The Green Blue Dream: Will the Earth be Saved for Future Generations?

The past five years have been the hottest on record, with greenhouse gas levels breaking records every year. According to many scientists, if the environmental problem is not solved, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Living in our country — even in the most vulnerable places in the country from the point of view of the impact of climate change (in the Far East, in the Arctic, in mountainous regions and St. Petersburg) — and without being professionally involved in ecology, it is very difficult to assess the scale of a possible threat. The media are increasingly addressing this issue, but the tone of their messages is extremely cautious. Against this background, the emotionality of the speech of the Swedish eco-activist Greta Thunberg in front of world leaders, exclaiming: “How dare you!” (“How dare you!”)

“Basically, all the major developed countries take an openly selfish position. They make beautiful speeches at the UN, pretending to be bright green, but in reality they are only slightly greenish. Greta’s cry is the cry of a child, indicating that “the king is naked,” says Alexei Kokorin, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Nobel Peace Prize winner as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The tone chosen by Thunberg does not seem shocking or incorrect to him.

The idea of ​​global anthropogenic impact on climate has been seriously discussed by the world community since the 80s of the last century.

Main stages of discussions:

• in 1988, at the initiative of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEP), the IPCC was created;

• in 1994, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) appeared;

• Three years later, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. According to its terms, 38 developed countries and the European Union as a whole in 2008-2012 were to have emissions no more than a certain percentage of their own emissions in 1990. At the same time, each country determined the volume of emissions for itself – as a result, the overall reduction was 5%.

It was possible to achieve a total reduction by the end of 2012, although not all countries fulfilled their individual obligations under the Kyoto Protocol: the United States refused to participate in it three years after the adoption of the agreement. The Americans argued that in order to fulfill their obligations, they would have to make significantly greater efforts than all other countries, since the dynamics of emissions in the United States differed significantly, for example, from those in Europe or Japan. Canada also faced the same problem, but it withdrew from the protocol much later, in 2012.

By that time, it became obvious that the format of combating climate change needed to be changed.

Countries that accounted for relatively few emissions in the 1990s experienced explosive growth. Now both China and India, not burdened with any obligations under the Kyoto agreement, are in the top 5 main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Other developing countries are striving for leading positions in this “rating”.

• In December 2015, a new UN climate agreement was signed in the Parisian suburb of Le Bourget. It was not legally binding. But countries have declared their desire not to allow the average temperature on the planet to rise above two degrees Celsius in relation to the indicators of the pre-industrial era, but, if possible, to reduce it to one and a half degrees. To help the most vulnerable countries, the Green Climate Fund was created (later a total amount of contributions of $100 billion per year was approved).

According to WWF, the shortage of fresh water in tropical and subtropical countries and the consequences of the disappearance of mountain glaciers are “well calculated.” The situation is much worse when it comes to predicting the frequency and strength of dangerous phenomena – powerful precipitation, heat waves, storm winds, snowstorms, hurricanes, etc.

In the face of these threats, it is the weak developing countries that are most vulnerable.

Small island states such as the Seychelles and the Maldives may be completely submerged by the end of this century. At the same time, they themselves cannot significantly affect the problem – on a planetary scale, their emissions are minimal.

For developed countries, current economic growth is still much more important than potential climate damage.

Steps to improve the ecological situation on the planet in many cases require radical ones, and people who are actually ready to support them are still not enough.

For example, the mass protest movement in France, known as the “Yellow vests”, began because of the increase in fuel prices. The country’s leadership explained the need for this increase precisely with environmental motives, the desire to transfer as many French people as possible from private cars to public transport. This measure was not understood by the majority of the population – even those who willingly sort the garbage and turn off the light when leaving the room – did not meet. Why?

Cars with an internal combustion engine are far from the main source of emissions on the planet. A more significant threat is posed by coal-fired energy and large forest fires, such as those recorded this year in Indonesia, Brazil, and Siberia.

The causes of fires are mainly anthropogenic in nature – the desire to hide illegal logging, carelessness in handling fire, deforestation (clearing forest areas for agriculture, grazing, development of mining enterprises). Such careless clearings are not only not condemned by the local leadership, on the contrary, in a number of cases they meet with their support: the current President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, calls for more active development of the territory of the Amazon, promises to put an end to “Shiite environmental activism”, and then accuses Hollywood actor and environmental activist Leonardo of arson DiCaprio and his sponsored NGOs.

US President Donald Trump is also not among the active supporters of the fight against global warming. He speaks with irony about the climate crisis and the activities of eco-activists. Moreover, in the summer of 2017, Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States – the second most emitting country in the world after China – from the Paris Agreement. According to the initial commitments, America was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030-26% by 28 from the level of 2005, and also to allocate $ 2020 billion by 3 to help poor countries. Trump explained his decision with a desire to “protect America and its citizens,” since, according to estimates by National Economic Research Associates, the implementation of obligations under the climate agreement will lead to the loss of 2025 million jobs by 2,7. The US president was especially unhappy with the fact that China was allowed not to reduce emissions for another 13 years.

Politicians and businesses in many regions live within the framework of an established way of life, says Igor Makarov, Head of the Department of World Economy, Head of the Climate Change Economics Laboratory at the Higher School of Economics. “For example, countries that export fossil fuels, including Russia, are not interested in this way of life changing. Radical steps could damage the current economic order, in which these countries are quite comfortable. Investments in the “green” economy, emission reductions need to be done right now, while the results, that is, damage reduction, will be noticeable only in decades,” he added.

According to the interlocutor, there are few incentives for such long-term investments, especially for businesses. “But I think that over time, the intensity of the green transformation will increase, green technologies will develop, become cheaper and more accessible,” Makarov believes. “Moreover, the demands from the population, especially in developed countries, are growing. Politicians have to listen to them.”