climate change: crunch time for kyoto

Reach for the seatbelt in a Moscowtaxicab, and you are likely to be repri-manded by the driver. “We’re in Rus-

sia,” he might say — his way of letting youknow he feels insulted by your low regardfor his driving skills.

Although the cabbie’s attitude may surprise first-time visitors, it’s old hat toDavid King, chief scientific adviser to theBritish government. King is well aware thatattitudes in this former superpower areheavily influenced by its dented pride andneed for respect.

Yet even he was taken aback at a recentMoscow summit with Russian climateresearchers. King and a delegation of Britishexperts had come to the 7 July workshop at the invitation of the Russian Academy ofSciences. But it soon became clear that theagenda had been hijacked by some of Russia’smost vocal critics of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the international agreementto reduce global warming, which Russia hasyet to ratify. The UK delegates reacted withdismay as several unscheduled speakers got

up to state that man-made global warmingwas a myth.

King remains diplomatic.“I am very dis-appointed that this event wasn’t as successfulas it should have been,” he told Nature.Michael Grubb, a climate-change expert atImperial College London and a member ofthe UK delegation, is more blunt. “Wewalked into a trap,”he says.

That a small group of treaty-objectorscould co-opt a high-level scientific meetingillustrates Russia’s unusual situation. UnlikeEurope and the United States, where mostscientists strongly support efforts to limitgreenhouse-gas emissions, Russia is undervirtually no pressure from its scientific com-munity to take steps to avert climate change.While the majority remains silent, a smallgroup within the Russian Academy of Sci-ences speaks with nationalistic fervour aboutthe need to avoid restrictions on the Russianeconomy. In post-soviet Russia, where eco-nomic hardship and growing nationalismare everyday realities, it is difficult for anyoneto speak out against them.

The Kyoto agreement, drafted in 1997,requires industrialized countries to cut theirgreenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below 1990levels by 2012.It has been ratified or acceptedby 124 countries, which collectively accountfor 44% of the industrialized world’s emis-sions.But 55% is needed for the treaty to takeeffect, and, after the United States withdrewits support in 2001, Russia, with its 17.5%share of emissions, became the treaty’s lastremaining hope.

Doing a dealPresident Vladimir Putin’s statements on thematter have been ambiguous. In May he toldEuropean Union leaders that he might bewilling to sign in exchange for their supportof Russia’s application for membership of theWorld Trade Organization. But neither Putinnor his ministers have shown any real enthu-siasm for the treaty beyond its use as a negoti-ating tool, and it now seems that a handful ofanti-treaty Russian scientists and economistsare busy in the background setting the stagefor the Kremlin ultimately to reject it.

12 NATURE | VOL 431 | 2 SEPTEMBER 2004 | www.nature.com/nature

Crunch time for KyotoOnly Russia can rescue the global agreement onclimate change. So why aren’t Russian climatescientists speaking up? Quirin Schiermeier andBryon MacWilliams report from Moscow.

A.N

AT

RU

SKIN

/RE

UT

ER

S

2.9 News Feat Climate MH 27/8/04 9:49 am Page 12

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group

Two powerful advisers to Putin are spear-heading this opposition.One is Yuri Izrael,the74-year-old director of the Moscow-basedInstitute of Global Climate and Ecology. Hisage and political leanings have led some of hisopponents to call him a “fossil communistfighting for fossil fuel”. The other is AndreiIllarionov, 40, Putin’s top economic adviserand a staunch opponent of any governmentinterference in the economy.

Economic argumentWhile Izrael says he opposes the Kyoto Pro-tocol mainly on scientific grounds, Illarionovargues that it threatens Russia’s wealth anddevelopment. He says that Russia’s rapidlygrowing economy will soon produce moreemissions than the treaty allows, forcing it tobuy emission rights on the internationalmarket. And as the world’s largest green-house polluter, the United States, has backedout despite its much stronger economy, it iseven more unreasonable to expect Russia tosign the Kyoto treaty, Illarionov argues.

Observers worry that Putin will find thisargument persuasive. Illarionov’s influenceis thought to be extensive,and even his criticsadmit that he is an eloquent and sharp-witted lobbyist with a solid understanding ofscience. “Not many countries have such anintelligent expert dealing with climate issuesat this high level,”says Grubb.

Now the Russian Academy of Sciences has

been drawn into the fray. Izrael, a prominentacademy member, was accused of stage-managing last year’s World Climate ChangeConference in Moscow to promote his agenda(see Nature 423, 792; 2003). Shortly after theconference, Putin asked the academy toreassess the risk of man-made climate changeand the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Observers considered the move to bepolitically motivated, as all the key scientificissues had already been addressed in greatdetail by the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), of which Izrael is avice-president.The last IPCC report in 2001,Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis,quoted extensive evidence that anthropo-genic greenhouse warming is real and coulddangerously alter the climate.

But Izrael has challenged this finding. InMay, he put out a two-page memorandumbased on a series of meetings with selectedacademy members that claimed “a high levelof uncertainty as to whether the rise in temp-erature [over the past 100 years] was in factdue to human activity”. The Kyoto Protocolhas “no scientific basis”,the report concludes.

But Illarionov’s participation in theseminars,and concerns that Izrael’s selectionof experts was biased, have led observers todoubt the independence of these conclu-sions.“I agree there are many uncertainties,”says Igor Mokhov, a climate modeller at theObukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physicsin Moscow.“But no serious analysis can denythe existence of a profound anthropogenicinfluence on global warming.”

Izrael insists that the academy’s mission ispurely scientific and that the treaty itself ispolitically motivated. “The Kyoto Protocolcame about because there is big money beingspent on it,”he told Nature.“Buteveryone has forgotten aboutthe climate, and is focusing onhow best to trade emissionrights and earn money. They’rejust deluding themselves.”

The July workshop was tohave been an informal exchangeof ideas about climate-change research. Butunknown to the attendees, Izrael, one of themeeting’s organizers, had invited a group ofknown climate-change sceptics, includingRichard Lindzen, a meteorologist at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology inCambridge, who is widely regarded as the‘guru’ of global-warming doubters. Izraeladded them to the list of speakers only at thelast minute.

This led to complaints by King and otherBritish delegates.“The workshop was an excel-lent opportunity to discuss the importantissue of climate change,” King says.“But therewere some very unfortunate last-minutechanges made by the organizers.”

In response, Illarionov accused Britain ofattempting to force governments againsttheir will to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.“Unfor-

news feature

NATURE | VOL 431 | 2 SEPTEMBER 2004 | www.nature.com/nature 13

tunately, it is a war. War against the wholeworld and,in this case,against Russia,”he saidat a press conference after the meeting.

The British Office of Science and Tech-nology is playing down the incident, callingit a “storm in a teacup”. But on the quiet,scientists inside and outside Russia worrythat it is a sign that the Russian Academy ofSciences is lending its considerable weight to Kyoto-hostile forces in the country.

Cold comfortThis is in marked contrast to the academy’sbehaviour in communist times, when con-cerned members successfully opposed sev-eral government proposals they consideredmisguided, including a plan to re-route largenorthward-flowing Siberian rivers with aseries of controlled nuclear explosions. Butin the current climate debate, few within theacademy are willing to voice their objectionsto Izrael’s stance on the treaty.

There is also no public pressure on thegovernment. Climate change is of little con-cern in a country in the middle of a painfulsocial and economic transition.“Most everyRussian family simply has much moreimmediate problems with adjusting to thenew life,”says Mokhov.

And warming doesn’t sound such a badthing to residents of the coldest country in theworld. Indeed, there is a widespread notion,held even by some scientists, that a slightlywarmer climate would actually help the coun-try to save energy and produce better harvests.

An upside to climate change is not out ofthe question, although the reality is likely to be more complicated, says VladimirKotlyakov,director of the Russian Academy ofScience’s Institute of Geography in Moscow.

Melting permafrost could dam-age roads and pipelines, forinstance. Several institutes ofthe academy plan to join forcesto examine the likely social, eco-nomic and physical conse-quences of a northward shift ofclimate zones. The results could

help Russian scientists find their voice on theclimate issue,says Kotlyakov.

Even this summer’s workshop may havehelped by raising awareness among Russianexperts about the urgency of the situation,suggests Georgy Golitsyn, director of theObukhov Institute. “Many of us were quiteimpressed at the level of preparation Britainis already taking with regards to a changingclimate,”he says.

As Russia contemplates what it will do,patience should be the name of the game,says Grubb. “Disputes within the RussianAcademy of Sciences are not something thatforeign comment will help resolve,” he says.“Every attempt to play hardball with the Russians will backfire.” ■

Quirin Schiermeier is Nature’s German correspondent;

Bryon MacWilliams is a freelance writer in Moscow.

Meltdown? Yuri Izrael (far left, with PresidentPutin) and other powerful voices in the RussianAcademy of Sciences (above) oppose Russianratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

“Unfortunately, it is awar. War against thewhole world and, inthis case, againstRussia.”

— Andrei Illarionov

H.B

RA

DN

ER

/PA

NO

S;Q

.SC

HIE

RM

EIE

R

2.9 News Feat Climate MH 27/8/04 9:49 am Page 13

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group