On the agenda of tomorrow's meeting of the Russian government is the question of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol -- a highly important international document that is supposed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And a few days ago, on the initiative of the Foundation for Integrated Applied Research, the problem was taken up by well-known scientists. A small circle of experts, in the presence of an even smaller circle of journalists, attempted to define Russia's place in global climatic strategy. The 15 member nations of the EU announced last fall, at a conference in Morocco, their firm intentions to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Iceland, Japan, Australia and Canada are ready to join the ratification. The world community became hopeful that it would be possible to solve the problems that brought about the UN Convention on Climate Change (1994). There is a Proposal to Take Shelter Under an Umbrella The first to raise the problem 40 years ago was the Soviet scientist Mikhail Budyko, who saw that the curve on a graph of the air temperature of the earth's surface stratum was inexorably moving toward the upper right-hand corner. Participants in the debate also proceeded from the postulate that the earth's atmosphere has been heating up over the past 100 years. It is another matter that the reasons for this alarming phenomenon are not completely clear, and experts offer different interpretations of the consequences of global warming. Rumor has it that the late author of the greenhouse model told Academician Roald Sagdeyev: "I'm a little uneasy when I tell the Americans about my model, because it suggests that Russia's agriculture will gain from global warming, while America's agriculture will lose." Sagdeyev looked at Budyko with interest: "But then where will we buy grain?" And now Andrey Gudkov, an expert at the Center for Strategic Studies, follows Budyko in insisting that Russia, as well as Canada and Alaska, gain, since "lands situated in a condition of permafrost will gradually turn into fertile soils for agricultural production." But the rich Russian fields that stretch across the Arctic zone are small comfort to humankind as a whole, so Gudkov proposes blocking off the sun with an umbrella that would be suspended in space. The expert immediately sketched on a blackboard what this should look like, mixing up chemical symbols: rockets would carry metallic sodium into orbits around the earth. Cooling aerosols dispersed over the polar zones would prevent overheating of the tundra during sunny summer nights. True, the sun-screening space umbrella (the author's name) does not have much chance of opening up, due to "political-economic circumstances." Indeed, the idea has not yet captivated the masses so much that they would remove their last trousers to start investing immediately in the project. But the expert urged everyone to despair, "since control of global warming without Russia is impossible; the country is becoming the owner of the controlling block of shares." In Mr. Gudkov's view, everything is developing well, we can take our time, and we can do nothing at all, since global warming is a threat only to the southern countries. The Obvious is Incredible The speaker's ardor was cooled by the well-known Sergey Kapitsa, who is not inclined to give way to rapture over the advantages promised to Russia. He also questions the predicted amount of future warming. Six degrees, the professor believes, is unlikely, since that kind of thing has not happened on the planet in the past 420,000 years. This is indicated by a well drilled in the ice cap of Antarctica 30 years ago, which helps to comprehend what has happened to climate. In addition to the suggestion from the sixth continent, it is a good idea to recall the Great Flood, which has been depicted, apart from the Bible, in many of the world's mythologies: "What was it? Before predicting the future, we must learn how to predict the past," Kapitsa summed up. In his view, it would not be a bad idea, when the scientific community draws up all sorts of forecasts and plans of action that flow out of them, for it to seek help from the science of paleoclimatology and to gain a broad understanding of its data. No one wanted to argue with the master. A consensus was arrived at that climate has always changed, but it has never occurred with such speed. Some terminological refinements came up as well. For example, Prof. Viktor Danilov-Danilyan maintain that "we must not speak of warming, but of global climatic changes; warming is merely one aspect of these changes." What is cited as the reason for them, the scientist continues, "is almost always the increase in the greenhouse effect due to a larger concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This concentration grows, in turn, it is usually written, due to the burning of a huge quantity of organic fuel (oil, natural gas, coal, wood, peat, etc.) by industry, transport, agriculture and households. But this is not the only cause of climatic change. It isn't even the only cause of the increase in the greenhouse effect." Those in attendance did not argue. On the contrary, they found solidarity in the view that it is impossible to explain everything with models. Models are flawed, including the greenhouse model, and the only thing that is beyond dispute is that warming is underway, and the contribution of human beings to this alarming condition is very large, possible at least 30 percent. If One Lies on a Stove... Our country has something like a controlling block of shares, since without Russia and the US the Kyoto Protocol will die. And if the States behave badly, we are simply obligated to ratify this document -- this was the conclusion arrived at by the round table. The gist is that, according to the Kyoto terms, quotas can be sold, that is, if you have fewer emissions than your neighbor, then you have every reason to strike an advantageous deal. True, this clause has been stirring up a lot of questions for a long time. The discussants also presented differing views on the trading of air. Some of the participants took the line that this is an extremely useful for Russia, which has "hot air" (that is, it is 30 percent short of the permitted level of CO2 emissions), and the country can become the dominant seller in the market; consequently, it has a greater stake than anyone in the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. We will also gain from the fact that compliance by other nations with the terms of the protocol will lead to higher demand for gas, of which we have huge resources. So if anyone doubts whether Russia should ratify the document, he is deeply mistaken. True, this position makes one think of Yemelya's [illusory] happiness and worry about the future development of the country (both technological and economic as a whole). Fortunately, supporters of the idea of lying on a stove found an opponent. Nikolay Ratsiborinskiy, a senior adviser to the Foreign Ministry's Department of International Organizations, took up this role. He described the opinion that Russia can gain from perturbations of the climate as false. "When we determine the position of the diplomatic service, we proceed from the premise that the whole strategy of nature-conservation efforts is not profitable but costly and that it is impossible to solve the problems of environmental protection on our own... The Kyoto mechanism is costly, but its value lies in the fact that its implementation has been tied to the market mechanism, that is, life without change has been made uneconomical." In short, if you don't want to exert yourself, buy the neighbor's quota; if you don't want to spend the money, use your brain and invest in the development of nature-conservation technologies. Consequently, if our homeland's efforts boil down merely to dealing in "hot air," this will not provide an impetus to start up high technologies and will knock Russia out of the group of countries that are striving for rational development, above all out of the European Union. This is just the time to recall that the energy requirements of Russian output are among the highest in the world (see graph [omitted here] -- Ed.). The Foreign Ministry, said N. Ratsiborinskiy, clarifying his agency's position, recommends that the government move to ratify, since the view at Smolenskaya Square is that the impact of our national efforts will be greater if they are integrated into the efforts of the EU. "The assessment by the Foreign Ministry official is brilliant," exclaimed Aleksandr Ginzburg, deputy director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics. "This is the best thing I have read or heard about the Kyoto Protocol!" It is hard to disagree with this. Background The document that was given the name of the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 in the Japanese city of Kyoto. It was aimed at reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and assigns countries quotas on their emissions. As of today, more than 80 nations (all the developed countries and almost all of the CIS countries) have signed the Kyoto Protocol, and almost 40 have ratified it. Russia signed the document three years ago, in March 1999. Russia is third in the world in total emissions -- after the US and China. Russia's emissions are almost twice as great as those of Germany and Japan (in fourth and fifth places). American at first signed the document, but a year ago President Bush announced that he would not impose regulations in his country on the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This meant, in effect, that the US withdrew from the accords. What Preceded the Kyoto Protocol? It was preceded by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was adopted on 9 May 1992 and entered into force 21 March 1994. A total of 186 nations are parties to the convention, including Russia, all of the developed countries and all of the CIS countries. The convention was designed to unite efforts to prevent dangerous climate changes and to achieve a stabilization of the content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a relatively safe level. A decision was adopted at the first conference of convention participants (1995, Berlin) to begin phased actions to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases and to create an appropriate system of ecological-economic relations. Facts Six greenhouse gases are known. The principal one is CO2 (it is responsible for 80 percent of the greenhouse effect). Methane's contribution is 15 percent. Facts According to estimates by the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Energy, Russia's total carbon-dioxide emissions in 2008-2012 will be 20 percent below the 1990 level. This means that Russia will be able to offer the carbon market emission quotas of up to 3 billion tons. The cash equivalent could be several tens of billions of dollars. Background The Ecological-Economic Meaning of the Kyoto Protocol This is the first international document that makes use of the market mechanism as an approach to solving global ecological problems. It provides for economic mechanisms of international cooperation. In Russia, up to 98 percent of all emissions of the main greenhouse gas -- CO2 -- come from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). This means the problem of reducing emissions is a problem of energy efficiency and energy saving. So far this potential has been utilized only to a small degree, whereas there are almost no such reserves left in the EU countries and Japan. That is why carrying out a project and reducing emissions in Russia is far cheaper than in most developed countries. The Obligations of Foreign Countries Under the Kyoto Protocol Developed countries and transitional economies must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 2008-2012 by at least 5 percent from the recognized baseline year of 1990. The reduction level varies. The US, Japan and members of the EU must reduce emissions by 7, 6 and 8 percent from the 1990 level. A limitation, rather than reduction, of emissions is specified for several developed countries (New Zealand, Norway), and Australia and Iceland received the right to increase emissions. If a country fails to use up its quota, it can sell the "surplus." Russia's Obligations Under the Kyoto Protocol They are relatively mild for our country. We are not required to reduce emissions, but over five years (from 2008 through 2012) we do not have the right to exceed their volume. This approach is based on the fact that Russia's emissions today are almost 25 percent lower than in 1990, and, according to forecasts, the baseline level will not be reached in the next 10 years. This is substantiated in detail in the RF Energy Strategy Until 2020, which the government has adopted. Within the framework of the protocol our country must maintain records of, and monitor, emissions and emission quotas, as well as regulate quotas. This requires creating a national system of inventorying emissions and establishing a special registration center to maintain records of quotas. Despite the outward complexity of the task, the creation of a record-keeping and monitoring system is neither very complicated nor very expensive, since the Goskomstat [State Statistical Committee] reporting forms that enterprises fill out contain virtually complete data. Experts' Opinion No One Will Be Well Off Should we be happy about climate change? Many people in Russia say: how much fuel we'll save! But the warming will definitely not be uniform. If the mean temperature rises by 2 degrees, the range of fluctuations will widen and will go, for example, from -40 to +45 degrees. So there will not be less of a need for fuel if, on the average, one winter out of every three winters becomes much colder than the harshest previous one. And what will happen during the new, overly warm summer seasons? What will happen to industrial and transport facilities, housing and other infrastructure that were built in permafrost, which will turn into muddy swamp? The unbalancing of the climate will have a very negative effect on ecosystems. Some species are disappearing, while others, conversely, are starting to multiply will unprecedented speed. Gangster species are appearing, such as the locust, which is moving toward the north, where it has never been before. It is hard to say today what will happen to edaphic microflora, which is of fundamental importance to soil fertility. If microflora stop reproducing humus, the higher plants will die, agricultural crops will stop growing, and timber will start to dry up. If the glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland melt down, the level of the world's oceans will rise. Russia has quite a lot of low-lying areas, such as St. Petersburg. The enormous territory of Western Siberia risks turning into a sea. Viktor Danilov-Danilyan, doctor of economics, president of the International University of Ecology and Political Science All of Our Activities Are Ruining Nature There are several models today, and they answer the question of why the climate is changing with varying degrees of persuasiveness. Why don't I have the sense that the models explain everything? The problem is that the present stage of study of small climatic models has scientists studying the life of the models as the life of a real climatic system. But to what extent does this reflect real life? Nevertheless, the progress in gaining knowledge has been tremendous. Our institute, along with the Institute of Systems Analysis and the Russian Academy of Sciences Computer Center, has begun studying the role of climate change in individual regions of Russia in order to forecast economic development. There are no results to speak of yet, but it is important that this area of inquiry has appeared. During a general warming, completely opposite phenomena take place. In the polar regions, climate changes are more pronounced than in the middle latitudes. As a result, the temperature doesn't change much in the equatorial and middle latitudes but changes a great deal in the polar regions. What does this lead to? Dispersion is less active, and so-called obstruction or stagnant situation manifest themselves in the atmosphere more and more often. We have just observed such a case of a very lengthy thaw in the center of Russia. Incidentally, last year's incredibly cold winter in Primorskiy Kray was very possibly an example of the same property. Because, strange as it may seem, prolonged, stagnant cold spells are also a result of global warming when there is less ventilation of the atmosphere as a whole. As for all the ideas regarding blocking shields, umbrellas and the like, I will answer this way. The Kyoto Protocol proposes adapting to climate change. There are no proposals there to erect screens or to shoot cooling aerosols into the atmosphere. Already everything humankind does causes incredible damage to nature. We emit greenhouse gases, we thaw out the frozen regions that emit methane, we destroy forests, and in the south, deserts are expanding, a process that alters the heat exchange between the earth's surface and the atmosphere. That is, all of our actions are accompanied by a deterioration in the climate. In this situation it is very frightening to do anything else -- for example, to suspend some umbrella, screen or something else in that vein. Aleksandr Ginzburg, deputy director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics