Opportunities and risks of the climate policy in Russia

The climate agenda involves significant economic dimension and component. This is precipitated, on the one hand, by the climate change impact on the economy and its implications for economic development that necessitate costs for planning and implementing adaptation measures, and, on the other hand, by the imperatives of structural and technological modernization of the economy to strengthen its competitiveness and sustainability of socio-economic development including reduction of industrial greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and increasing the ecosystems’ carbon sink capacity. The above implies harmonization of ecological, climatic, socio-economic, and technological characteristics to produce an effective national low GHG emissions socio-economic development strategy required by the Paris Climate Agreement. This in turn calls for comprehensive assessment of the impact produced by new low-carbon technologies on economic dynamics using the framework of macrostructural calculations and scenarios of economic development of Russia with different volumes of funding invested in decarbonization. It is argued that the most efficient is a group of so-called moderate scenarios that provide for both GHG reduction and economic growth rates above the global average. More ambitious scenarios involve risks of slowing GDP growth given weighty additional investment which constrains the dynamics of household consumption. The key role of the Russian ecosystems capacity to absorb and sequester carbon in implementation of the low GHG emissions socio-economic development strategy is substantiated and the imperative for the complex of measures to improve the efficiency of land use and forestry resources (LULUCF), primarily the quality of R&D and the national monitoring system development, is emphasized.

1. Gaida I., Dobroslavsky N., Lyashik Y., Daneeva Y., Melnikov Y. (2021). European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism — Key issues and impact on Russia. Moscow: SKOLKOVO Energy Centre. (In Russian).

2. Ivanter V. V. (ed.) (2017). Structural and investment policy to ensure economic growth in Russia. Moscow: Nauchny Konsultant. (In Russian).

3. Leonard M., Pisani-Ferry J., Shapiro J., Tagliapietra S., Wolff G. (2021). Geopolitics of European Green Deal. Russia in Global Affairs, February 17. (In Russian). https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/geopolitika-zelyonogo-kursa/

4. Porfiriev B. N. (2008). Economics of climate change. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).

5. Sayapova A. R., Shirov A. A. (2019). Fundamentals of the input—output approach: A textbook. M.: MAKS Press. (In Russian).

6. CENEf-XXI (2021). CBAM. Impact on the Russian economy. Moscow: Center for Energy Efficiency—XXI. (In Russian).

7. Shirov A. A. (ed.) (2020). Post-crisis economic recovery and the main directions of forecasting the socio-economic development of Russia for the period up to 2035. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.47711/sr1-2020

8. European Commission (2020). Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition: Investing in a climate-neutral future for the benefit of our people. Communication COM/2020/562.

9. Ferroukhi R., Casals X. G., Parajuli B. (2020). Measuring the socio-economics of transition: Focus on jobs. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency.

10. IPCC (2021). AR6 climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

11. Jacobson M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Bauer Z. A. F., Goodman S. C., Chapman W. E., Cameron M. A., Yachanin A. S. (2017). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 108—121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005

12. Lutz C., Becker L., Kemmler A. (2021). Socioeconomic effects of ambitious climate mitigation policies in Germany. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 11, article 6247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116247

13. Markandya A., Arto I., González-Eguino M., Román M. (2016). Towards a green energy economy? Tracking the employment effects of low-carbon technologies in the European Union. Applied Energy, Vol. 179, pp. 1342—1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.122

14. Matthews H. S., Weber C., Hendrickson C. T. (2008). Estimating carbon footprints with input—output models. Paper presented at the International Input—Output Meeting on Managing the Environment, Seville, July 9—11.

15. Nadel S., Ungar L. (2019). Halfway there: Energy efficiency can cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050 (Report U1907). Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

16. Pacala S., Sokolow R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with the current technologies. Science, Vol. 305, No. 5686, pp. 968—972. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100103

17. Porfiriev B. (2019). Economic dimension of the climate challenge to Russia’s sustainable development. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 134—139. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331619020187

18. Potapenko V. V., Shirov A. A. (2021). Forecast of Russian personal consumption expenditures as function of income distribution and relative prices. Studies on Russian Economic Development, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1—10. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700721010111

19. Ram M., Aghahosseini A., Breyer C. (2020). Job creation during the global energy transition towards 100% renewable power system by 2050. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 151, No. C, article 119682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.008

20. Swiss Re Institute (2021). Natural catastrophes in 2020: Secondary perils in the spotlight, but don’t forget primary-peril risks. Sigma, No. 1/2021.

21. UNDRR (2019). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

22. UNEP (2021). Adaptation gap report 2020. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program.

23. Wiedmann T. (2009). Editorial: Carbon footprint and input—output analysis—An introduction. Economic Systems Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 175—186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541256