Paris Agreement. One and a half degrees: five questions about the Paris climate agreement

Image copyright Reuters Image caption On the eve of the signing of the agreement in Paris in 2015, environmental activists sent their greetings to world leaders

Judging by numerous reports, US President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the country from the Paris climate agreement. He intends to announce his decision on Thursday evening.

The Paris Agreement includes a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The implementation of the agreement was discussed at the G7 summit in Italy last Saturday.

What is the essence of the Paris Agreement, why is it important and what are its main provisions?

In outline

Developed in Paris in December 2015, the climate agreement for the first time in history united the efforts of all world powers to curb climate change. It was approved by 195 countries, which allowed observers to call it historical.

It replaced the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which was in force until then, which established greenhouse gas emission quotas for only a few developed countries, but the United States withdrew from this agreement, and a number of other countries did not comply with the agreements.

The agreement entered into force in November 2016.

What are its key provisions?

• Do not allow the average temperature on the planet to rise above 2°C in relation to the indicators of the pre-industrial era, and, if possible, reduce it to 1.5°C.

• Begin by 2050-2100 to limit greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activity to levels that trees, soil and the oceans can naturally recycle.

• Revise upwards every five years the contribution of each individual country to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

• Developed countries should allocate funds to a special climate fund to help poorer countries cope with the effects of climate change (such as natural disasters or rising sea levels) and switch to renewable energy sources.

What remained in the agreement, and what had to be removed?

The most important thing is to keep the rise in temperature on Earth within 2˚С in relation to the indicators of the pre-industrial era - indicators higher than this, according to scientists, will lead to irreversible consequences.

Unfortunately, we are already halfway to this scenario, since average temperatures have risen by almost 1°C since the 19th century, and therefore many countries advocated a more severe limit - up to 1.5°C; these countries included those located in lowlands and therefore at risk of flooding in the event of sea level rise.

As a result, the final text of the agreement included a promise to seek to limit the increase in average temperatures on the planet to 1.5 ° C.

At the same time, for the first time, such an agreement includes a long-term plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between greenhouse gases arising from human activity and their absorption by seas and forests by the second half of the 21st century.

“If these agreements can be negotiated and implemented, this will mean reducing the balance of greenhouse gas emissions to zero within a few decades. This is in line with the scientific calculations presented by us,” commented John Schoenhuber, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change in Potsdam.

Some call this agreement too vague, since a number of the original goals had to be softened during the negotiations.

"The Paris Agreement is only the first step in a long journey, and some parts of it sadden and upset me, although it is still some kind of progress," said Kumi Naidu, director of Greenpeace International.

What about money?

This issue was one of the most difficult during the negotiations.

Developing countries say they need financial and technological assistance to immediately jump to a carbon-free economy.

At the moment, they have been promised $100 billion a year until 2020, but that is less than many of them expected to receive.

The Paris Agreement obliges developed countries to support financing of this amount of $100 billion annually until 2020, and, starting from it, agree by 2025 to continue financing this process.

What's next?

Only certain provisions of the Paris Agreement are binding.

National strategies to reduce greenhouse gases are voluntary; besides, the negotiations just stumbled on the question of when it would be necessary to revise them in the direction of tightening.

The Treaty obliges the participants to review the progress achieved in 2018, and then to conduct a similar assessment every five years.

Analysts believe that the Paris Agreement is only the initial stage of the introduction of energy-saving technologies, and much more needs to be done.

"Paris is just the starting salvo in the race to a sustainable future," said David Nissbaum, executive director of the British branch of the Wildlife Fund.

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 various 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.

It was adopted on December 12, 2015 following the 21st Conference of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris.

The agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication efforts, including through:

— Keeping the increase in global average temperature well below 2°C and making efforts to limit the increase in temperature to 1.5°C, which will significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

— increasing resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change and promoting development with low greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that does not jeopardize food production;

— aligning financial flows in the direction of low-emission, climate-resilient development .

The Paris Agreement determines that specific measures to combat climate change should be aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and their development and implementation is entirely the responsibility of national governments.

The agreement consolidates and formalizes the turn to a new, low-carbon model of economic development based on the gradual abandonment of traditional technologies for the extraction, processing and use of fossil resources (primarily hydrocarbons) in favor of "green" technologies.

By 2020, states should revise their national CO2 emission strategies downwards.

Commitments of countries participating in the Paris Agreement are planned to be updated every five years, starting in 2022.

The Paris Agreement, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, does not provide for a quota mechanism. There are no sanctions in the Paris Agreement for countries that cannot cope with the implementation of national contributions. The agreement only approves the creation of an incentive mechanism that should encourage states and economic entities for their successful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Financial support will be provided to developing countries to implement programs to curb global warming. The combined public and private funding for developing countries should reach $100 billion by 2020.

The Paris climate agreement has entered into force. Russia signed the document but did not ratify it. Why?

The Paris Climate Agreement came into force. It replaced the Kyoto Protocol: countries agreed to reduce emissions into the atmosphere in order to avoid an environmental catastrophe in the future. The document was ratified by 96 countries, Russia is not among them. Moscow has its own opinion on this matter.

UN Climate Secretary Patricia Espinosa called the adopted document "historic". According to her, this is the basis for "another world." The planet is literally heating up, and countries have the power to keep warming within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. If it is higher, then the inevitable catastrophe will happen sooner or later. The Paris Agreement will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2020. The difference between the documents is significant. In fact, all states undertake to limit emissions into the atmosphere: from the United States to Angola, the latter, by the way, has signed and already ratified the document. Another issue is that countries are not limited in numbers and are free to reduce emissions at their discretion.

Andrey Kiselev Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences“If you read its position, it does not do much for anything and obliges the countries that signed it. That is, everyone chooses a certain strategy, despite the fact that everyone seems to agree. Different countries have completely different ideas about what and how they will do, but the worst thing is that according to current estimates (this is recognized by the Paris Agreement itself), the measures that have been announced and must be implemented are absolutely insufficient to achieve those goals. goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Unless you regard this as a zero approximation, other actions should follow. More efficient."

Russia has signed the Paris Agreement, but has not yet ratified it. First, the country needs to adopt appropriate laws. However, back in the summer, business called on Vladimir Putin not to approve the document. The RSPP said that the implementation of the provisions would have a negative impact on economic growth. The head of the Union, Alexander Shokhin, noted that Russia had already exceeded its obligation to bring emissions into the atmosphere below the level of 1990. Aleksey Kokorin, coordinator of the Climate and Energy Program of the Wildlife Fund, believes that Moscow will ratify the document, but at a more appropriate moment.

Alexey Kokorin Climate and Energy Program Coordinator, Wildlife Fund“The development of world energy, which is reflected in the Paris Agreement, leads to the fact that a number of industries are very associated with a large greenhouse gas emission, of course, is under pressure. First of all, coal energy, our plans to export coal, in particular, to the Asian market (we should probably consider that they should already be cancelled). This is a very serious impact on Russia, does not depend on our ratification. The ratification itself is a political moment, and when the right moment comes, I think it will be done.”

Meanwhile, from November 1, all Russian gas stations must be equipped with chargers for electric cars. This is how the authorities support the owners of environmentally friendly vehicles. However, only 722 electric vehicles are now registered in Russia.

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.