Go Green or Bust: Russia’s Environmental Challenges

By David Mack, from www.csis.org

In Russia, a nascent environmental movement is taking strides to preserve their country’s natural treasures and show big business that investing in green technologies is a responsible, but also profitable venture.  This “awakening” came in the midst of the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and a rare heat wave throughout Russia which sparked wildfires and destroyed enough crops to warrant a temporary ban on the export of grain.  The economy’s vulnerability to man-made environmental disasters and nature’s own erratic patterns have certainly grabbed the attention of Russia’s leaders who are grappling for solutions, but who are more often than not, mired in old habits and left flip-flopping on contentious environmental policy issues.

The opportunity cost of going green

Russia made noise in the international area at the December 2010 Cancun climate summit when the delegation announced that Russia would not seek to renew further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol after its expiration in 2012.  Canada and Japan both echoed Russia’s concerns with Kyoto, criticizing the limited scope of the treaty, with suggestions that a new binding universal agreement be drafted that would include both developed and developing nations, especially all major polluters; i.e. the United States, China, and India.  The stalemate at Cancun gave a bleak foreshadow for any breakthroughs at next year’s summit in Durban, South Africa.  Russia, however, has not been sitting on its hands – committed to cut emissions by 15-to-25 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, Russia recently sold quotas on noxious and green-house emissions to Japan.  Russia may only have just scratched the surface regarding the potential of so-called “green investments” which could net them 2-to-2.5 billion dollars a year.

In comparison to other countries, Russia is by far the most energy intensive; outdated and wasteful equipment, buildings, and technological processes mar the economy with inefficiencies.  Assuming Russia could sustain its goal of six percent per annum growth in GDP (more than doubling the Russian economy by 2030), both energy consumption and overall emissions would increase by 40 percent.  However, if Russia were to invest $196 billion into green technologies in key sectors (buildings and construction; fuel and energy; industry and transport) over the next twenty years, it would rake in up to $450 billion in savings as well as cut energy consumption by 23 percent and emissions by 19 percent. 

Despite passing a law on energy efficiency in November 23, 2009 which outlined a strategy to cut waste 40 percent by 2020, many ecologists are still frustrated by government and big businesses who disregard their advice for long-term sustainability, targeting short-term profits instead.  Not all have lost faith in the practical implementation of green technologies in today’s business environment – Pavel Goncharov, head of the Guild of Managers and Developers, believes that “Green technologies can be more than a PR stunt…they can also help attract international investors, they work in terms of economy, and can save you money from the very outset of construction.”  With low risk and large benefits, 2011 could be a very green year for Russia.

Economy versus environment

Due to the pollution of Lake Baikal, caused primarily by the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Plant (BPPP), UNESCO may remove the world’s deepest freshwater lake from the World Heritage list.  “The Pearl of Siberia” as it is dubbed, Lake Baikal, estimated at 25 million-years-old, is located in south-eastern Russia and is the source of one-fifth of the world’s freshwater as well as home to hundreds of unique species of marine life.  Ecologists maintain that the BPPP affects over 50 percent of the lake’s ecosystem.  The plant’s most toxic by-product finding its way into Baikal’s waters are dioxins – these chemicals infect the lake’s fish and then the animals and people who eat them. Continued pollution will surely disrupt Baikal’s natural ecosystem as it takes 400 years for the water in the lake to be completely replaced, meaning the toxins are there to stay. 

The town of Baikalsk is what economists call a “mono-town” meaning that a single enterprise is responsible for the support of the town’s entire infrastructure.  Environmentalists rejoiced in 2008 when the Soviet-era paper plant was shut down after federal environmental standards restricted its ability to produce bleached pulp – its most profitable product, forcing the plant to close and lay off over 1,300 workers. 

President Medvedev admits that Russia’s inheritance of two billion tons of industrial waste from the Soviet Union has taken its toll on today’s environmental situation, but he’s often caught between a rock and a hard place in situations such as Baikalsk where even modernization of existing facilities doesn’t mitigate all waste products from finding its way into the lake’s shores.  Underdevelopment of infrastructure for alternative industries in Siberia such as tourism has ensured the liability of mono-towns throughout rural Russia.

New breed of civic activism

Let’s talk about grassroots movement to save the 200 year-old Khimki forest from bulldozers for the construction of a new highway from Moscow to St. Petersburg intended to ease traffic flows.  After putting the project on hold to consider the options, including alternate routes for the road, President Medvedev ultimately decided to go through with the construction of the controversial highway via the forest path which would shorten construction by four years.  But new breed of civic activists was embodied in Russia. They are engaging communities to stand up and do something about the issues that affect them and their daily lives.  They began their resistance by simply passing out pamphlets and flyers, but soon her movement caught wind and grew to include support from international organizations such as Greenpeace, even convincing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development not to invest in the project. 

Conclusion

Russia is certainly at a crossroads in 2011 on how it will approach environmental issues.  The cliché often heard when one attempts to map Russia’s activity on a plethora of issues is “one step forward, two steps backwards” and this has been no exception for Russia’s attitude toward the environment, i.e. pass landmark energy efficiency legislation, but cut down a centuries-old forest and re-open a pollutant-spewing factory on the banks of a national treasure.  In both the Khimki and Baikal cases it is plain to see a government which is sensitive to public opinion.  Russia is in a position to launch a progressive green movement which would have positive impacts from the international arena all the way down to local communities.  Will Russia rise to the challenge?  At this we can only speculate, but the Kremlin is certainly well aware that its disregard to the environment is not without consequence.