Until recently the subject of climate was of concern only to the meteorologists, whereas today it has become a global political issue. Now that the United States has declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the protocol’s future depends on Russia.

This Protocol will enter into force after it is ratified by enough countries to account for a total of, at least, 55 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. This target figure cannot be reached unless Russia, which accounts for around 17 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, signs the protocol. That is why protocol advocates, primarily from the European Union, seek to influence Russia’s position through attractive offers and much jawboning. There is, however, no common consensus in Russia as to whether Moscow should ratify the Kyoto Protocol or not.

On the eve of the opening of the World Conference on Climate Change in Moscow in late September-early October 2003, Russia in Global Affairs and the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy held a conference named Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol: Economic Impacts on Russia. The conference was attended by representatives of all agencies, organizations and research centers dealing with this issue. Speakers acknowledged that the problem is very controversial and the choice that Russia is facing is a difficult one. Victor Potapov, Chairman of the Board of the Center for Joint Implementation Climatic Projects of the Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Rosgidromet), said that “Russia will not benefit politically by declining to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; yet it will not benefit economically by ratifying it, as Russia does not have a national system for regulating emissions of greenhouse gases… But by delaying the building of such a system Russia will not benefit either politically or economically.” The controversial nature of the problem of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol necessitates its additional study and an expert examination. “Any decision must be preceded by a broad public discussion of the problem,” said Andrei Bugrov, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Interros Holding Company. Joining in the discussion, Alexander Dynkin, First Deputy Director of the Institute of the World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that, on the one hand, “the Kyoto process was launched to counter global warming” and, on the other hand, “geologists, for instance, maintain that the basic greenhouse gas is water vapor, and its concentration in the atmosphere actually does not depend on anthropogenic factors.” He added that “in addition to water vapor, there is another problem: As early as twenty years from now, emissions into the atmosphere resulting from the melting of permafrost may exceed the man-made effect.” That is why the Kyoto Protocol does not seem to be the best way to halt climate change. The speaker strongly opposed “simplistic, benefit-oriented approaches to the Kyoto process, as some think that upon ratifying the protocol, Russia will immediately start selling quotas and earning hundreds of billions… On the whole, the Kyoto strategy is costly, but it undoubtedly orients business toward investing in environmentally friendly energy-saving technologies. Importantly, there could be the introduction of new Russian technologies and for an increased demand for these technologies.” Vincent Picket, the European Commission’s Charg? d'Affaires in Russia, expressed confidence that “economically Russia would gain from the international trade in emissions and joint implementation projects. Russia would also benefit from the transfer of up-to-date technologies and huge investments.” A decision to decline to ratify the protocol “would not earn Russia a kopeck.”

According to Rosgidromet Chairman Alexander Bedritsky, his agency realizes “certain drawbacks and discrepancies of some provisions of the Kyoto Protocol,” yet it has recommended Russia’s government to ratify the document, “provided certain preparations are made.” At the same time the protocol is only “an initial step that must be made in order to jointly address the global problem of greenhouse gas emissions.” Bedritsky pointed out that the international negotiating process will continue, and Russia must not find itself on the sidelines, as happened once before when Russia applied for WTO membership. As a result, Russia now has to incur additional expenses in order to join the group of countries that formulate the rules of the game.

Sergei Roginko, the head of the Ecology and Development Group at the Institute of Europe (Russian Academy of Science), agreed that the Kyoto Protocol allows Russia to take part in formulating rules of the game. He said: “There is currently only one legitimate way to sell quotas. These are joint implementation projects.” At the same time, he doubted that Russia will gain from selling quotas: “This is not a sellers’ market but a buyers’ market; one can sell only a limited amount of quotas there.”

Unlike Roginko, Mukhamed Tsikanov, Deputy Minister for Economic Development and Trade, expressed confidence that “we really can get and, most likely, will get at least some economic benefits from the protocol. One of them is capitalization of carbon dioxide-disposing companies. Another is a real opportunity to trade in quotas or use other flexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.”

Victor Danilov-Danilyan, Director of the Institute of Water Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, said he believes that Russia would undoubtedly benefit from the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. “What is important in the protocol is the joint implementation mechanism, rather than trade in quotas. Even if there is no quota trade at all, the ratification of the protocol would be very useful to Russia,” he said. “Of course, there will be no rain of gold for Russia,” he added, “but we must work. The economic consequences will be very favorable… We cannot wait until an ideal document is worked out. If we wait, we will all die, and our children will not be born. We must act.”

Anatoly Panfiliov, the leader of the Kedr movement, agreed with him: “The Kyoto Protocol is the first step; thereafter Russia can become an ecological donor.”

In the meantime, most of the experts, including proponents for ratification, were unanimous that there is no strong evidence that it is carbon dioxide that causes global warming. They pointed out that the Kyoto Protocol is aimed at improving technologies, rather than changing the climate. Generally speaking, this is an issue for the world economy. “The Kyoto Protocol cannot solve the climate problem,” said Igor Bashmakov, Executive Director of the Center for Energy Efficiency. “It is not intended to save the planet from global warming. Its exclusive goal is to help us understand and assess our potential, expenditures and benefits.”

The Kyoto process should serve as a vector for Russia in the world development. “The Kyoto Protocol can serve as a technological standard, from which we can start our stable development in some reasonable direction,” Sergei Bobylev of the Department of Economy, Moscow State University, said.

According to Mikhail Delyagin, Chairman of the Presidium of the Institute of Globalization Problems, “it is not so much a matter of ecology or international prestige, as a matter of Russia’s new positioning in the world.” He pointed out that “we must formulate our demands within the Kyoto protocol’s framework. And since economic benefits do exist and since they are not critical, we can insist on these demands.”

Leonid Grigoryev, President of the Association of Independent Centers of Economic Analysis, pointed out that “politically it is essential that Russia should not be considered a country that has stopped the Kyoto process, yet there is no clarity about concrete economic benefits… We are in the trap of our superpower mentality: we are ashamed to bargain.” Grigoryev said that “ultimately we will not earn much money by trading in quotas, yet we must insist on our inclusion in all those mechanisms.” At enterprise levels, quotas must be tied up with the investments, apart from additional projects. “That would be useful to the economy, since it implies additional investments in modernization,” Grigoryev noted. In this connection, there arises another problem – that of “creating domestic mechanisms and a very serious coordination of our domestic and foreign economic policies.”

Mechanisms for making and implementing decisions related to the Kyoto Protocol need to be carefully worked out. Vassily Kiselev, Vice President of SUAL-Holding, said that “the Europeans’ wish to organize a market for their own products is understandable, but there arises an important question: how can we adapt our science and technology to this process?”

Vyacheslav Nikonov, President of the Polity Foundation, said that “humankind has other important problems to address, which requires economic growth, progress and development… The danger of the greenhouse industrial gases for the Earth’s climate has not been substantiated so far. Meanwhile, one billion people in the world are starving; 1.6 billion people live without electricity; 2.5 billion people consume biomass as an energy source. Russia is now leading the world not only in fulfilling, but even overfulfilling the Kyoto Protocol.” As regards a promise to sell our quotas in the future, it is wrongheaded. Besides, he added, “the United States, the basic potential buyer of quotas, will never join the Kyoto Protocol,” while the European Union is an uncooperative partner when it comes to Russia, and it is unlikely to make concessions. Commitments under the protocol would impose certain limitations on Russia. If Russia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol, “we may simply sell our future economic growth at a price that we do not even know yet,” Nikonov said.

Sergei Alexeyev, Chairman of the Committee for Nature Management and Ecology, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, warned against making any rash decisions. He said he was not sure that Russian industry could play a game of its own and according to its own rules. Russia is not ready to sign the Kyoto Protocol at the moment. He said, “There are sound economic mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol, yet it would be too early now to assume its commitments,” and agreed that it is necessary to build a national system of controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

Anatoly Zelinsky, member of the Board of Unified Energy Systems, said the ratification of the protocol should not be delayed, because otherwise the complaints made by the European Union against Russia’s dumping practices would be further aggravated with ecological complaints.

One of the problems involved in the Kyoto process is that the protocol itself is not perfect. Yevgeny Utkin, assistant to the head of Rosgidromet and Executive Secretary of the interdepartmental Commission for Climate Change Problems, said that “The Kyoto Protocol, in its present form, suits no one. It must be modernized or replaced with a new agreement that would be based on a technological breakthrough and economic efficiency, and that would be global, that is, involving all countries and taking into full account their specifics.”

The international community, including Russia, has yet to solve many of the protocol-related problems. Sergei Sibiryakov, President of the TET-Technology 3000 innovation company, said that Russia should introduce its own energy-saving technologies and offer them to the West. “When we start addressing this problem, we will solve many others then.”

The Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and Russia in Global Affairs will keep following the discussions on the Kyoto Protocol’s ratification.