Professor of the European University at St. Petersburg Nikita Lomagin. INTERVIEW | The role of the Arctic as a “climate storehouse” in global climate change Climate and environment
A large number of scientists from around the world are taking part in the 29th UN Climate Conference in Baku. Among them is Nikita Lomagin, director of the Center for Energy Policy in Eurasia and professor of the European University at St. Petersburg. Denis Popov from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) spoke with the Russian scientist about climate change in the Arctic and the problems of international cooperation in this area.
Denis Popov: The Arctic theme is very important for our world in the context of climate change. Please tell us how science looks at the problem of changes in the Arctic? Nikita Lomakin: The Arctic is important for many reasons, not only for Russia and all Arctic states. The problem is that the Arctic is a “climate storehouse.” The climate in the Arctic is changing much faster than in other regions. By 2050, the temperature in the Arctic region is expected to rise by 3.5 degrees. What does this mean? What risks and threats does this pose? Perhaps the most important risk is that methane and other greenhouse gas emissions may increase and a virtually irreversible process will be launched, which scientists are already talking about. The tasks that we are now trying to solve within the framework of the Paris Agreement on climate will be extremely difficult to solve. Serious efforts must be made, joint efforts not at the level of some individual initiatives in individual states or even in groups of states, but at the level of the entire international community in order to minimize the emission of methane and black carbon, that is, soot. We have good experience, albeit local: we fought against the pollution of the Baltic Sea at one time within the framework of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. A map of the main sources of pollution was compiled, and through the efforts of individual states and the entire community of Baltic Sea countries, this problem was solved. It has been solved, that is, we have experience of positive interaction. As for the Arctic, there is a threat of melting permafrost there. Accordingly, we are talking about the fate of the small indigenous peoples of the North, and this is no more and no less than four million people. This is the fate of many important serious projects that contribute to ensuring global energy security. Resources are needed to combat energy poverty, but they are running out in the regions where we have traditionally extracted them. The resource base is shifting more and more to the north. Therefore, of course, efforts must now be made, and above all, on the platform of the Organization of New Nations. It is necessary to resume the work of the Arctic Council in its full format, understanding that there are unifying threats that can only be resolved through joint efforts. Accordingly, the eight Arctic states, those who have worked and are working within the Arctic Council, must return to the cooperation that has been fruitfully developing since 1996. Of course, the UN is an ideal platform, since here we talk to the greatest extent about global challenges, and global challenges must be met by global solutions. DP: What, in your opinion, is the importance of multilateral solutions to global problems such as climate change? NL: Climate change occurs regardless of state borders. Yes, decisions must be made by states, and they must take efforts at the national level within their jurisdiction in order to increase energy efficiency, reduce emissions, and so on. But we are not talking about the international community as a homogeneous community of states that are equally rich, equally developed, equally technologically equipped to successfully solve problems associated with the negative consequences of climate change… It is necessary to implement a set of measures that can only be solved together. This is connected with very sensitive things, in particular, with the way in which states should exchange technologies. This is an extremely important thing. If we really want to combat climate change, then those countries that have technologies, including those related to carbon capture, with a higher potential for the useful use of fossil fuels, biofuel production technologies, they must share these technologies. That is, we must answer the question of whether climate change really worries us all as much as we say it does. To be “green,” it is not enough to proclaim yourself “green” and propose your agenda, thinking that other people will implement it. This concerns all of us, and everyone must think about what contribution they can make to solving these problems. This problem [technology transfer] concerns not only the climate. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how complex and ambiguous this all is, when states pursue their national interests first and foremost. Climate is an even more complex problem than diseases that must be fought here and now. Will we be able to do this? Will we be able to provide financing for a just energy transition? We need dialogue, we need conversation. We need joint financial institutions. It is clear that the United Nations and the UN Charter, as the parent platform for all international cooperation, should guide global banks and global institutions to help the energy transition. But various restrictions impose serious limitations on the extremely capital-intensive area of activity that is related to the fight against climate change. We must honestly answer the question of how we, as a humanity, will solve these problems? Will narrow national interests prevail over those things that concern us all?..