British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Special Representative for Climate Change John Ashton came to Moscow on Tuesday for a one-day visit. He told Kommersant correspondent Alexander Gabuev about how Europe is combating global warming and whether Gazprom's export plans threaten those plans.
How is the dialog between Russia and Europe on climate change developing?
I was stunned at the degree of enthusiasm of Russian officials. When I met with Mr. [Igor] Shuvalov [aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin], he expressed complete willingness to cooperate. In the European Union, it s no longer a question. There is a general understanding that the changing climate is a threat to European security. But we consider Russia a very important player in the world arena, and so we want to consider its interests as well. We want to propose an international legal mechanism in which Russia's activities would be conciliated with European and world activities.
What sort of mechanism is that?
We have experience creating such a mechanism. It is the Kyoto Protocol, which regulates carbon dioxide emissions. After the protocol expires in 2012, we expect to development a new document, a more encompassing document that will benefit everyone more. For example, ay company in Russia that wants to be more energy efficient will be able to receive credits for applying energy-saving technology as part of that mechanism.
What role will the giants of Russian energy play in this mechanism?
I am sure that Gazprom and other Russian energy companies could derive considerable benefit from it. One possibility is the development of energy-saving technology. Many of the leading European concerns are already busy with that, including Shell and BP. The development of that technology is a very valuable asset. Another possibility is increasing the effectiveness of energy use within the country. The more economically gas is used in Russia, the more can be sold by Gazprom to its buyers abroad.
That is, if Gazprom wants to maintain its advance positions, it should trun from simple exporter of hydrocarbon into a leader in technology?
That is a worldwide tendency. Even the most conservative energy companies like the Americans have realized the importance of the problem and have been working in that direction for a long time. Their efforts are not going toward preventing that process, but toward taking part in it and making money on it.
Isn't the European Union afraid that these processes could be reflected in the price of Russian gas?
Even the most optimistic forecasts say that Europe will become a major market for Russian gas sales in any case in the coming decades. We don't plan to stop buying Russian gas suddenly. Yes, we have to seriously reduce gas consumption for home needs and convert to electricity. But that doesn't mean we will stop buying gas. We will simply burn it in electric plants equipped with the necessary equipment to absorb carbon dioxide, rather than in homes.
That is, no differences should arise between Russia and the European Union over climate change and energy-saving technology?
I hope not. Of course, some want to participate actively in the process and transform their economies and others do not take it seriously enough or do not want to take responsible political measures. I will not name specific countries. In any case, we are all at a dilemma. No one wants to take ecological measures at the cost of economic growth. If you talk about sacrificing jobs, you won't win any elections. But it must be made very clear that the current system of energy use threatens economic growth in principle, so we be forced to come up with something any way.
For developing countries such as Russia, that question is more complex, especially before elections. Are you concerned that it will be politicized in Russia?
I can only say one thing. We won't succeed if we shout at each other and say that one should do more and the other less. We see those kinds of arguments during discussions of world trade, and the negotiations last for years as a result. The problem of climate change is that we don't have time for those arguments.
Via: Kommersant |by Alexander Gabuev
How is the dialog between Russia and Europe on climate change developing?
I was stunned at the degree of enthusiasm of Russian officials. When I met with Mr. [Igor] Shuvalov [aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin], he expressed complete willingness to cooperate. In the European Union, it s no longer a question. There is a general understanding that the changing climate is a threat to European security. But we consider Russia a very important player in the world arena, and so we want to consider its interests as well. We want to propose an international legal mechanism in which Russia's activities would be conciliated with European and world activities.
What sort of mechanism is that?
We have experience creating such a mechanism. It is the Kyoto Protocol, which regulates carbon dioxide emissions. After the protocol expires in 2012, we expect to development a new document, a more encompassing document that will benefit everyone more. For example, ay company in Russia that wants to be more energy efficient will be able to receive credits for applying energy-saving technology as part of that mechanism.
What role will the giants of Russian energy play in this mechanism?
I am sure that Gazprom and other Russian energy companies could derive considerable benefit from it. One possibility is the development of energy-saving technology. Many of the leading European concerns are already busy with that, including Shell and BP. The development of that technology is a very valuable asset. Another possibility is increasing the effectiveness of energy use within the country. The more economically gas is used in Russia, the more can be sold by Gazprom to its buyers abroad.
That is, if Gazprom wants to maintain its advance positions, it should trun from simple exporter of hydrocarbon into a leader in technology?
That is a worldwide tendency. Even the most conservative energy companies like the Americans have realized the importance of the problem and have been working in that direction for a long time. Their efforts are not going toward preventing that process, but toward taking part in it and making money on it.
Isn't the European Union afraid that these processes could be reflected in the price of Russian gas?
Even the most optimistic forecasts say that Europe will become a major market for Russian gas sales in any case in the coming decades. We don't plan to stop buying Russian gas suddenly. Yes, we have to seriously reduce gas consumption for home needs and convert to electricity. But that doesn't mean we will stop buying gas. We will simply burn it in electric plants equipped with the necessary equipment to absorb carbon dioxide, rather than in homes.
That is, no differences should arise between Russia and the European Union over climate change and energy-saving technology?
I hope not. Of course, some want to participate actively in the process and transform their economies and others do not take it seriously enough or do not want to take responsible political measures. I will not name specific countries. In any case, we are all at a dilemma. No one wants to take ecological measures at the cost of economic growth. If you talk about sacrificing jobs, you won't win any elections. But it must be made very clear that the current system of energy use threatens economic growth in principle, so we be forced to come up with something any way.
For developing countries such as Russia, that question is more complex, especially before elections. Are you concerned that it will be politicized in Russia?
I can only say one thing. We won't succeed if we shout at each other and say that one should do more and the other less. We see those kinds of arguments during discussions of world trade, and the negotiations last for years as a result. The problem of climate change is that we don't have time for those arguments.
Via: Kommersant |by Alexander Gabuev
Tags:
