Head of the RSPP Committee on Climate Policy Andrey Melnichenko shared his vision of ways to implement the Paris Agreement

On the eve of the next UN climate conference in Dubai, in a column for Kommersant, the head of the RSPP committee on climate policy Andrey Melnichenko proposes to recognize that it is impossible to slow down global climate change by fighting only anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and calls on the BRICS+ countries to develop alternative climate projects, including those aimed at reducing natural carbon emissions.

These days the 28th Conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-28) is taking place in Dubai. Interest in this main climate summit remains very high even against the backdrop of other hot topics on the international agenda. This year’s COP is notable because it takes stock of the first results of the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015. Russia is confidently fulfilling all its obligations: by 2021, net emissions of greenhouse gases have decreased by 42% compared to 1990, this is the best indicator among all countries in the world.

But the global results do not inspire optimism. Global emissions continue to rise, and climate warming since the pre-industrial era is already 1.1 degrees – while according to the agreement, it should not exceed 1.5-2 degrees. All that has been achieved is to slow down the annual increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, although this concentration itself is already 50% higher than pre-industrial levels.

It is the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that the leading scientific hypothesis explains climate warming. The total amount of their emissions from the planet’s surface is approximately 860 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 equivalent each year. However, it is often overlooked that only 56 Gt of them are associated with human economic activities (anthropogenic emissions). This 6% is the main focus of the countries participating in the Paris Agreement. To reduce this 6%, there is a struggle for the abandonment of fossil fuels, for the rapid development of renewable energy, the electrification of transport and the decarbonization of industry. The potential of these actions, which are important in themselves, at the current level of technology is not infinite; it requires gigantic and scarce financial resources. For many countries, including ours, this may be associated with a radical disruption of the economic growth model that carries enormous risks.

Naturally, due to the divergent interests of different countries, the Paris Agreement is stalled.

If, despite all the costs, we are failing to cut 56 Gt of human emissions, wouldn’t it be right to join forces around the remaining 94% of emissions without weakening those efforts? These are emissions from natural landscapes – from soils, products of plant decay, natural fires, swamps, the World Ocean and other things. Moreover, due to warming, such emissions are increasing.

For our country this issue is of particular relevance. The rate of climate warming in Russia is twice as high as the global rate. Temperatures are rising by about half a degree per decade. Such climate changes can have significant advantages specifically for our country – reduction in heating costs, increase in crop yields and agricultural areas, more complete use of the potential of hydroelectric generation, navigation along the Northern Sea Route. And simply more comfortable living conditions. But rising temperatures in the Arctic threaten the uncontrolled melting of permafrost, a giant natural reservoir that holds 1,400–1,800 Gt of carbon. Let me remind you that about 65% of Russia’s territory is located on permafrost. Emissions of methane and CO2 from it can add 0.5–2 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, and under some scenarios, permafrost can actually turn out to be a methane bomb with fantastic emissions.

I think few people know the name of this methane bomb. It’s called edoma.

It is carbon-rich, permafrost soil that has persisted since the Pleistocene in the Arctic, Eastern Siberia, Canada and Alaska. At the end of the last ice age, when, by the way, there was no talk at all about anthropogenic emissions, it was the melting Yedoma that provided most of the methane emissions that warmed the atmosphere. According to scientists, the melting of Yedoma could result in the release of more than 400 Gt of CO2 equivalent. Is it a lot or a little? This is ten times more than all CO2 emissions from the entire energy industry in the world.

However, our knowledge of processes in permafrost leaves much to be desired. Although all the risks are obvious, we do not have accurate scientific data on the carbon stores of permafrost, the rate of its melting, and the impact of these processes on climate change.

This is just one example of why we need to pay closer attention to natural landscapes. But while they carry risks, ecosystems also provide enormous opportunities. After all, every CO2 molecule is the same. It has identical physical properties, including its effect on the greenhouse effect, regardless of the source of the molecule – whether it is emissions from a fossil fuel power plant, or emissions from wetlands, thawing permafrost or the oceans.

Humanity is capable of influencing such emissions. Projects that prevent emissions from natural ecosystems or improve carbon sequestration are called Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). Even relatively inexpensive NBS—improving forest management, restoring steppes and savannas, fighting fires, greening the tundra to curb thawing permafrost—could, according to UNEP estimates, reduce net emissions by 10–18 GtCO2e per year, that is, almost by a third of all global anthropogenic emissions by 2050. The total potential for implementing natural solutions and geoengineering projects can exceed 150 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year. And this is already many times more than all the emissions that humanity produces.

Without the participation of Russia, with its vast territory and vast, diverse ecosystems, it is almost impossible to make any significant contribution to the absolute reduction of global emissions.

According to current estimates, cost-effective climate projects in our country can produce 400–900 million tons of CO2 equivalent, but in fact this is a completely conservative estimate. The real impact could be much greater if we develop NBS technologies for permafrost and coastal ecosystems. This could become a new large-scale sector of the Russian economy, which would also contribute to the development of underdeveloped territories.

Why is this enormous potential for curbing global temperature rise not being used? The fact is that carbon units obtained from natural projects can only be sold on voluntary carbon markets, the price of which ranges from $0.5 to $8 per ton of CO2 equivalent. This is not enough for such projects to pay off. There are regulated carbon markets with mandatory purchases of allowances, the largest of which is the European Trading System, where the price per ton of CO2 is about $100. But NBS results are not allowed there. The way these markets operate is largely dictated by energy and industrial decarbonization technology providers who have no interest in finding cheaper solutions to the climate problem. As a result, unified rules for accounting for natural climate projects have not been formed.

If a larger market for NBS were to emerge, it would be a huge incentive for their effective implementation. The BRICS+ countries could become a driver in this process by creating their own common space for exchanging the results of climate projects.

Despite the fact that the BRICS+ countries generate 40% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, they also have the greatest potential of natural ecosystems: more than 30% of the world’s territory, about 40% of the world’s forests. Within BRICS+, emissions can be effectively compensated: some countries have fuel and energy resources or heavy industry (China, India, South Africa, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran), others (Brazil, Argentina, Ethiopia) have the potential to implement climate projects. Russia has both available.

This already suggests that Russia can become a leader in promoting common approaches to climate projects within BRICS+. Let me remind you that the implementation and stimulation of climate projects are the basis of carbon regulation in our country; a register of them has been created and is functioning. The companies that are members of the RSPP Committee on Climate Policy and Carbon Regulation, which I head, are showing great interest in this area. We have something to offer the BRICS+ countries to create in Russia the infrastructure that is needed to implement and transfer the results of climate projects. Such an infrastructure should include common methodologies for project implementation, a unified system for validation and verification of projects, as well as ensure recording of project results and their mutual recognition. The central element of this infrastructure could be the Unified Register of Carbon Units of the BRICS+ countries.

Climate policy issues have every chance of becoming one of the key elements of the BRICS+ agenda during Russia’s chairmanship of this organization in 2024. The creation of a Unified Register will make it possible in the future to form a common carbon market, which will give an additional impetus to the Russian financial sector, stimulating the circulation of the national currencies of the BRICS+ countries.

I am confident that NBS will also become increasingly involved in the implementation mechanisms of the Paris Climate Agreement. This topic is already being discussed from various angles at COP-28. By the way, at the summit there is a special pavilion dedicated to the “Pleistocene Park” project being implemented in our country, in Yakutia. Its purpose is to clearly illustrate the enormous potential of NBS.

It is important to carry out work on climate projects in an international format, because this is an area where it is not individual experts and enthusiasts who must agree among themselves, but countries. The most effective solution would be to create, under the auspices of the UN, a special body to promote the implementation of the NBS, in whose work all interested parties could participate.

This could become a truly important and winning direction for Russian climate and economic policy.