Studies on Russian Economic Development

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 111–118 | Cite as

The Low-Carbon Development Paradigm and Climate Change Risk Reduction Strategy for the Economy

  • B. N. PorfirievEmail author


The low-carbon economic paradigm is critically analyzed as to stabilizing the climate situation (not to exceed the 2°С growth of the global air temperature until the end of the 21st century) and improving the quality of life and sustainable economic growth. Climate change is emphasized as being just a part of the total risk for human life and health and economic growth, which is proved by the set of goals of sustainable development adopted by the world community. Hence, a solution of the problem of climate change is necessary—in the long and and distant future—but insufficient condition to minimize the risk for the quality of human life, primarily health, and sustainable economic growth. It is agrued that an efficient action strategy to reduce climate risks for socioeconomic development must target not finding the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but rather development and implementation of a set of measures to ensure the basic goals of sustainable development. In addition, priority must be given to the reduction of emissions of hazardous substances, as well as to planning and implementing measures of the communitiesэ and economy adaptation to climate change with adaptation remaining a key component of the climate risk reduction policy. A case study of China—the global leader in low-carbon energy development race—proves that the strategic policy priority is not climatic but environmental and economic issues as well as (in case of nuclear power plants) military-strategic motivation.



This article was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 18-00-00596. “Global Climate Change Scenarios and Assessments of the Consequences of Their Implementation for the Socioeconomic Development of Russia in the 21st Century” within umbrella project no. 18-00-00600 “The Study of Socioeconomic Development Risks and Control Strategies for Russia in the Context of Global Climate Change”).


  1. 1.
    “In the line of fire: Losing the war against climate change,” Economist, Aug. 4–10 (2018).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Plumer, “Local leaders' climate moment arrives,” The New York Times, Sept. 13 (2018), p. 9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Low Carbon Economy Index 2018 (PwC, 2018). Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Hsieh, Learning from California’s Clean Energy Ambition. Scholar
  5. 5.
    "China has won battles against its choking air, but not war," Economist, Dec. 16 (2017), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    "Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty," in Summary for Policymakers. Formally Approved at the First Joint Session of Working Groups I, II and III of the IPCC and Accepted by the 48th Session of the IPCC, Incheon, Republic of Korea, Oct. 6, 2018. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 2344-r of November 3, 2016. NG9qKflrT.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Steffen, et al., “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 (33), 8252–8259 (2018). 1810141115.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Energy Transition Outlook 2018: A Global and Regional Forecast: Safer, Smarter, Greener (DNV GL, Hovik, Norway, 2018).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Emissions Gap Report 2017 (A UN Environment Synthesis Report) (UNEP, Nairobi, 2017).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    “New life for the Paris deal,” Economist, Dec. 16 (2017), pp. 51–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    “What they don’t tell you,” Economist, Dec. 18 (2017), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    “Sucking up carbon,” Economist, Dec. 18 (2017), pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    State of Global Air 2018 (Health Effects Institute Special Report, Boston, 2018).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Cost of Air Pollution Strengthening the Economic Case for Action. The World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Z. Xin, C. Xi, and Z. Xiaobo, “The impact of exposure to air pollution on cognitive performance,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., No. 115 (37), 9193–9197 (2018).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention (The World Bank and the United Nations, New York, 2010).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Better Growth—Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Synthesis Report. Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2014).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Polluted Environments Kill 1.4 Million in Europe Annually; UN Agencies Urge Stepped-up Action. https:// Scholar
  20. 20.
    U. Im, et al., “Assessment and economic valuation of air pollution impacts on human health over Europe and the United States as calculated by a multi-model ensemble in the framework of AQMEII3,” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 5967–5989 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Speech by the President of the Russian Federation at a Meeting on the Environmental Situation in the Krasnoyarsk Krai on February 7, 2018. events/president/news/56816.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the UN General Assembly on October 25, 2015 (UN, 2015).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carney Launches Climate Financial Risk Forum. carney-launches-climate-finance-risk-forum.html.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Leaton, N. Ranger, B. Ward, L. Sussams, and M. Brown, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets (The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Carbon Tracker, London, 2013).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Rozenberg, A. Vogt-Schilb, and S. Hallegatte, Transition to Clean Capital, Irreversible Investment and Stranded Assets. Policy Research Working Paper WPS 6859 (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.-W. Sinn, The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach To Global Warming (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform, Ed. by J. Skovgaard and H. Van Asselt (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    N. Stern, et al., Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (HM Treasury, London, 2006).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Calderon and N. Stern, The New Climate Economics. https://www.project-syndicate.irg/commentary/ addressing-climate-change-while-promoting-economic-growth/.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Role of Development Banks in Promoting Growth and Sustainable Development in the South (UNCTAD, Geneva, 2016).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. Riumallo-Herl, D. Canning, and A. Salomon Joshua, “Measuring health and economic wellbeing in the Sustainable Development Goals era: Development of a poverty-free life expectancy metric and estimates for 90 countries,” Lancet Global Health 6, e843–e858 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    "The unequal effects of climate change mean its costs are understated," Economist, July 15 (2017), p. 58.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    V. A. Maksimov, Presentation of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, in Round Table “The Expected Economic Consequences of the Implementation of Climate Policy Measures in Russia.” Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation, November 27, 2017. events/015183.html.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    B. N. Porfiryev and V. M. Kattsov, “Climate change and its implications for the population and the economy of Russia: The imperatives and the priority of the adaptation strategy,” in Report on Human Development in the Russian Federation “Environmental Priorities for Russia” (Anal. Tsentr pri Pravitel’stve Ross. Fed., 2017), pp. 126–146 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Economist, Dec. 16 (2017), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Carrington and L. Kuo, “Air pollution causes 'huge' reduction in intelligence, study reveals,” Guardian, Aug. 27 (2018).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    “Russia and China intend to revive the project of a giant coal-fired power station in the Amur region,” Amur. Pravda, May 30 (2018). 2018/05/29/082182.html.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    V. Sidorovich, China has become a key driving force of the European energy transformation. china-became-the-key-driving-force-of-the-european-energy-transformation.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    “More solar power hurts nuclear energy. But it also hurts itself,” Economist, Sept. 8 (2018), pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations