On Unthreaded at 2:04 this afternoon, I drew attention to Russia’s firm dealing with Greenpeace activists who had attempted to invade one of their oil drilling platforms in the Arctic, noting in particular the strong support for the Russian action expressed by people commenting on two Guardian articles about the incident.

In my view, the story is far more important than meets the eye. It's not just that the likes of Greenpeace have lost the support of their erstwhile constituency - the real issue is that Russia plainly has no sympathy whatever with "green" issues. As Pointman says:

Russia has never been interested in environmentalism and indeed probably spends more Roubles on improving their caviar production than on things like renewable energy. If their competitors want to voluntarily decarbonise themselves back to the middle ages, why should they be bothered.

Consider this in the light of the current brouhaha about AR5. If IPCC bureaucrats and politicians really think that, by fudging the obvious uncertainties about climate science, they're likely to pull the wool over the eyes of already unsympathetic countries such as Russia and the big developing economies, they're fooling no one but themselves. Is it really likely that AR5 “findings” will persuade China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia etc. to sign up to a programme of substantial GHG reduction at COP 21 in Paris in 2015?

No, I didn't think so either. AR5 is really little more than a side issue. Extreme environmentalism died at Copenhagen. Paris will not bring the corpse back to life.

Mike/Tiny/michael/joanna: it seems you would all agree that it's really only the anglo and most European economies (not all - e.g. Poland) that are campaigning for comprehensive global GHG reduction. And some of them, e.g. Canada and probably now Australia, are hardly doing so very seriously. Essentially all other economies, for a variety of very understandable reasons, have every intention of continuing to burn increasing quantities of fossil fuels. And, between them, they already emit over 70% of the global total.

To an extent, this crucial fact has been obscured by the exemption of so-called “non-Annex 1” countries from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. The EU negotiators tried hard to reverse this at Copenhagen but were humiliatingly rebuffed – indeed they were excluded from the final negotiations. The Europeans were described by Rupert Darwall in his book the Age of Global Warming as

... a side that lost more comprehensively than at any international conference in modern history where the outcome had not been decided beforehand by force of arms.

Nonetheless, they persuaded themselves that things were back on track by the adoption in 2011 of the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” whereby it was agreed that an agreement “with legal force” would be “completed no later than 2015 … and implemented from 2020”. But anyone who really believes an agreement to agree means anything knows little about agreements or about negotiation. Unsurprisingly, it’s already unravelling: India, China etc. insist on the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, putting the onus on developed countries - and the Chinese negotiator has stressed that China could not impose emission caps because it “needed time to focus on economic growth”.

Copenhagen (2009) killed off the prospect of emission reduction and Paris (2015) isn’t going to revive it. In my opinion, that simple fact is vastly more important than erudite discussion about AR5. And, of course, it means that our efforts to reduce emissions are not only damaging and absurdly expensive, but they’re completely pointless.

Geoff: when I say that AR5 is a side issue, I'm focusing exclusively on its world wide impact. And I believe that, from that perspective, Copenhagen marked the death of extreme environmentalism. The West suffered a massive defeat from which it cannot recover: there is no chance now of a global cut in GHG emissions.

In this article Rupert Darwell expresses that sentiment precisely:

Whatever the IPCC says, it has become a sideshow. What happens at Paris in 2015 depends on politicians and governments. Given the diplomatic smarts shown by President Obama and other Western leaders over Syria, it is hard for even the most fervent believer in global warming to believe that the Paris climate summit will deliver a global agreement to cut emissions. When your best hopes rest in Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, you need to start believing in miracles.

[My emphasis]

PS: that, of course, will not deter Europe's greens from campaigning for us to commit economic suicide. And probably winning.

michael: yes, you have a point. I certainly agree that, well before Copenhagen, there was never really a chance of significant global CO2 cuts. But the environmental movement (a wholly Western construct), completely unaware of this before 2009, began to dimly understand it thereafter. And, although it may have faded somewhat recently, that vague understanding still exists.

I wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph. That's precisely why my message is that we should focus on sharpening that understanding and getting it fully on board. It means that, instead of wasting so much time trying to show that the CAGW hypothesis is without foundation (a battle we're never going to win), we should treat AR5 as the side issue it really is. It means demonstrating, for example, that, as nations responsible for about 75% of global emissions have no intention of making cuts, our feeble efforts are, as well as damaging and absurdly expensive, completely pointless. And that's true however AR5 is interpreted.

Chandra:

Read this

This thread, of course, is not particularly about Russia, although Chandra's useful intervention helped to consolidate that message. (Nor incidentally is about Poland which, rather amazingly, is hosting this year's COP19 and causing some merriment at Tory Aardvark's blog.)

No - it's about the relative unimportance of AR5 in view of the fact that anyone who believes in a comprehensive emission reduction deal at COP 21 in Paris in 2015 is living in dreamland. Part of that dream is the idea that the so-called developing economies will sign up to the deal when the industrialised West transfers $100 billion to help less developed countries fund adaptation and mitigation projects. This is supposed to happen via the "Green Climate Fund" (GCF). So how's that getting on? Hmm ... not too well, it seems: see this. An extract:

The GCF remains hugely underfunded. While developing countries have committed to mobilizing US$100 billion per year for climate finance by 2020, so far, it has only raised $.7.5 million.

Got any better evidence, Chandra? And, when even commentators at (of all places) the Guardian have the views expressed here, it seems likely that the VoR poll may be reasonably accurate.

In any case, you've completely missed my point: see my post at 4:04 PM.

Well, Chandra, it's interesting how so many Guardian commentators seem to agree with the Kremlin line. Who told them what to believe I wonder?

But my real point is simple: the fact countries responsible for over 70% of global GHG emissions have no intention of agreeing to substantial reductions, makes the UK's (responsible for 1.7%) efforts, not only damaging and hugely expensive, but completely pointless.

Piracy? No idea - I don't know enough about the facts. But anyway it's not relevant to this thread except of course as a demonstration of how Russia's seemingly cavalier attitude towards (1) international law and (2) green issues underlines how unlikely it is that they would be interested in agreeing to substantial, if any, cuts in their GHG emissions.

Damaging? The UK 's policies are already increasing costs - inter alia threatening jobs and harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable people. Moreover they threaten power outages - which could cause immense harm to society in general and to the most vulnerable in particular. For example, I know from experience just how dependent people with disability and the frail and elderly are on a constant supply of electric power. When much of our conventional power is phased out, a long cold period with no wind could put many such people at serious risk.

Well said, Michael.

Getting back on topic, here's an extract from a recent article (7 October) in, rather surprisingly, the Financial Times that reflects much the same sentiments as I have expressed on this thread:

"By acting alone, however, the UK risks disadvantaging itself without furthering its environmental objectives. Companies that use a lot of electricity will consider moving elsewhere. The effect on investment will be immediate even if existing plants stay put for now. This could further deplete Britain’s industrial base just as the government tries to rebalance the economy away from financial services. The danger is exacerbated by an EU carbon price that has continued to fall since the floor was first proposed. This risks becoming a “beggar thyself” policy that merely shifts emissions – and associated jobs – to other European countries and beyond.

The troubled EU scheme is itself a reminder that climate change cannot be solved by unilateral action, even by a bloc that accounts for roughly 11 per cent of global emissions. Since EU tariffs take little account of disparities in environmental regulations, the continent’s manufacturers have to compete with cheap imports from countries where dirtier production methods are allowed. Although carbon trading is being tried in places such as Australia and California, no major economy has shown much enthusiasm for European-style self-restraint."