Although climatic conditions in the northern part of the country are expected to become
milder, other regions would suffer from more frequent and hotter heat wave days, which can have a negative impact on people’s health. For example, senior citizens might face aggravating cardiovascular problems and even people in good physical shape might become meteo-pathic. Furthermore, the population is anticipated to face shortages in water supply which has recently been unthinkable due to the large number of rivers, lakes and other fresh water sources in Russia. Milder northern climate is also expected to have its flip side. Melting permafrost will not only result in land subsidence that inevitably leads to infrastructure breaks and collapsing constructions, but is also considered a “ticking time bomb” due to its potential to release millions of tons of methane. As the permafrost gradually thaws into rivers, the latter might change river channels and consequently complicate inland shipping. In addition, higher temperatures are anticipated to intensify the spread of infections which will further contribute to socio-economic problems.

However, these benefits will be “compensated for” by the changing climate’s dire
repercussions across all sectors of the economy and spheres of life. For instance, due to
higher summer temperatures (aka heat waves), heat absorption systems at power stations will become less efficient. In addition, an increasing number of air conditioners will be used, more intensively, both at homes and offices. Therefore, it is hard to predict if climate change will bring about as much energy savings as energy spending. Furthermore, warmer temperatures in the future will have a mixed impact on Russia’s agriculture, contrary to an opinion generally held. Wider arable land and higher crop yields are supposedly the major positive consequences of climate change. However, the low yielding crop harvests in Russia’s fertile soil region are mainly due to a lack of precipitation, not lower temperatures. Consequently, heat waves might result in even scarcer water resources in these regions, turning them into semi-deserts. According to Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, crop yields in Russia might decrease 20% by 2015 which would be detrimental for the economies of these regions. Can a temperature increase in the northern, infertile, land compensate in the short run for this loss, considering that black soils need hundreds of years to be generated? Climate change can also have an adverse impact on the biodiversity of Russia. For instance, the Tundra is expected to gradually shrink which
would lead to a loss of habitat for millions of migratory birds. Moreover, the disruption of the food chain can result in a further loss of biodiversity. What is more, forest fires triggered by increased hot droughty seasons are likely to cause an annual damage of USD150 million.

Geoengineering is gaining grudging acceptance world-wide as we see numbers that are
increasingly grim, watch the world’s first climate refugees evacuate their homes, and shudder every time a chunk of sea ice breaks off and melts. Have we backed ourselves into a corner? Have we reached the point of no return and thus must take an action with consequences that are far-reaching and unknown? Of all the solutions to global warming, bioengineering has to be one of the most controversial. Only time will tell if it was truly a solution or not. No one is asking how much it costs. At the end we will pay the bill as we have done for the financial crises. It doesn’t matter if it is reasonable or not. If we fail to act now, geoengineering may be the only option left.

Pouring sulphate and dust particles into the atmosphere, planting thousands of fake plastic trees that eat carbon dioxide, sending millions of tiny lenses into orbit, creating artificial clouds, siphoning surface ocean water full of CO2 down to the deep ocean with giant tube, sending large swatches of cloth into orbit, covering large patches of open desert with reflective material; these are a few of many bioengineering ideas that will radiate some of the sun’s rays back and buy us more time. These aren’t the ideas of mad-scientists behind closed doors; these are concepts that are floating around administrations globally. For example, some months ago the chief science adviser to President Obama, John Holdren, admitted that the country has been considering firing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect the rays. Germany and India have already attempted climate control by dumping massive amounts of iron into the ocean to induce algae blooms (It didn’t work. The bloom triggered a population explosion of algae-eating shrimp). As these ideas gather momentum, and negative climate impacts continue, we can expect to see financing for these kinds of projects grow. As with the Cane Toads in Australia, and the Kudzu vine in the United States, messing with natural systems has its consequences. Indeed, opening the veritable Pandora’s Box on a global scale could be our most spectacular failure to date. The truth is, you simply cannot recreate the atmosphere in a lab, and so you can never know the consequences of your actions until
they occur. But desperate times call for desperate measures. If countries continue to bicker over a new protocol, and new standards are not set, do we sit by and let the planet degrade, or do we try and manipulate the outcome? As Dan Schrag, a Harvard based climate scientist, explains, “I talk about this as a tourniquet. It’s not a fix and it’s not a Band-Aid.

Russia is approximately 45% of it current energy consumption (Bashmakov et al., 2008), that is, the country can produce the same amount of goods and services with almost one half as much energy as it is using at the moment! Moreover, realising this potential would cost only one third of the amount the country needs to spend on meeting its growing energy demand with fossil fuels (WB, 2008).
Recognising the scale of energy-conservation opportunities in the country, the government, already in 2003, adopted the ‘Energy Strategy of Russia through 2020’ and afterwards prolonged that until 2030. However the document, being more of a roadmap than a regulation, gathered dust until 2009 when the Russian legislative body started pushing for a full-fledged legal framework on energy efficiency (Korppoo and Spenser, 2009). The new law has already passed its final reading in the Duma, the Russian house of representatives, and is to introduce numerous measures in the buildings and construction sectors including installation of energy meters, labelling system for appliances and buildings as well as awareness-raising (Praim-Tass, 2009). The latter, i.e., making citizens better informed would empower them to take sustainable consumption decisions and, hence, influence production via demand, creating a virtuous circle.

One of the most frequent arguments for Russia’s passive position regarding emission cuts is that it is a cold country and will therefore benefit from global warming. Most of the benefits are anticipated to arise from lower space heating energy consumption during cold months as well as from a more productive agricultural sector. The former is to some extent supported by the estimates of the Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. For example, by 2015, the annual heat deficit period is likely to become four days shorter. Considering the number of households, offices and heated industrial premises in the country, that could result in significant energy savings. Another predicted positive consequence is a milder climate in the northern regions of the country that would result in enhanced thermal comfort. Apart from temperatures, it is expected that wind energy potential in some parts of the country would increase due to changes in wind directions and intensities.

While the measure may be good to raise awareness among citizens, it goes not much further and does not bring any sustainable impact. Greenwashing is short term, may be driven by marketing reasons but never by environmental concerns. We can do
better! This experience made me wonder if ‘greening’ is the alternative for ‘greenery’? Does green paint or colour contribute to the environment as the trees do? The colour green is only symbolic of ‘environmentally friendly’ efforts. If only the solution to climate change was this easy, our politicians around the world would have passed legislations to paint everything (our houses, our vehicles, our offices, etc.) green. The only dress we would be allowed to wear would be green in colour!