Russia is backing out of a revised Kyoto that would put binding caps on its greenhouse gas emissions, according to a recent report from Reuters.
Under the current protocol, Russia is well within its emissions targets. Kyoto mandates reductions from 1990 emissions levels, and due to economic collapse of most former Soviet Union economies, growth and energy use have remained relatively low.
But Russia brusquely rejected any change in the framework that would put a check on its economic growth:
Asked if Russia would resist capping the use of fossil fuels, which emit the planet-warming gas carbon dioxide when burned, under a new climate deal after 2012, [Russian official Vsevolod Gavrilov] said:”In the foreseeable future, this will not be our model, no.”
Supporting the rise of Russia’s middle class is a more pressing concern for the country than staving off global climate change. Said Gavrilov,
Energy must not be a barrier to our comfort. Our emerging middle class… demands lots of energy and it is our job to ensure comfortable supply.
Sound familiar? It should. A Chinese official recently reminded us, “You cannot tell people who struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions.” Russia’s people may not be starving, but for both the developing and the developed world, the economy is the bottom line.
The Russians may not be struggling in the same way as the Chinese, but the two countries’ statements speak to an obvious truth about politics: governments are under a lot more pressure to grow their economies than to be green and reduce emissions. Ignoring this basic political truth is akin to banging your head against a brick wall. If the Kyoto framework insists on reducing emissions by pure muscle, throwing desire for growth and prosperity to the wind, than it is doomed. Gavrilov gives us a much more sensible way to think about it:
We see (Kyoto) as a means, not as an end in itself… It is a way to get new technology for our industries.
It’s not that these countries want to pollute — but it must make economic sense for them to avoid doing so. That’s why Russia has called for other industrialized nations to invest in innovation, as China recently did. We’d be wise to heed that call. Developed nations can reduce their own emissions all they want, and they certainly should — but if the choice continues to be between reduced emissions and economic growth, then we’re fighting an uphill battle. The United States has the resources to invest in cheap energy solutions, and doing so would be the biggest possible impact we could have on the climate challenge.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
This is a good dose of reality. It is expensive for most countries just to build standard infrastructure. The current cleaner technologies are even more so. Any solutions must acknowledge these facts.
Yeah, I agree, people often see sacrifice as so horrible and unthinkable… I am sure though that if you look at the harm that breakneck development has contributed to, it’s just as bad in the shot term and waaaay worse in the long term for peoples’ standard of living. I guess I’m idealistic, but I think the problems are usually from people ignorance and greed more than other things. I think the Communist Party’s negligence toward nature is due to it’s really bad ideals (absolute materialism) and desperation to satisfy peoples greed since exploiting the land and corruption keep a few influential people very pleased. I am always suggesting that the current regime is rotted and purely self satisfying, but when the propaganda people are so powerful, its an uphill battle.
Please take a look at my blog, no more CCP
Peace
It’s a shame that the people climate change will affect most, the poor and downtrodden, are near powerless to stop it. What news is there on this issue? International EJ? I’d love to learn more if anyone has any interesting links to check out.
This should be seen as an opportunity for the United States. If we lead the way on building a strong economy based on renewables, then the rest of the world will see that it works, it creates jobs, and will ultimately be better for their economy than dirty energy. If they can see that it makes economic sense not to pollute, they won’t do it anymore, clearly. The US needs to set the example. Hopefully the next administration will be open to that.
Cary Anne - For the most part, I don’t think rapid development in places like China can be said to stem from greed. The Communist Party’s “negligence toward nature” may be at least somewhat due to its “really bad ideals,” but is probably mostly due to its desire to help its people attain a very basic level of affluence. Some Chinese may want our goodies, but mostly they want our infrastructure — the kinds of things we Americans, even the eco-conscious among us, largely take for granted: paved roads, schools, hospitals, etc.
Aaron - Yes, it’s unfortunate that the effects of the climate affect the poor most strongly. I don’t think you need to look very hard to see examples of this — Katrina, droughts & rice shortages, Malaria outbreaks — not necessarily or definitively results of climate change, but no less important to consider and address.