The keep-it-cold war

Global warming is no friend to Russia, ambassador says 5

St. Basil\\'s CathedralRed Square in Moscow: It gets cold there, but that doesn’t mean they like global warming.Russia may be one of the coldest nations on Earth, but it has no interest in seeing global warming continue unchecked, the Russian ambassador to the United States said in an interview.

Ambassador Sergei Kislyak said Russia is willing to work with other countries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. He disagreed sharply with recent news reports suggesting Russian leaders may welcome climate change because it would make Arctic gas and oil deposits and northern regions more accessible.

“Climate change brings not only the warming of Siberia, it brings many problems that we’ll have to cope with,” Kislyak said. “They will outweigh the benefits, the perceived benefits. We have developed a lot of technologies to make even the most remote places in Siberia accessible. It’s not the biggest problem.”

Heading into climate talks in Copenhagen this December, Russia wants to ensure that all heavy emitters are involved in an international treaty, he said. Russia is the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind China and the United States.

“We want all the countries that contribute to climate change to be on board in cutting emissions,” Kislyak said. “That is kind of our guiding principle. Certainly the negotiations are going to be difficult. But I would say that, more or less, our positions are closer and closer with the United States.”

Kislyak, a veteran diplomat and a nuclear physicist by training, acknowledged that climate change wasn’t high among his areas of expertise. He framed the issue largely in economic terms.

“We want the issue of climate change to be addressed in a way that will promote the stability of the climate, rather than the way it is devolving now,” he said. “But I think everybody would claim that. The issue is, at what price and who is going to do what?”

We spoke after his talk on Russian-U.S. relations in Seattle last Friday, hosted by the Foundation for Russian American Economic Cooperation. Last September Kislyak began his ambassadorship in the aftermath of the violent conflict in South Ossetia, a time he described as the lowest point in U.S.-Russia relations since the Cold War. In his address, he said he drew a good deal of optimism from President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow last month. Yet he gave unapologetic defenses for Russia’s position in Georgia, its stance on Iran’s nuclear pursuits, and its opposition to a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe.

“We were told [the missile shield] is not against us, it’s against Iran, so Russia shouldn’t be worried. People are saying Russia was consulted when the decision was made. All of this is not completely true,” he said.

He also took a confrontational tone in discussing the Kyoto climate treaty. “We are, by the way, members of the Kyoto Protocol,” he said. “You are not. And we can afford this, easily.”

What he didn’t say is that the reason Russia can afford to meet Kyoto benchmarks is because they are based on emissions levels from 1990, two years before Russia’s economy nosedived in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Russia can continue growing its economy (and climate pollution with it) and stay comfortably within Kyoto standards for several years.

Kislyak had more to say about energy efficiency, which is a focal point of a recent report from the Center for American Progress that calls for a “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations via climate and energy cooperation.

“It is a priority for Russia because our economy is much less efficient than many others—several times less efficient,” he said. “It’s not because we are not technologically advanced, it’s because we have been living with the luxury of having so much fossil fuel that we simply didn’t care too much about it.

“Times have changed and we understand that fossil fuels need to be left for future generations. We need to be energy sufficient, but I would underline that it’s part of the Russian economic program no matter what. Whether there will be [an international climate] conference or not, we are going to modernize our economy for our own people.”

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. seriolavore Posted 8:18 pm
    03 Aug 2009

    Can the ambassador cite any examples of the many problems that his nation will face?  While I would like to think that he is truly speaking for his beliefs, I would like to see his train of thought.  What is he thinking?  If the largest country in the world with arguably the most to gain by global warming is taking the stance that the negatives outweigh the perceived benefits, then it should be fairly easy to convince those of us in warmer climes.  So speak up!  What are you thinking, Amb. Kislyak?!
  2. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 2:20 pm
    04 Aug 2009

    Well Russia does have some major inefficiencies in its industrial sector, and spends a lot of money on just staying warm compared to the Swedes.  What he didn't mention is a compelling story to me.When the tundra melts, everything turns into mud.  Easy access to oil and gas, are you kidding?  It is much easier to drive on frozen ground even if you have to use snow plows.  Trees will die and the bogs might catch on fire.  The bugs will become terrible -- have you ever been to Alaska when the black flies start literally eating your bod?  Differential soil expansion and settling rates will cause any buried pipes to rupture.  Just the environmental destruction would be collosal.Take a look at the temperature anomaly maps done by NOAA that compare 30-year climatic temperatures to persent month or annual temperatures.  There are is a slittle cluster of red dots over a part of Alaska, which we know is going through some major subsidence, erosion, and other problems due to Climate Change.But look at Siberia!  The entire area, the entire northern sector of Russia, is on fire with red dots.  It is an immense area possibly nearly the size of the United States.  They have a reason to be worried, yes they do.  They just don't want to talk about it.  It'll make drilling in the Louisiana swamps look like a cake walk. 
    1. johnpdeever Posted 4:20 am
      10 Aug 2009

      Very good points!
  3. Des Emery Posted 6:15 pm
    05 Aug 2009

    And it isn't just the northern warming that will be the problem.  When climate change is evident there, it will also be influencing the southern climes.  Drought and desertification will send people from the tropics northward in migrations that have never before been experienced.  Northward -- check out the globe, there is no large landmass in the southern hemisphere comparable to the northern hemisphere, so the USA, Canada, Europe, Russia, and China will be the destinations of choice (some choice) for the rest of the world, South America, Africa, India, Indonesia, Australia.  For every mile of the north that AGW opens up in the Arctic, a mile of the south will be lost.    

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement