Putin and climate

"Potemkin villages" or the real "green" turn of Russia?

A few days ago, a climatic summit was held, which was initiated by US President Joe Biden. Vladimir Putin took part in it and said that Russia will implement a large -scale program of environmental modernization and increase energy efficiency. Our country intends to ensure the capture, storage and use of carbon dioxide from all sources.

In a message to the Federal Assembly, Putin announced an ambitious goal - after 30 years, the accumulated volume of pure greenhouse gases in Russia should be less than in the European Union.

Can we really overtake Europe, or will the climatic "Potemkin villages" be built?

There are two main ways to reduce the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: to reduce direct emissions and capture carbon dioxide using technology, for example, CO2 captures, or absorb with natural ecosystems (primarily forests).

Now the State Duma considers the bill on the restriction of greenhouse gas emissions. He has already passed the first reading. The deputies are in a hurry to accept him so that our companies do not pay the European Union by a border carbon tax that they are going to introduce in the coming years. However, there is a high probability that this law will not help achieve the abolition of cross -border tax.

In general, the draft law must be completely reviewed, since it does not solve the essence of the problem - it does not lead to the real limitation of the emission of greenhouse gases. It does not have an answer to the question about a fee for emissions. In his speech, Putin mentioned the principle of “the pollutant pays”, therefore, in the law it is necessary to prescribe a carbon tax mechanism for dirty enterprises. As long as there is no fee for emissions, business will not have an incentive to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Yes, and the principle of “pollutant pays” is leaving the agenda - we must stimulate technologies that do not provide environmental pollution.

The initial version of the document was about the introduction of a quotation system for emissions and a fee for exceeding the limit. However, our industrialists managed to lobby their interests, and this item was seized. The draft law does not even provide for the verification of reporting on the emissions of greenhouse gases, that is, information from companies will not double -check. The bill turned out to be completely toothless, acting not in the interests of reducing emissions, but as usual - in the interests of industry, in the interests of pollutants.

According to the draft law, it is supposed to introduce a system of trade in carbon units. A special register is created, which allows companies to accumulate carbon units in the implementation of climatic projects, and then, if desired, to transfer them to other companies. Carbon units of organizations will be taken into account when evaluating target indicators of greenhouse gases, that is, counting as a decrease in a carbon trace.

However, there is a nuance - carbon units obtained for reducing emissions will be equal to carbon units for the absorption of emissions. In fact, it will be more profitable for companies to pay for forest plantations, and not improve their technologies in order to directly reduce emissions. Moreover, to control the quality of these landings, their real fate will actually be impossible.

If you equate the absorbing ability of natural ecosystems to reduce direct emissions, then Russia will break out into the global leaders at its forests in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, which involves not to allow the growth of global temperature by more than two degrees by the end of the century. But you can not mix these two principles.

The absorption of forests does not give the effect that we get from a direct reduction in emissions. The potential of natural ecosystems is limited, nature is not able to digest the entire emission of greenhouse gases that we produce. Moreover, the ability of our forests to absorb CO2 decreases: mass deforestation goes, forests are burning and aging. In terms of effectiveness, we cannot put the equality between forest plantations and a direct reduction in emissions.

If we want to overtake European countries, then first of all it is necessary to reduce emissions, and only where it is already impossible to do, to compensate them.

The latter should become a bonus to reduce emissions. To reduce direct emission of greenhouse gases, we have technological potential.

At the moment, the bill on limiting greenhouse gas emissions has been developed for the sake of our industrial corporations who do not want to invest in technology and pay for their emissions. The draft law must be revised and changed to the second reading. If we want to really lead in the world on a climate agenda, then it is necessary to reduce direct greenhouses of greenhouse gases, fight for new technologies to capture CO2 and save forests, and not invent imaginary ways to circumvent these tasks.