Russia Burning: The Case Against a “Winners Theory” of Global Warming
DEVELOPMENTS
From historic blizzards to flooding, headlines in 2010 have been dominated by extreme weather—even environmental chaos. One of the latest victims of Mother Nature’s wrath is Russia, which has experienced its hottest summer in 130 years.
There have been several thousand heat-related deaths in Moscow alone, where the summer’s daily temperatures have hovered around 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Between June and July 2010, the relentless heat spawned a total of 27,724 fires, destroying approximately 2,000 homes and leaving 1,000 Russian villagers displaced. The resulting smoky haze–coupled with Moscow’s notorious smog—enveloped the city’s 10 million residents. By August, reports estimated that the heat wave would kill at least 15,000 and cost the Russian economy $15 billion.
The unfolding events debunk the myth that Russia is a climate change “winner.” The “winner” theory posits that Russia stands to gain from increased global temperatures because it could reduce heating costs, lengthen its agricultural season, and access the mineral and energy resources currently buried beneath the Arctic tundra. A 2007 report issued by the UNDP foreshadowed the crisis, concluding that climate change would not improve conditions in Russia, but rather would exacerbate its existing environmental, economic, and social issues.
BACKGROUND
In June 2010, Russia was besieged by the worst heat wave in recent memory. Although temperatures have declined somewhat, the heat-related death toll continues to rise. The exact number of fatalities is unknown, with estimates ranging from “several thousand” to up to 15,000. According to the Moscow health department, the city’s death rate has doubled to nearly 700 deaths per day. Among the dead are the elderly, the infirm, and 2,000 people who drowned in Russia’s lakes and rivers while seeking refuge from the heat.
The economic effects of the environmental crisis have reverberated throughout the global economy. When wildfires obliterated one-fifth of Russia’s wheat crop, Russia banned all wheat exports through the end of 2010. Wheat prices soared, provoking fear that a global food crisis was imminent.
Meteorologists attribute the record-breaking heat to an anomaly in atmospheric pressure in Eastern Europe that has blocked the jet stream’s normal flow. Experts debate whether this “blocking high” phenomenon is attributable to greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming naysayers have been quick to point to NOAA’s conclusion that greenhouse gas fails to account for the Russian heat wave. Other experts caution, however, that European heat waves like that experienced by Russia have at least doubled as a result of global warming.
Even if the heat isn’t caused by greenhouse gas emissions, statistics suggest that its after-effects might actually hasten global warming. Russia’s forests, already threatened by deforestation, play a crucial role in absorbing carbon emissions. Fires still rage decimating acres of carbon-absorbing foliage. The smoke from Russia’s forest fires, if swept North, may accelerate the melting of Arctic polar ice caps. Environmentalists further warn that unchecked forest fires may release radioactive particles from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. According to Greenpeace Russia and other scientists, vegetation in Southwest Russia was heavily contaminated by nuclear fallout, and burning vegetation could release contaminants like caesium-137 and strontium-90. While some dismiss these predictions as unnecessarily apocalyptic, they nonetheless illustrate the far reaching and diverse ramifications of warmer weather.
Head of Moscow’s meteorological center, Alexei Lyakhov, told reporters that the summer heat wave was “clearly part of a global phenomenon.” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev acknowledged that the “anomalously hot” temperatures were “a wake up call . . . to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate.” The admission is an apparent about-face for the President, who only last year dismissed the global warming debate as “some kind of tricky campaign made up by commercial structures to promote their business projects.”
This type of inconsistent message has been the defining characteristic of Russia’s environmental policy. Critics have long lambasted Russia for its unwillingness to undertake more aggressive measures to combat global warming and for its seemingly schizophrenic environmental rhetoric. Russia is the world’s third largest greenhouse gas-emitter behind the United States and China. Deforestation compounds Russian’s CO2 emissions problem: forest fires and insects ravage millions of cubic meters of standing timber annually. Illegal tree cutting has increased 3.6 times over the last 15 years, and even now, as pollution worsens in Moscow, its neighboring forests are being cut down to build a road between Moscow and St. Petersburg. CO2 is only one part of the problem—methane—a gas 20 times more environmentally damaging than CO2, is leaking from the seabed in the Arctic shelf.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia has a formal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent by 2012. Russia is poised to meet its modest Kyoto obligation and in fact, is expected to report the largest carbon emissions drop of any Kyoto signatory. Detractors are quick to note that Russia made no affirmative efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses, and that its Kyoto successes are simply the lucky by-product of its 1991 industrial collapse. Because it has exceeded its Kyoto targets, Russia has amassed a large surplus of carbon credits that it insists must carry over after the Protocol expires in 2010. Environmentalists worry that Russia’s refusal to relinquish the credits will undermine any future efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more cost-effective for countries to buy credits than to cut emissions. Russia insists, however, that reserving the credits is necessary for it to undertake crucial development projects.
In December 2009, world leaders convened at the COP15 Copenhagen Conference to discuss climate change, and to negotiate the implementation of new post-Kyoto emissions targets. Russia signed the Copenhagen Accord, and agreed to 10-15 percent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels. In June 2010, Russia upped its commitment to a 20-25 percent reduction.
In addition to its international commitments, Russia also appears poised to implement a national strategy to combat climate change. In April 2009, Russia adopted a draft climate change doctrine—the country’s first official government statement addressing the impact of global warming on its territory. The adoption is especially surprising considering Russia abolished its Environmental Protection Agency in 2000, and reduced its environmental protection expenditures from 0.4 percent of the federal budget in 2001 to an abysmal 0.1 percent of the federal budget in 2009. The document appears to mark a departure from the Russian’s long-held unofficial public position that climate change is an invention of the West and may signal the end of the era of Russian “de-environmentalism.”
ANALYSIS
Regardless of whether Russia’s scorching temperatures can be attributed to global warming, the resulting death toll, economic disruption, and synergistic environmental impact highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change. The summer of 2010 must serve as a wake up call to Moscow—and to the international community—that there are no “winners” with respect to climate change.
It is not only the minds of the government that need changing. Rather, Russia must sell the idea of environmental and energy conservation to its public, a public that is skeptical—in part because of Moscow’s earlier global warming denials and consistent de-emphasizing of environmental protection—that such efforts are necessary. Medvedev has positioned himself well through subtle policy shifts embracing the reality of global warming, and can turn his country’s misfortune into an opportunity to play a constructive role on the world environmental stage.
Russia should seriously consider energy conservation measures. The World Bank’s International Finance Committee issued a report concluding that Russia could save 45 percent of its energy consumption—a savings that translates to an annual $80 billion cost savings to investors and end users. Though the Committee’s plan would require a $320 billion up front investment, the resulting cost savings would pay back the expenditure in just four years. Russia should also announce and implement a comprehensive plan to combat deforestation and generally strengthen domestic environmental legislation and institutions. These goals, while modest, will go a long way towards fortifying Russia’s internal environmental infrastructure and towards galvanizing lasting domestic support for pro-environment policies.
Erika N. Pont is an attorney in the Washington D.C. office of McDermott Will & Emery and an adjunct professor at The George Washington University Law School.
