Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: Western partners are preparing more claims against our country but we have a chance to overcome them. Using their own weapon"

Climate and economy
In early April, a very representative (two thousand participants from 50 countries) renewable energy conference was held in Berlin.
This time the most important outcome of the conference was a warning addressed to OPEC countries and Russia about the imminent collapse of a business model based on the sale of hydrocarbons.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) presented a report stating that the share of "green" electricity on the planet in 30 years could reach 86%.

This is kind of answering the question of Russian President Putin that he asked in the same Berlin nine years ago. Then, marvelling at the pliability of the German business, sacrificing its interests to politicians, he asked: “You don't want gas, you don't develop nuclear power, will you use logs for heating?”
The optimism of the experts is good, I really want to breathe clean air and drink clean water. But on the other hand, it makes me wonder, on what is it based? The fact is that "green" energy, using the so-called “Renewable sources” like water, sun and air despite a rather long history of development, is still very inefficient and costs a lot. States that develop green energy are forced to subsidize it at the expense of ordinary energy, and even forcing business to subsidize "very clean" electricity.
Moreover, the Soviet physicist, academician Peter Leonidovich Kapitsa as early as 1975, based on basic physical principles, proved the futility of alternative energy sources. Which are not so “green” if you look at them as a whole, and the damage from their construction and production many times surpasses the damage from modern technologies of producing “dirty” energy.
It is difficult to assume that the experts of IRENA, among whom there are Russian specialist, are not aware of such elementary things. And that is why, by the way, the numbers cited at the forum, it seems, should be regarded not as a forecast but as a fully-fledged threat.
What was it?
The younger generation of environmentalists most likely does not even know that thirty years ago one of the main environmental horror stories was the so-called “Ozone holes”. We are talking about the alleged destruction of the ozone layer of the Earth that protects all life from deadly ultraviolet radiation. The culprit of this process called various types of freons - chemicals that are widely used in refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols, etc.
The scientists’ opinion then was divided. While some fervently supported the Freon theory, the second suggested not to get excited (the observation period was too short), and still others argued that the periodic thinning of the ozone layer and its restoration is a natural process due to the properties of this gas itself. But nobody mentioned the latter opinion, the press and the government for some reason used the first one only.
As a result, the Montreal Protocol was adopted in 1987 effectively banning the production of chlorine and bromine-containing freons. The leaders of the USSR, guided by short-term political considerations, also signed this document, despite the objections of specialists.
They found a replacement to freon, a more expensive and less safe for human health substance. Richer and more technologically advanced manufacturers gained an advantage, but in less developed countries, a fair amount of chemical production was destroyed. Including in Russia, where the last factories that produced “harmful” freon were closed in 2000. In addition to the severe economic damage, our country’s defence capability was also damaged: a fair amount of the products of the liquidated industries went for military purposes.
And approximately by the middle of Noughties it became clear: the ozone layer is really subject to natural fluctuations. Moreover, if something affects its condition, then it is not freons produced by humans but natural hydrogen and methane. That is why environmentalists today are so embarrassed to recall the freon epic: there was no benefit from all this hype but much harm.
But, if something worked once, why not try to use the same technology again? In 2015, during the 21st UN Climate Conference held in Paris, a so-called the Paris Agreement was signed, which provides for measures to limit the anthropogenic impact on climate. In order to prevent the growth of the average annual temperature by 1.5-2 degrees corresponding to the end of the 19 century, it is proposed to significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions. And for this, first of all, it is necessary to minimize the use of fossil fuels.
It is difficult to argue with such a noble task, so no one does it. Despite the fact that many scientists dispute a significant human influence on the climate, they, like in the history of the “ozone holes”, their voices are not heard.
Paris Agreement
Without much enthusiasm the so-called "Developed countries" are consistently trying to comply with the requirements of the "Paris Agreement". And again Russia participates in this process and again, alas, as a slave. We practically do not participate in the development of key decisions that directly affect our interests; there is not a serious analysis of the potential risks for our country that this process entails.
First of all, producers under pressure from their governments will be forced to switch, albeit to more expensive, but “correct” energy carriers. Smaller businesses, of course, will be squeezed out of the market but their share will go to large multinational companies, so consumers are unlikely to notice this loss. By the way, consumers themselves will be forced to change to “eco-friendly” vehicles. And this means that the demand for our hydrocarbons will indeed fall.
Despite the fact that there is no talk of direct sanctions against countries that do not share enthusiasm for “green energy”, they will appear sooner rather than later. The reference date in the Paris Agreement is considered to be 2050, so one may expect an increase of pressure in the coming years. The fact that alternative energy does not develop in these countries simply due to lack of funds will not be taken into account, of course. Even if for the secondary countries, perhaps, there will be an indulgence; no one will feel sorry for Russia.
It is clear that the combination of these factors will entail the most severe consequences for our country: the destruction of the economy, the growth of social tension. Some experts predict outbreaks of separatism and even the loss of sovereignty. So, is the fate of Russia predetermined?
Of course not. I do not urge to follow the example of the United States under President Trump, who left the Paris Agreement, but continues to use its rhetoric to his advantage. It's pretty stupid, and it doesn't look very nice.
New geopolitical weapons of Russia
On the contrary, I would suggest strengthening the role of Russia in this process. First of all, in the field of development and implementation of an adequate mechanism for accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and their absorption. Here we have a rather advantageous position: for obvious reasons, we produce less “harmful emissions”, but the role of Russian forests in absorbing carbon dioxide (which was appointed the main culprit of warming this time) is hardly much inferior to the Amazon jungle.
But there is a second, no less important way. Industrialists, for example, in Germany, are already struggling to resist attempts to make them use the more expensive types of fuel, which can be clearly seen from the confrontation around Nord Stream 2. But, when the priority of "green energy" will be approved at the international level, they will have only one alternative: either to sacrifice their profits or (which is more likely) to leave the market. Russia can offer them a third option.
We can, at the legislative level, guarantee freezing of greenhouse gas emission standards of our country until 2050 and invite foreign companies to transfer their production to us.
We have the right to a moratorium on the reduction of emission standards, because (see above) our emissions are already smaller than those of comparable countries, and it is possible that our forests absorb more emissions than we ever produce. In addition, for historical reasons, our energy is low carbon. And, moreover, as a result of technological re-equipment programmes implemented in the country, we have seen a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
Our country has a large supply of energy and other minerals, which, of course, is a great blessing for the people. But one of the basic laws of the market says that it is much more profitable to sell not raw materials, but the products of its processing. Moreover, the higher the level of processing, the more profitable such products are. And the highest step in the processing of energy carriers will not be energy, but the final product obtained with its help.
In recent years, we have learned how to work with investors. We have created a fairly flexible and friendly tax regime and developed the logistics infrastructure. We have no problem with qualified staff. Therefore, it can be expected that in the conditions of (pardon me) “the renewable energy terrorism”, foreign industrialists will consider Russia as a “safe haven”.
And we shall not be afraid that Western capitalists drag us to their potentially dangerous production. First, the environmental standards in Russia today are quite high, they may seem soft only in comparison with the future tightening of standards in the west (and it’s not the fact that it is justified). Secondly, of course, the final decision on the location of a production in our country should remain with the authorities. In addition, there is a paradox: the more high-tech the final product requires, the more environmentally friendly is its production. So, in addition to strengthening the economy, we will get modern high technologies, which we are still not allowed to use yet.
We need to proclaim a new idea, formulated by Academician Likhachev: "The ultimate goal of human development must be the man himself." Promoting vitacracy – priority of human life in all its manifestations – we get the moral right to impose upon ourselves the improvement of the quality of life of every person living on Earth. So, the transfer of energy-intensive industries to Russia is a blessing for all of humanity. But the Creator so ordered that we are almost the only country in the world that can afford it.
Thus, we not only can avoid the trap set for us, but also get a hefty benefit for the country, the Russian people, and, in the end, all of humanity.
But in order to realize this opportunity, political will is needed. In addition, we would need a unified federal apparatus that would coordinate this work and defend state interests at the international level. So far, alas, various departments and organizations that are acting on behalf of Russia in the process of implementing the Paris Agreement are at sixes and sevens.