the article “Paris Agreement: Difficulties in Translation,” Mikhail Yulkin directly says that “this document draws a line under the hydrocarbon era and opens the era of a green economy on a global scale.”
Mikhail Yulkin argues that due to an illiterate and inaccurate translation into Russian, some provisions of the Agreement are interpreted incorrectly - but in fact the document quite fully describes the decarbonization measures. At the same time, the author frankly replaces the terms of the international agreement approved by 193 countries with the wording that he himself would like to see there. Central to his concept is "low-carbon development", which, by the way, is never mentioned in the 29 articles of the Paris Agreement.
But the author is silent about the issues of adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, the importance of which is repeatedly emphasized in the Paris Agreement. Why? Because Mikhail Yulkin heads the Center for Ecological Investments - and, from his point of view, investors should go where they don't want to go and don't want to go yet.
It is proposed to solve this problem by primitive methods in the style of "take away and divide". According to Mikhail Yulkin, it follows from the Paris Agreement that “revenues generated by carbon-intensive industries should be redistributed in favor of low-carbon industries and activities.” That is, for example, the income received by oil and gas companies should not be spent on the military-industrial complex, not on the construction of kindergartens, not on the training of doctors, and not even on the World Cup. No, it is necessary to “ensure the flow of financial and other resources”, for example, in favor of manufacturers of solar panels.
A similar point of view, by the way, was recently held in Germany - but it quickly became clear that the Chinese produce solar panels much cheaper, and the recipients of "redistributed" resources, unfortunately, cannot withstand the competition. It is precisely this deplorable result that attempts to artificially stimulate initially weak industries or even create demand for services that are not in demand by consumers lead to. It is significant that the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia is now actively promoting the need for a bill that should oblige all domestic enterprises and organizations to report on greenhouse gas emissions. Those who will - not for free, of course - will support this process are already ready: the Center for Ecological Investments, headed by Mikhail Yulkin, provides services in the field of inventorying greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Yulkin also speaks of the need for a gradual cessation of investment in the extraction of hydrocarbon fuels (oil and gas), as well as in energy and transport, which use this fuel. But, if you follow his theses, you need to ensure the growth of investments in
“carbon-free energy and transport”. Obviously, what escapes his attention is the fact that "carbon-intensive" energy companies form the basis of the Russian economy - from orders for mechanical engineering and shipbuilding to financing the training of representatives of highly skilled blue-collar workers.
In fact, the lobbyist for the Paris Agreement and the author of Nezavisimaya Gazeta in his article suggests that the main strategic documents of the Russian fuel and energy complex and projects for their renewal are considered nothing more than a threat to the energy and economic security of the country. In particular, a new version of the Energy Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which is being prepared by the Russian Security Council, calls “the establishment of excessive requirements in the field of environmental safety” one of the main threats “in terms of the sustainability of production and the provision of services by fuel and energy companies.” “Requirements for the subjects of the fuel and energy complex in terms of ensuring environmental safety are in some cases excessive, economically and technologically not always justified, which leads to an increase in the costs of ensuring environmental standards for production and consumption,” the draft Doctrine until 2035 says.
In addition, the Doctrine classifies “toughening of climate policy measures in the world”, as well as “changes in the structure of global demand for energy resources and the structure of their consumption” as the main threats in terms of “competitiveness and sustainability of exports of Russian fuel and energy resources”. The draft Energy Security Doctrine also talks about the risks of these threats being realized. For the state, these risks will result in a reduction in tax, customs and other revenues to the budget, for society - a further reduction in funding for the social sphere, for Russian fuel and energy companies - a decrease in financial stability and investment attractiveness, for ordinary citizens - an increase in energy prices, an increase in electricity bills and heat supply.
Thus, it becomes quite obvious that the main goal of the Paris Agreement is not to care about the climate, but to change financial flows, to completely redistribute the entire world energy market. This is what various experts have already paid attention to. Thus, in the report of the National Energy Security Fund, published in June 2017, it was said that the "Low-Carbon Rate" is detrimental to the enterprises of the domestic fuel and energy complex, which is the main source of revenue for the state budget. At the same time, the report was skeptical about the prospects for a positive effect on the Russian economy from investments in low-carbon technologies: “The bulk of low-carbon technologies will have to be imported. Thus, the main profit from Russia's transition to a "low-carbon economy" will be received by foreign manufacturers, in particular, China and Taiwan, which account for the lion's share of solar panels produced in the world. In return, Russian manufacturers will get only an increase in costs and a drop in the competitiveness of their products.
In turn, the Institute for Natural Monopoly Problems (IPEM), in a report on the risks of implementing the Paris Agreement, noted that “a significant proportion of measures currently being discussed in Russia to combat greenhouse gas emissions, unfortunately, are characterized by significant risks for the national economy, social stability, energy and food security”. Among these risks were mentioned: a threat to socio-economic stability, especially for regions where there will be a need to carry out professional reorientation of the population and create new jobs; limiting the pace of Russia's economic development, caused by an additional increase in prices for electricity and heat; decrease in the competitiveness of Russian goods and the loss of sales markets; strengthening of territorial disproportions in the socio-economic development of the country's regions; rising inflation as a result of rising prices for electricity, gasoline, food and other goods.
Russians can pay for saving developing countries from climate change by increasing prices for electricity and heat
The Paris climate agreement, which is supposed to prevent a global increase in temperature, entered into force on November 4. It implies, in particular, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Its developers are confident that such measures will prevent global warming on the planet. Our country has signed this agreement, but ratification has been postponed until at least 2020. What are the risks of the agreement? This issue was discussed during the hearings in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation (OP). Its experts believe that first it is necessary to develop an appropriate national methodology, since the tools offered by the West do not look indisputable and cause criticism. In addition, the Paris Agreement may entail the introduction of a carbon fee, and this will lead to an increase in the price of electricity for Russians by 1.5 times.
The Paris Climate Agreement, adopted under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015 and signed by many countries in April 2016, has effectively become a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. It is aimed at curbing the rise in temperature on the planet.
Last year, environmentalists estimated that the global average temperature had risen by more than 1oC since the 19th century, with most of the increase starting in the 1980s and continuing to this day. According to a number of experts, all this was the result of active processing and combustion of hydrocarbons, which leads to the greenhouse effect. In order to contain rising temperatures, the world's industrialized countries need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, whether the Paris climate agreement will be a way out of the situation and whether it will prevent a tragedy of global proportions is a big question. This document in its current form contains a lot of shortcomings. It was these gaps that were discussed during the hearings in the Public Chamber of Russia.
“Many aspects of the agreement are controversial in expert circles. This is also connected with the general attitude to climatology and warming,” Sergey Grigoriev, chairman of the OP commission for the development of the real sector of the economy, opened the hearings with these words.
The secretary of the OP Alexander Brechalov joined his opinion. “The first point of work in this direction will be the discussion of the results of the analysis of the socio-economic consequences of the implementation of the agreement, that is, the implementation of this idea. Any ill-conceived measures can drastically increase the financial burden on both companies and the population,” he said.
According to the head of Roshydromet, Alexander Frolov, one of the key problems associated with the ratification of the Paris Agreement is its scientific validity. In addition, so far this agreement is only a framework and there is no modality in it. Further climate change is inevitable and the reasons for this process have long been understood. “We need a long-term development strategy until 2050,” Frolov said.
The same thesis was confirmed by Sergei Grigoriev. “The climate has always changed - both in the 17th and in the 18th century. Now the main problem is that there are no national methods. We refer only to foreign ones. The time has come to make efforts to develop a national methodology, because the theses that are put forward as indisputable raise big questions,” he said, emphasizing that “the degree of politicization and politicking around this topic is unprecedented.”
One of the stumbling blocks of the Paris climate agreement is the introduction of the so-called carbon tax - the payment for emissions. These contributions are planned to be sent to the Green Climate Fund, and then to developing countries for the program of "adaptation" to global climate change. Those who seek to limit the import of energy resources, for example, the countries of Western Europe, are interested in introducing a "carbon fee". On the contrary, states whose economy is tied to the extraction of hydrocarbons and fuel production consider this mechanism not ideal. Thus, the budget office of the US Congress noted that the introduction of a "carbon fee" will lead to an increase in prices for many goods. And for Russia in its present form, it can lead to the most unpleasant consequences. According to the calculations of the Institute for Problems of Natural Monopolies, the damage to the Russian economy threatens to amount to $42 billion, or 3-4% of GDP.
“It is not clear from the agreement what we have signed. The draft decision turns the agreement into a liquidation document and involves interference in the internal politics of our country with the help of environmental mechanisms. Those who ratified it will supplement it without our participation,” Vladimir Pavlenko, a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, believes.
Moreover, he believes that the Paris Agreement is a vivid example of the application of double standards, created to get the opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of any state, and primarily Russia. “The double standards of the Paris Agreement make it difficult to prove that our absorbing contribution is environmental donation. In the European Union, emissions exceed their absorption by 4 times, in the USA and China - by 2 times. In Russia, the balance is positive in favor of absorption. Our absorption resource is estimated at 5 billion to 12 billion tons, that is, 10 times more than in this document. So are we sinks or polluters? - asks Vladimir Pavlenko.
By the way, there is confirmed evidence that many countries that have ratified this document are falsifying information. For example, India records its emissions as a Brazilian sink, while the Americans post them as Canadian. There are also serious suspicions about the intention of the West to use our absorbing territories under bilateral agreements with different countries.
“It is necessary to switch to the format of a thoughtful study of numbers and threats,” agrees Konstantin Simonov, Director General of the National Energy Security Fund. - It is very important to tie the ratification of the agreement to the lifting of sanctions. The world community needs to decide whether we are with it or not. But for this it is necessary to put an end to the trade war.”
Moreover, we must not forget that there is a risk that the Paris climate agreement will result in additional and unexpected costs for ordinary Russians. “We all understand that we live in difficult economic conditions, and any ill-conceived decisions can cause a serious blow to the country's economy,” Sergei Grigoriev believes.
As noted in the report of the Institute of Natural Monopoly Problems, the introduction of a carbon fee could lead to a significant increase in electricity prices. The construction of replacement generating facilities will require about 3.5 trillion rubles. Under this scenario, the cost of a kilowatt for large commercial consumers will increase by 50-55%, for small commercial consumers - by 28-31%, for the population - by 45-50%, that is, 1.5 times. Obviously, without having worked out all the nuances, the ratification of the Paris Agreement will be a premature decision. In this regard, the participants in the hearings in the OP indicated their readiness to promote all initiatives and proposals in the future, up to President Vladimir Putin.