Agenda exhausted: the world is increasingly talking about the irrelevance of the Paris Agreement

Argentina may become the second country after the United States to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty. According to Forbes, citing Financial Times sources, such a decision is being actively discussed by the country's government headed by President Javier Milay. Not so long ago at the economic forum in Davos, Miley sharply criticized "fanatical environmentalism," and now he has decided to move from words to deeds. And it seems that this is just the beginning: the irrelevance of the Paris climate agreement is increasingly being declared irrelevant at the highest level by politicians in many countries, from Germany to New Zealand. Izvestia explains how the climate agenda, which is global and unites the world, has turned into an instrument of political pressure and a burden on the economy.

Plywood over Paris

Following Argentina, which has already announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the same topic has been actively raised in New Zealand. ACT Party leader David Seymour, who is tipped to be deputy prime minister, said it was necessary to consider withdrawing from the global treaty. "There is a broader question of whether the New Zealand government should honor the Paris Agreement when half the world seems to be withdrawing from it anyway," he said.

Seymour clearly has his finger on the pulse of world politics: today, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was discussed simultaneously in dozens of countries - and not only by the "parties in power" but also by their political rivals, who unmistakably assessed the topic as evoking an unambiguously positive response in the most diverse social strata of voters. For example, Alice Weidel, the candidate for chancellor of Germany from the Alternative for Germany party, during her speech on February 1 at a campaign event in Neu-Isenburg, promised to secure the country's withdrawal from the global environmental agreement in case of victory, which clearly added points to her political piggy bank.

Politicians can be understood: after the withdrawal of the United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is not only unprofitable but also pointless for cleaner countries to remain within the framework of the agreement. This is increasingly being said in the Third World. For example, South Africa, which traditionally voices significant concerns and aspirations of the economically active countries of the black continent, has already voiced its doubts about the benefits of the agreement for African countries. One of the reasons for concern was the introduction by the EU countries of carbon tax mechanisms at the border (CBAM), which has become a global threat to the export policy of many developing countries, where businesses cannot yet afford the costly transition to "green" technologies. It is no coincidence that Brazil, South Africa, India and China demanded last year that unilateral restrictive trade measures should not be included in the agenda of the UN Climate Conference.

As a result, today the climate agenda, which a few years ago was perceived as uniting the interests of all countries, has become an instrument of very tough geopolitical and economic conflicts. The Paris Agreement, to which more than 190 countries have joined, on the one hand, proclaims a noble goal - to keep global warming within 1.5-2°C. On the other hand, it becomes an instrument of economic and political pressure. But the main problem is not even that the fight against carbon emissions has exhausted itself as a global political denominator. Even more serious questions are raised today about its ecological sensibility. Perhaps the authors of the Paris Agreement in 2015, in setting goals to combat global climate change, led humanity down the wrong path.

Earth and people

The question of who is currently the main economic beneficiary of the Paris climate agreement is not in doubt. The main benefits from the fight for green energy go to the European Union and China. The Europeans are using the global climate treaty to protect their own stagnating economies and energy security. China, in turn, plans to become the world's leading supplier of renewable energy equipment and technologies, which, if the current environmental agenda continues, will become increasingly in demand. Already today, China is taking the lead in this area: in the structure of world exports, it accounts for more than 80% of solar panels, 60% of batteries and over 35% of electric vehicles.

As for the main argument in favor of the Paris Agreement - the environmental benefits for all countries of the world and for the planet as a whole - the further it goes, the more it comes into question. Despite the enormous amount of effort and money invested in the development of green energy, the result so far has been relatively modest, and the further one goes, the louder the experts say that such an outcome is natural, and, alas, one should not expect any breakthroughs in this direction.

In Russia, Andrei Melnichenko, Chairman of the RSPP Committee on Climate Policy and Carbon Regulation, was one of the first to raise this topic. In November 2023, on the eve of the 28th conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Dubai, in his column for Kommersant, Melnichenko published statistics showing that, despite attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are still growing on a global scale, and only a negligible part of it is related to human activity. The Paris Agreement activists do not pay attention to other causes of climate change at all - with the expected result.

"Russia is confidently fulfilling all its commitments: by 2021, net greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 42% compared to 1990, the best indicator among all countries in the world. But the global results are not encouraging. Global emissions continue to rise, and climate warming since the pre-industrial era is already at 1.1 degrees Celsius, with the agreement that it should not exceed 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. All that has been achieved is to slow down the annual growth of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, although this concentration has already exceeded the pre-industrial level by 50%", - said Andrey Melnichenko.

The reasons for such inefficiency of the environmental policy of mankind are well known to environmentalists today. The total amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the surface of the planet today is about 860 gigatons annually. However, more than 90% of these emissions are of purely natural origin - they are emissions from natural landscapes - from soils, decay products of plants, natural fires, swamps, the world ocean and, especially, from permafrost, which is spread over a large part of the planet and actively participates in carbon emissions. Moreover, such emissions are increasing due to warming. Human activity, experts say, is responsible for only 56 gigatons of emissions each year - no more than 6% of the total mass.

"This 6% is the main focus of the Paris Agreement countries. To reduce this 6%, there is a struggle to divest from fossil fuels, to advance the development of renewable energy, electrification of transport and decarbonization of industry. The potential of these important actions in themselves at the current level of technology is not infinite, it requires huge and scarce financial resources. For many countries, including ours, this may be associated with a radical and carrying enormous risks of breaking the model of economic growth", - Melnichenko notes. Fortunately, he is not the only one asking these questions: scientists, economists and politicians are increasingly raising the question of not only the economic disadvantage, but also the ecological senselessness of the Paris Agreement, taking into account modern scientific data.

The Russian way

For Russia, the Paris Agreement remains a controversial instrument. On the one hand, the country is meeting and even exceeding its commitments: since 1990, Russia has reduced emissions by 69%, which is higher than most countries. On the other hand, participation in the agreement does not provide Russia with any economic benefits. Moreover, strict climate restrictions in the future may lead to additional trade barriers and a reduction in hydrocarbon exports.

Large Russian businesses are already asking questions about reconsidering the country's participation in the Paris Agreement. So far, the official position remains unchanged: as Maria Zakharova stated, Russia acts within the UN norms and continues to follow the signed commitments. However, the discussion within the country is growing. For example, the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs recently proposed to reconsider Russia's participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and assess the need to remain a party to it in the future. Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, sent a letter to this effect to Economic Development Minister Maxim Reshetnikov at the end of December 2024. In the letter, Shokhin points out, in particular, that after 10 years of the Paris Agreement, its important elements, such as the global carbon market, climate finance, and technology transfer, have not yet been fully operational. At the same time, some countries use it to promote their own economic and political interests. More and more developing countries point to their clear discrimination under the Paris Agreement mechanisms and the refusal of developed countries to fulfill their commitments, the document says.

What are the most relevant options for Russia's further actions within the framework of the climate agenda? Stakeholders have consistently emphasized that Russia has no plans to abandon its commitments to climate protection and limiting anthropogenic impact. However, today Russian business, which has extensive experience in environmental protection, is increasingly saying that the fight against climate change should be continued with other tools that take into account the latest scientific data and the global economic situation. Participation in the Paris Agreement can be maintained, but its mechanisms must be revised to meet the interests of all countries. Or a new global mechanism can be formed instead of the Paris Agreement; the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement provides a good basis for such negotiations. This approach is actively discussed in Russian expert circles, and it is supported by Andrei Melnichenko, Chairman of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) Committee on Climate Policy and Carbon Regulation.

Climate policy today works in the interests of developed countries, which have already emitted most of the allowable amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This approach does not take into account the historical responsibility of countries for environmental pollution and needs to be revised, experts say.

First, it is necessary to form the obligations of countries in the form of carbon budgets, which will be calculated on the basis of scientific data. The global carbon budget should be distributed among all countries, taking into account that accumulated emissions per capita should be equal. Such an approach would provide the necessary climate justice given that today developed countries have effectively "chosen" the lion's share of the global carbon budget, and restrictions are placed on those who pollute less but want to develop. This could become an important issue on Russia's international climate agenda.

Second, Russia's national target should be fixed not for one specific year, but as an accumulated net emission, for example, from 1990 to 2035. This simple and fair metric would show how massive Russia's real contribution to the global goals is compared to most countries.

Third, promote, within the framework of European cross-border carbon regulation (CBAM), the accounting of the carbon footprint of the country of origin of a product, rather than a specific product. Russia, together with friendly countries, should participate in challenging this mechanism on all available platforms, including the UNFCCC, the WTO, and others. It is necessary not just to support criticism of cross-border taxes by developing countries, but to propose an alternative to their calculation and collection, whereby a country with lower net emissions will not pay to a country with higher net emissions when supplying its products there.

The world is now at a point where past climate agreements clearly need to be updated. If Russia proposes a new, fair system based on real data and a balance of interests, it could win the support of many countries. Climate policy should help development, not be a barrier to the economy.