Climate Security of the Russian Federation: Statistics, Facts, Analysis

This article outlines climate security of the Russian Federation and its regions based on official (state and administrative) statistics and widely used statistical analytical tools. Building on the conceptual authors’ position on possibilities of managing natural and climatic risks and increasing national and regional resilience against negative impact of natural and climatic factors (climatic stability), the article examines system of indicators of «climate intensity» and «energy intensity».

The article bases conclusions concerning the decrease of natural and climatic risks to Russian economy in recent years on the results of the conducted analysis. These positive trends are the result of adoption of the 2009 Climate Doctrine. However, growth of economy is still provided generally with use of traditional energy sources - non-renewable minerals. It leads to considerable greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.

The assessment of the regions of Russia by the indicator «GRP energy intensity» allowed to identify territorial entities with the greatest relative impact on the climate due to high energy consumption. The top 10 regions for this indicator include mainly those with developed metallurgy, energy, mining and manufacturing industries. Less than one third of constituent entities of the Russian Federation have energy intensity of the economy below the Russian average.

The work justifies the feasibility of statistical accounting of greenhouse gas emissions by region for integrated assessment of climate risks. The results of such an assessment can then be used in the formulation and implementation of national and regional climate policies.

1. Solovyov A.I. About Approach of the World Economic Forum to Construction of National Stability. Eff ective Crisis Management. 2015;4(91):48-59. (In Russ.)

2. Ebi K.L. et al. Health Risks of Warming of 1.5°C, 2°C, and Higher, Above Pre-Industrial Temperatures. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;13(6):063007. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4bd.

3. Kharin V.V. et al. Risks from Climate Extremes Change Diff erently from 1.5°C to 2.0°C Depending on Rarity. Earth’s Future. 2018;6(5):704-715. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2018EF000813.

4. Smith E.K., Mayer A. A Social Trap for the Climate? Collective Action, Trust and Climate Change Risk Perception in 35 Countries. Global Environmental Change. 2018;(49):140-153. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.014.

5. Potravnyy I.M., Motosova Ye.A. The Pros and Cons of Introducing a Carbon Tax: An Analysis of Foreign Experience. ECO. 2014;44(7):180-189. (In Russ.)

6. Yakovleva E.N. Creation of a Conceptual Framework of Methodology of Management of Climate Risks in Russia. Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management. 2018;17(2):283-309. (In Russ.)

7. Brown I. Assessing Climate Change Risks to the Natural Environment to Facilitate Cross-Sectoral Adaptation Policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Series A). 2018;3769(2121):2017.0297. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0297.

8. Fluixá-Sanmartín J. et al. Review Article: Climate Change Impacts on Dam Safety. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science. 2018;18(9):2471-2488. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2471-2018.

9. Mysiak J. et al. Climate Risk Index for Italy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Series A). 2018;376(2121): 2017.0305. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0305.

10. Salman A.M., Li Y. Flood Risk Assessment, Future Trend Modeling, and Risk Communication: A Review of Ongoing Research. Natural Hazards Review. 2018;19(3):0401.8011. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000294.

11. Yakovleva E.N. et al. Methodological Approaches to Valuation of Natural-Climatic Risks for the Purposes of Country’s Sustainable Development. RSHU Proceedings Journal. 2018;(52):120-137. (In Russ.)

12. Yakovleva E.N., Yashalova N.N. History and Perspectives of Payment for Nature use in the Russian Federation. Voprosy Regionalnoj Ekonomiki. 2018;35(2):76- 86. (In Russ.)