* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download www.fni.no
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
This article was downloaded by: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] On: 20 May 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911202090] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Europe-Asia Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713414944 Who is to Blame? Agency, Causality, Responsibility and the Role of Experts in Russian Framings of Global Climate Change Elana Wilson Rowe a a Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Online Publication Date: 01 June 2009 To cite this Article Wilson Rowe, Elana(2009)'Who is to Blame? Agency, Causality, Responsibility and the Role of Experts in Russian Framings of Global Climate Change',Europe-Asia Studies,61:4,593 — 619 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09668130902826154 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668130902826154 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 61, No. 4, June 2009, 593–619 Who is to Blame? Agency, Causality, Responsibility and the Role of Experts in Russian Framings of Global Climate Change Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 ELANA WILSON ROWE Abstract This article analyses the politics of Russian climate change by pinpointing how global warming has been framed over a seven year period in a government-owned, leading daily newspaper, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, and how climate experts have intervened in such framings. Russia’s climate politics is first summarised and then three framings of climate change are identified and examined. Secondly, the role that expert voices play in the framing of climate change is discussed. The article concludes with a presentation of key findings about scientists’ involvement in public debate and hypotheses about the overall trajectory of Russian climate politics. RUSSIA RATIFIED THE KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC)—a partially global mechanism designed to address climate change via setting limits to greenhouse gas emissions—in November 2004. The decision to ratify was based primarily on the consideration of economic benefits that could flow from ratification, as due to a marked decrease in industrial production during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia’s greenhouse gas outputs declined significantly. This placed Russia favourably in relation to the potentially economically beneficial carbon trading mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. Since then, however, Russian politicians and policy makers have expressed doubts about the causes and impacts of climate change.1 Parts of this article were produced with project funding from the PETROSAM program of the Research Council of Norway. The project, ‘RUSSCAP—Russian and Caspian energy developments’, is carried out by the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs and Econ Pöyry as consortium partners and also includes other institutions and researchers. I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers, Lars Rowe, Stina Torjesen and Indra Øverland for their insightful comments on previous drafts. 1 For example, in a 2005 press conference, Putin’s economic advisor Andrei Illarionov stated that the ‘theory of global warming is not borne out by scientific data and is, strictly speaking, charlatanism’ (Johnson’s Russia List 9169, available at: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9169-18.cfm, accessed 15 May 2006). More recently at a conference on the Kyoto Protocol, Sergei Mironov, the pro-Kremlin speaker in the Federation Council, argued that carbon emissions did not affect the climate and, if anything, resulted in global cooling (Moscow Times, 28 May 2007). ISSN 0966-8136 print; ISSN 1465-3427 online/09/040593-27 ª 2009 University of Glasgow DOI: 10.1080/09668130902826154 Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 594 ELANA WILSON ROWE Understanding Russia’s climate policy is important as Russia, still the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world,2 will play a significant role in international climate negotiations preceding the closure of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 (Korppoo & Moe 2007). At the 2007 Kyoto Protocol negotiations in Bali, a Russian representative from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) warned that Russia would not extend its participation in the Protocol if it would slow Russia’s economic growth. While all Russian emission parameters are lower today than in the 1990 Kyoto base year, which is used to set carbon allowances and credits, they are also on the rise as Russia’s economy continues to grow (ZumBrunnen 2009). Russia’s position on negotiations towards 2012 will of course depend on a myriad of factors, such as how successfully Russian actors manage to take advantage of Kyoto mechanisms that are potentially beneficial economically. It will also depend on how climate change is presented to and understood by decision makers and how firmly these representations are embedded in Russian political discourse. This article focuses on the question of climate change in political discourse by analysing how global warming has been framed over a period of seven years in the leading Russian state-owned daily newspaper, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, and how expert voices (scientists, primarily) have intervened in such framings. Particular ‘framings’— stories developed for and told in the public arena—of environmental problems are more than just policy oriented or simplified interpretations of a distinct natural problem. Rather, such framings are political objects built ‘upon specific models of agency, causality and responsibility’ that delimit the range of policy options (Jasanoff & Wynne 1998, p. 5). In this article, I first summarise briefly Russia’s climate politics in recent years and then draw upon the three foci—causality, agency and responsibility—to pinpoint and unpack the politics involved in Russian framings of climate change. Secondly, the role that expert voices play in the framing of climate change is discussed. On a general basis, Miller and Edwards (2001, p. 14) note the ‘pervasive influence and institutionalisation of science in modern governmental decision making. Scientific knowledge and expertise have become enmeshed in the making of public policy, particularly (although not exclusively) in Western democracies’. However, the inclusion of such expertise is far from a straightforward or uniform process and the ultimate influence of expert knowledge on policy is variable.3 There are clear 2 For a visual representation of greenhouse gas emissions by country and region based on 2006 data, see UNEP/GRID, ‘Top 20 Greenhouse Gas Emitters’, available at: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/ top-20-greenhouse-gas-emitters, accessed 29 September 2008. 3 The literature documenting the interface between expertise and policy making in North American, European and international contexts is vast and a comparison between these examples and my preliminary observations on the Russian case exceeds the scope of this article. However, Sheila Jasanoff’s comparative work (see especially Jasanoff 2005) sheds light on some spatial and national differences one may encounter. For example, she notes that American experts and regulators working within the civil service are subjected to greater scrutiny than their European counterparts and tend to rely greatly on ‘numerical assessments of risks, costs and benefits’ to demonstrate rationality and invoke authority. By contrast, European regulators were more able to ‘support their decisions in qualitative, even subjective terms. Expert judgement carried weight in and of itself as a basis for action’ (Jasanoff 2005, p. 18). RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 595 indications that this interactive relationship between science and policymaking varies from country to country, reflecting national differences in political and social organisation (Jasanoff 2005). However, little research has been carried out on what kinds of national differences one might encounter at the science–policy interface outside European or North American democracies. This article seeks to make an initial contribution to this debate by describing the role that Russian scientists have played in their interventions in Russian framings of climate change. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Russia and the Kyoto Protocol While it is not the aim of this article to summarise Russian politics specifically in relationship to the Kyoto Protocol, as the topic is covered well elsewhere (Korppoo & Moe 2006; ZumBrunnen 2009), some background is offered here to make the framings outlined below more understandable. Overall, the Soviet Union, and later Russia, played a reserved role in the negotiations leading up to the Kyoto Protocol, on the one hand conceding that climate change has had detrimental impacts, while on the other hand expressing scepticism towards the anthropogenic nature of the problem. For example, in the 1996 negotiations in Geneva, Russia sided with OPEC countries that also held sceptical positions, but by 1998, Russia was fighting for the inclusion of emissions-trading mechanisms, which could benefit Russia economically (Moe & Tangen 1999, p. 9). Alongside these negotiations, international scientific assessment processes have indicated the existing or potential impacts of climate change for Russia. In terms of positives, a warmer climate may give some regions in Russia a longer growing season and reduce the need for heating in winter. However, it is expected that Russia will experience greater negative impacts from global warming, such as melting permafrost (and corresponding threats to energy and housing infrastructure), droughts, forest fires and extreme weather phenomena (Gotz 2007; Kokorin & Gritsevich 2007; Rosgidromet 2005). For example, Kokorin and Gritsevich (2007, p. 3) cite a study indicating that 25% of the housing in northern cities such as Yakutsk, Vorkuta and Tiksi could become uninhabitable within the next 10 or 20 years due to melting permafrost. Public knowledge of these impacts appears to be fairly widespread. One poll, conducted in June 2008 by the Public Opinion Foundation, found that two-thirds of Russians polled believed that the climate was warming and 86% were familiar with the notion of global warming. Of those who believed that global warming is occurring, 50% said it was completely due to anthropogenic impacts, while 30% of that group said it was caused by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors.4 While this knowledge of climate impacts may have played some role in shaping Russian positions on the issue (a question that is returned to below), domestic deliberations on Kyoto ratification covered a number of different factors. Arguments for ratification included mitigating the impacts of climate change, economic benefits though Joint Implementation (JI) projects,5 the sale of emissions surplus, and other 4 RIA Novosti, 23 June 2008. JI, emissions trading and the clean development mechanism are the three flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol which allow signatories to achieve national emissions reduction targets in a 5 Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 596 ELANA WILSON ROWE positive international spin-off benefits.6 Weighing against ratification were doubts about the role of human activity in creating climate change and fears that actual revenues from ratification would be low and costs would be high (ZumBrunnen 2009). The Ministry of Industry and Economy and the MEDT urged Putin to ratify, probably motivated by the potential economic benefits (Korppoo et al. 2006). Russia submitted its formal ratification documents to the UN on 18 November 2004, enabling the Kyoto Protocol to come into force. It is reported that the final decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was made by President Putin with the relevant documents being sent to the government a mere three days before official government support for the draft federal law ‘On the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol’ was given (Shapovalov 2004). After a slow start, including a failure to submit the required national reports on emissions for 2005, Russia began providing annual reports on emissions and greenhouse inventories (Korppoo & Moe 2007).7 On 30 May 2007, the Russian government issued a decree on how the JI mechanism was to be realised in Russia, which cleared the way (technically) for implementation (Opitz 2007). In terms of key actors, the breadth of involvement in the process grew as climate change issues became increasingly a part of many international forums and as the complexity involved in ratifying and implementing the Kyoto Protocol became more apparent. Rosgidromet, the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, played an important role in the climate change policy process, as climate change was initially defined as a research and environmental challenge (Haugneland 2003). Today, in realising the opportunities presented by the carbon market and JI mechanisms, the MEDT is mandated to play the leading role in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Pravitel’stvo RF 2007). Framing environmental issues and the science–politics interface Climate change science and policy tie directly in with the politics of consumption and, in particular, energy consumption. That the framing of climate change in policy debates is more than a translation of a natural phenomenon into layman’s terms is, consequently, unsurprising. Big interests and fundamental practices are at stake. A ‘frame’ is understood here as a loose narrative or a story told in the public arena that is meant to simplify complex phenomenon and experiences, speak to social, political and cultural understandings, and present solutions that ‘convey a sense of security and moral order’ (Jasanoff 2005, p. 23). Importantly, the representation or framing of an potentially more cost-effective manner. The emissions trading mechanism and JI are the two of relevance to Russia. Under the emissions trading mechanism, Russia can theoretically sell its carbon emission surplus (a result of the post-1990 Soviet industrial decline) to other countries. JI facilitates industrial countries’ investment in emission reducing projects (for example, energy efficiency projects in industry) in other industrialised countries (see Korppoo and Moe (2007) and ZumBrunnen (2009) for more details). 6 Following receipt of EU backing for Russia’s bid to enter the WTO, Putin committed himself to ‘accelerating’ the Kyoto ratification process (Golub & Muller 2004). 7 See also Natsional’nyi doklad Rossisskoi Federatsii ob ustanovlennom kolichestve vybrosov, Moscow 2007, available online at: http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/initial_reports_under_the_ kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/initial_report_russia.pdf, accessed 1 March 2008. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 597 environmental problem has much to say about the ways in which the problem will be addressed. To illustrate with a more international example, Demeritt (2001, p. 328) points to some of the prevailing ideas in the scientific construction of global warming that give us an indication of how climate change is framed internationally and the avenues for framing (and action) not taken. Examples include the ideas that: global warming is a human-caused environmental (rather than political or economic) challenge; it is caused by the ‘physical properties of greenhouse gases’ (rather than ‘political or moral failings’); and experts are best placed to advise us on the issue. Framings of international environmental problems often have a national flavour, despite a shared international scientific base. To take one example, Hajer (1995), in a comparative study of the implementation of acid rain amelioration policies in the UK and the Netherlands, found that policy makers, despite equal access to the same kind of scientific data, interpreted this knowledge in different ways along national lines. There is a tendency to think of internationally produced science—like the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—as a way of inserting some ‘truths’ into the political mix and smoothing away some of the specifically national political and economic interests and understandings that may stand in the way of international policy consensus. This notion of scientists injecting facts into politics is an old one that overlooks the intricate interplay between knowledge and politics. Sociologists of science, however, have pointed to the ways in which all science is shaped by politics in both its production and transmission and to the constructed, consensual and negotiated nature of scientific knowledge—from mathematics to climatology.8 As Demeritt aptly notes, ‘to insist that science is political, in the broadest sense of that word, is not to say that science is only political . . . It is to recognize how problematic this distinction [between politics and science] is’ (2001, p. 309). Science that is produced explicitly to serve policy needs often evokes greater scepticism amongst receiving audiences (Jasanoff & Wynne 1998, p. 27). The acceptance of international science at the national level raises questions of trust and credibility, perhaps especially amongst those who were not instrumental in the agendasetting stage of international scientific efforts. In the case of Brazil, internationally produced climate science met widespread suspicion amongst policy makers who felt that ‘foreign science [was] advancing foreign interests’ (Lahsen 2004, p. 161). The same issue can be identified within sustainable development politics in Russia, where the notion of sustainable development and various international efforts organised around it are seen in some circles as a ‘Western-oriented concept’ designed to ‘maintain and promote Western global politico-economic dominance’ (Shaw & Oldfield 2006, p. 9). Perhaps such scepticism is simply a straightforward way of rejecting inconvenient scientific conclusions. On the other hand, the responses from Brazil and Russia also suggest that their policy makers, perhaps from a more ‘outsider’ position, end up more 8 Literature within the sociology of scientific knowledge has grown extensively since the first scholars pointed to the role of social practices in constituting scientific knowledge. For a general overview see: Barnes et al. (1996) and Collins and Pinch (1998). 598 ELANA WILSON ROWE keenly aware of the interaction between politics and science to which sociologists of science have endeavoured to draw our attention. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Agency, causality and responsibility in three framings of climate change As the previous section attests, framings of an environmental–political problem are not accidental and are shaped by all kinds of interests as well as dispositions that steer perception at a less than conscious level. Furthermore, the scientific uncertainty involved in complex, global climate science creates opportunities for competing social actors ‘to appropriate and promote readings consistent with their policy interests’ (Jasanoff & Wynne 1998, p. 15). In this section, Russian readings of international science, domestically produced science and climate politics as a whole are analysed through the identification of dominant modes of framing climate change. Through a close reading of Rossiiskaya Gazeta’s coverage of climate change between 2000 and 2007, three frames emerged, which I term the ‘international’, ‘cyclical’ and ‘causally agnostic’ frames. None of these frames contest the idea that the global climate is changing, although they differ on several key points relating to politically important questions of causality, agency and responsibility. To elucidate these important variations, each frame is analysed for its understanding of the following questions: what causes global climate change (causality); who can do something about climate change (agency); and who is obligated to take action (responsibility)? Throughout this article, the interplay between the three frames and the strength of their position in relationship to one another and over time are assessed. Rossiiskaya Gazeta, founded in 1990, is owned by the Russian government, and in addition to more standard journalistic fare, publishes information for the Russian government, such as committee lists and new legislation. In this way, the newspaper is oriented towards readers who find such information of interest or use, such as those who either work in or intersect with Russian politics or state bureaucracies. Its circulation is above 400,000 (in contrast to another leading daily Izvestia which has around 250,000). The newspaper characterises its readership as ‘even-tempered adults inclined to conservative views’.9 As this article aims to trace the interaction between scientific knowledge and policy making rather than, for example, to reflect on the breadth of Russian discourses on climate change more generally, the official, relatively conservative status of the newspaper is an advantage. The arguments and voices included in its pages are likely to be oriented towards and to be considered acceptable by officialdom.10 9 ‘About the Newspaper’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, available at: http://www.rg.ru/about.html, accessed 27 July 2008. 10 A similar pre-study was carried out on the Russian business daily, Kommersant’. However, there were too few articles on climate change to achieve a broad understanding of how climate change was framed there. Overall the Kommersant’ coverage tended to focus, particularly in 2005 and onwards, after the Kyoto Protocol ratification, on JI projects, business concerns and developing legislation that would enable joint projects. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 599 In selecting newspaper articles for analysis, the Rossiiskaya Gazeta website was searched for articles including (in various grammatical declinations) the words ‘izmeneniya klimata’ (‘climate change’) and ‘kiotskii protokol’ (‘Kyoto Protocol’). This search resulted in 82 articles in Russian from a seven-year time period, which were then analysed for their coverage of climate change, with particular attention paid to the kinds of actors intervening in the debate. In identifying the frames, I began with the period 2000–2004 to build an understanding of the Russian debate before the Kyoto ratification.11 I found that within each frame there were three distinct groupings when it came to the question of what causes global climate change: those stressing the greenhouse effect and human activity; cyclical variations in climate; and an amalgamation of both. There were also a number of subsidiary positions relating to these groupings, which I argue are substantive enough to be understood as frames.12 The fate of the three frames was then traced through the post-Kyoto ratification coverage (2004–2007) in which no substantively new frame was evident, although the third and most ‘robust’ frame underwent further development. More generally, there are broad changes in the coverage between these two time periods. The latter period distinguishes itself with first, an increasing number of articles where climate change was discussed in relation to key international events (Davos, G8, EU, UN); second the first links between geopolitics and climate change are made in relation to Arctic offshore resources and shipping (Chichkin 2005; Sorokina 2006; Anisimova 2007; Sorokina 2007a); and third a more international orientation, covering global climate impacts and other countries’ climate change politics including Zorin (2006) on Africa; Sorokina (2006) on US and UK climate politics; as well as Lashkina (2007), Egorov (2007a, 2007b) and Yuri’eva (2007b). TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF FRAMES Frame Causality Agency Responsibility International Greenhouse effect, anthropogenic All developed countries Cyclical Nature’s cycles (solar, orbit) Governmental efforts to reduce emissions (Kyoto Protocol) Climate change cannot be stopped Adaptation to modest, gradual changes needed Causal agnosticism 2000–2004 Both with greater emphasis on: cyclical nature of climate greenhouse effect Experts providing clearer assessment reducing emissions should help US needs to ratify 2005–2007 11 Governments when it comes to adaptation All major emitters (developing and developed alike) There are relatively few articles from the earliest period of 2000–2002. Often it is possible to point to one vivid quote or a set of articles that may constitute and support a particular point, in which case specific references are included in the description of the frames below. On some of the broader observations relating to a large number of articles, no specific references are given. Instead, all articles included in the study are listed in the reference list. 12 600 ELANA WILSON ROWE Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 The international frame Most of the premises of this frame relate well to the international suppositions identified above (Demeritt 2001). These include an emphasis on the anthropogenic nature of climate change, its basis in the greenhouse effect and the centrality of experts and international cooperation in addressing the problem. This frame is by far the weakest, with some coverage in the first time period (2000–2004), and few articles or interventions that could be directly tied to this frame in the later time period. Overall, the debate here was less lively and often consists of straightforward coverage of the release of various international reports on climate change, particularly in the 2005– 2007 period. In terms of causality, this frame centred on the greenhouse effect (the impact of higher amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere) and related these high concentrations of CO2 to human, and industrial activity. The frame was particularly international in its orientation, including coverage of wider European climate impacts (Lukyanov 2000; Valentinov & Sokolova 2000). This is in contrast to other frames, which remained decidedly more Russia-focused in their attention to impacts, particularly in the earlier period. When it comes to agency, this frame did not explicitly mention solutions or political steps that should be taken to address climate change. For example, an article by Lukyanov (2000) was very international in its orientation, drawing upon reports issued by a foreign NGO (World Watch), enumerating global impacts, and stating that climate change had anthropogenic roots. It did not, however, refer to the Kyoto process or point to political issues, although one could argue that the frame is oriented implicitly towards the Kyoto Protocol, given the frame’s emphasis on the causal role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In keeping with the structure of the Kyoto Protocol, responsibility for addressing climate change rests with developed countries. For example, in an article that reported on the work of British specialists who argued that poor countries are suffering because wealthy industrial states are destroying the climate, Georgii Golitsyn, Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS), noted that ‘of course to blame the UK alone for its industrial emissions leading to the hunger pains of millions of people in poorly developed countries is just incorrect . . . the claim needs to rest on all developed countries’ (RG 2000). In the period 2005–2007, coverage relating to this frame was low, including, at most, three articles (Yur’ieva 2007a; Egorov 2007a; Sevryukova 2007) referring to international processes by summarising Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In the 2005–2007 period this frame can be seen to merge into the most dominant of the three frames—the causal agnosticism frame—since the incorporation of the greenhouse effect and the role of human activity as key causal factors in this third frame overshadows the international frame as a discernibly separate approach. The cyclical frame This frame is the second most prevalent one in both the pre-Kyoto and post-Kyoto ratification periods and is almost exclusively the preserve of scientific voices, reporting RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 601 on their research results and ideas about what is driving climate change. It stresses the cyclical nature of climate change and could be summed up by the slogan ‘there is nothing we haven’t seen before’. Within this frame, the cause of climate change had nothing to do with human activity and the greenhouse effect, but rather, climate change was simply part of the cyclical nature of climate, stemming from other natural processes such as the orbit of the earth or changes in solar activity. One early example of this was the intervention of Professor Valerii Byurdrakov who argued: Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Nothing in particular is happening overall. Simply the climate of the planet every four million years goes through periods of warming and cooling. Faced with cooling the majority of living things will die out, but that is not going to threaten us, because we’re on our way towards warming . . . [and] there is still time remaining to think up something. (RG 2002a) As another scientist, Kotlyakov, put it : ‘Cycles are the primary rule of nature. In the history of the Earth there have been ice ages . . . and warm periods’ (Medvedev 2007a). The arc of narrative within this frame often begins in the distant past, with other historical periods of warming and cooling vividly described by scientists from a number of Russia’s leading institutes. To take one instance, an article in RG reported the following answer by meteorologist and Deputy Director of Science at the Institute of Geography (RAS) Aleksander Belyaev in response to the question of why warming is occurring and if it was related to the sun: This is the question of questions! Half of the scientists, working in this area, share the point of view that global warming is happening [because of the greenhouse effect] . . . Their opponents say, ‘Excuse me, please . . . changes have been observed in the course of the Earth’s evolution, even when there was no technological progress. There were ice ages, between ice-ages, and, when the dinosaurs were alive, the temperature was five degrees higher than today. Possibly, there is some other kind of explanation?’ Two weeks ago, we heard the propositions of Swiss astronomers who said that phases of warming and cooling in the past thousands of years are related to solar activity. (Romanova 2004) In 2007, a new twist was introduced into this frame with the suggestion that changing solar radiation and sun cycles meant that the world should actually be prepared for global cooling. These interventions were based on research results that indicated that solar intensity had reached its peak and would begin to decline (Anisimova 2007a; Galin 2007; Medvedev 2007a). In this context, the interventions of scientists in this cyclical frame became more oriented towards directly debunking the premises of the international frame. One scientist, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, at the Pulkovo Observatory, while presenting his work on sun intensity cycles, was reported by RG as follows: Personally I’m certain that the prognoses about the melting of polar glaciers and permafrost . . . are not founded . . . [A]n opposite process [of cooling] will start soon . . . By the way, American researchers looking at Mars documented that in the same period as the Earth’s [warming] (1999–2005) there was a distinct warming [on Mars]. And there isn’t any kind of industrial activity there like we have on Earth—it is because the sun is shining on both of them. (Anisimova 2007a) 602 ELANA WILSON ROWE Global warming in this frame is clearly embedded in a long historical arc of change and the impacts of warming are most often predicted to be modest and gradual. The focus is national and on changes likely to be experienced by Russia (rather than global change or changes in other regions). They are often also presented as cyclical in nature. To take one instance, an article by Anisimova (2007b) reported that, according to Sergei Frolov of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, while some specialists argue that global warming would result in further reductions of sea ice, Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Other specialists, on the side of theories of cyclical variation in ice cover, consider that in the near future the ice cover will return to a medium, multi-year norm and perhaps grow beyond that. I share their opinion. It seems to me that nature’s mechanisms of self-regulation operate on such a global level, that no activity of humankind is capable of resulting in any influence on natural processes. We just still understand poorly these mechanisms . . . Ice in the Arctic isn’t going anywhere. When it comes to agency, in this frame the Kyoto Protocol would seem to be irrelevant, as emissions of greenhouse gases have nothing to do with the problem at hand. In the cyclical perspective the earth is often seen as a flexible organism that has coped with climate change in the past and will be able to cope again. In 2003, one article put it this way: the ‘earth is a self-regulating living organism. The problem is not how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, but rather how the living nature of the planet reacts’ (Suprunova 2003a).13 As climate change was seen as a natural, inevitable variation creating gradual impacts in this frame, the few references to action to be taken regarding global warming were oriented towards the eventual need for some adaptation. Responsibility in this frame cannot be assigned to anyone as climate change is presented as a natural process. Some responsibility, though, seems to rest with scientists in that they should continue to work on understanding the changes at hand and government in developing adaptation plans for the distant future. The causally agnostic frame This frame is dominant in terms of the amount of space it occupies in the general coverage in Rossiiskaya Gazeta. It includes a number of interventions from state actors (Rosgidromet and related institutes,14 and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and engages thoroughly with political and economic questions relating to climate change, often presenting climate change as a political and economic problem, as well as an environmental and scientific problem. This frame often pointed to two factors causing climate change: natural factors such as the earth’s orbit and changing solar patterns; and the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic influences. In the period 2002–2004, there was more of an orientation towards natural and cyclical explanations, including 13 See also Romanova (2004). Within the Soviet system, research was carried out under the Academy of Sciences system, in universities and within ministerial research establishments. The Russian research world is still organised similarly, explaining why a governmental body such as Rosgidromet for example, has a number of research institutes within it. 14 RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 603 the idea that greenhouse gases were possibly making climate change more acute (RG 2002a; Suprunova 2003b; Romanova 2004). For example, when asked by a journalist about the extent of human influence on climate, a Rosgidromet representative highlighted both a modest role for humankind and the complexity of the climate: Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 [Human influence] is not as big as it is said to be. Society is captivated by one idea: mainly the reduction of emissions, even though authoritative research has come to the opinion that stopping emissions of greenhouse gases and even stabilising their concentration in the atmosphere at a low level couldn’t prevent climate change . . . Climate change is a result of complicated natural factors, and humankind in this process has a modest role. It’s more important for humankind to use their capacity to adapt to conditions of a changing climate in a timely fashion. It is not within our powers to stop the changes. (Tolstov 2004) In the period 2005–2007, one could argue that the positions of experts in this frame were reversed, although the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol seemed to have reduced some of the heat of the causality debate within Russia. When causes were discussed, space remained for mixed causality between natural factors and the greenhouse effect, although the stress was clearly placed on anthropogenic causes of climate change (Dmitirieva 2005; Yakovenko 2005; Ogil’ko 2007; Yur’ieva 2007a; Egorov 2007a). For example, in a conversation with Roman Vilfand of Rosgidromet (Ogil’ko 2007), Vilfand noted calmly: ‘Increases in temperature are related to global warming, which resulted from a number of factors: that’s human activity and other natural factors. But, I think, that there won’t be any catastrophes in the near future’. In its discussion of the impacts of climate change, contributions in this frame usually list both positives and negatives in keeping with the international and regional assessments summarised above. In the pre-Kyoto period, the focus remained primarily on impacts for Russia with little discussion of the global or other regional consequences of climate change. However, there was serious discussion of the impact on Russia, with little to suggest that warming could be generally positive for Russia. For example, in an interview with Suprunova (2003b), Yurii Izrael, then director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Climatology and Ecology and a long-time Russian IPCC participant,15 noted that ‘even if the climate becomes pleasant—say if it is 258C on Yamal, that doesn’t mean that palm trees will grow there’. At the same time, the contributions in this frame remained strongly oriented away from ‘catastrophe’ discourses, with extensive discussion of how the impacts of climate change would not be disastrous and they could be understood in some ways as local problems (Ogil’ko 2007; Averbukh 2003; Novoselova 2005). Given the dual causality encompassed within this frame, the question of agency remained difficult to discuss. Dual causality leads to a sense that something is happening and some action should be taken, but it remains unclear what kind of action would be most effective. In the pre-Kyoto ratification period, the focus of calls for action entailed acquiring better answers about climate change from both national and international experts, and most stress was placed on issues to be tackled through further research and deliberation, including whether the Kyoto Protocol could be 15 Izrael was likely to have been instrumental in the 2004 Russian Academy of Sciences decision not to support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol (ZumBrunnen 2009; Korppoo et al. 2006). 604 ELANA WILSON ROWE effective in reducing the greenhouse effect, and to what extent the Protocol would have negative economic impacts (RG 2002b; Averbukh 2003; Smol’yakova 2004). For example, Aleksandr Bedritskii, of Rosgidromet, argued that there were too many unanswered questions about the Kyoto Protocol: Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 And when business representatives tell the scientists, ‘You wrote in the convention that it is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level. But where is it, this level?’ the scientists couldn’t answer. Research had not yet determined this level. How is business going to take such a risk when the goal of the process [of emissions reduction] isn’t even clear? (RG 2002b)16 On the other hand, when the ‘causality by natural factors’ hypothesis gained the upper hand in debates, the Kyoto Protocol could also be presented as having a negative effect. It was criticised roundly for being founded on shaky science, romanticism and populism, and for being an ineffective mechanism that was imposed on Russia by European powers (Yurkov 2003; RG 2002b; Valentinov & Sokolova 2000; Suprunova 2003b; Smol’yakova 2004). A 2003 article explaining why Russia would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, noted that ‘the earth is a self-regulating organism [and] without 100% scientific evidence . . . of the greenhouse effect . . . mankind should not interfere with global processes. Our interaction with nature calls forth so many questions that 100 wise men couldn’t answer them’ (Yurkov 2003). After Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and particularly because Russian ratification brought it into force, much emphasis was put on Russian agency, namely the ability of Russia to play an important role in the politics of climate change. Some voices, notably the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emphasised this point—that climate change is an international political issue in which Russia has played a constructive and leading role (Yakovenko 2005). In this way, Russia’s participation in climate change politics probably has more to do with the role Russia chooses to play internationally than with the scientific evidence about climate change. By 2007, the Kyoto Protocol itself, while still seen as having some ability to ameliorate climate change (Shestakov 2005a), is characterised as a ‘collective start’ that may not be capable of fully solving the problem, primarily due to the lack of participation of developing countries (Yakovenko 2007). Increasing doubt about the relevance of the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 was accompanied by the emergence of more discussion about other mitigation efforts, primarily climate manipulation. These include using reflective mirrors or various kinds of aerosols injected into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays and precipitate cooling. The idea of climate modification corresponds well with the Soviet tradition of finding technical solutions to social and economic problems (Graham 1990), although the attention paid to climate modification is growing in Western scientific circles as well (Economist 2008). It is notable, however, that this discussion seems to be primarily a one-man show led by climate scientist Yurii Izrael, with some additional international voices working on similar issues (Merkulov 2006; Medvedev 2007a, 2007b). At the same time, the discussion within this frame of Izrael’s ideas for climate 16 See also Smol’yakova (2004). Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 605 manipulation is often paired with research suggesting that such manipulation would be ineffective (Medvedev 2007b). Discussion of responsibility for global warming, however, in contrast to the questions of causality and agency, comes across clearly with none of the dualisms discussed above. In the pre-Kyoto ratification period (prior to 2004), a preoccupation of a great deal of the coverage in this frame was the fact that the US had withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, giving Russia pause. In this way, a great deal of the responsibility rested with the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter with all other questions and debates about responsibility rendered moot by the lack of American involvement. Responsibility also rested on experts (international and national) to deliver better and more certain answers about the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol and its economic impacts. By 2007, although lack of ratification from the US and Australia as developed countries and major emitters remained an issue, the focus had shifted. Russian decision makers systematically expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol because developing countries that were major emitters (including China, India, Korea, Mexico and South Africa) were not obligated to reduce emissions (Yakovenko 2007; Makarichev 2007; Sevryukova 2007). In an article written by Alexandr Yakovenko (2007), deputy minister within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), this point comes across clearly: The situation in which a number of countries consciously take upon themselves obligations for the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions and place themselves . . . in disadvantageous circumstances in relationship to other countries, not placed under limitations, cannot continue for long. Russia has always come out in favour of and will continue to come out in favour of the strengthening of . . . an international regime . . . of a universal character. 2008 and beyond As argued above, there are two frames remaining that have continued to change and attract attention throughout the period studied—the cyclical and causal agnosticism frames. The cyclical frame seems to be the realm primarily of Russian scientists either presenting new research or expressing disagreement with the international climate change consensus. This frame clearly shapes the third and most substantial causal agnosticism frame and seems to temper some of the scientific messages about anthropogenic climate change coming from the international level. However, the cyclical frame remains weak on key questions of agency and responsibility and in covering the spectrum of the economic and political problems to which climate change now relates. This suggests that this framing is unlikely to have a high level of relevance to Russian decision makers. Its persistence, however, points to what might be quite deep roots behind Russian political and scientific scepticism towards international climate science.17 17 This scepticism may have something to do with the politics and economics of international scientific production. David Demeritt (2001), in his study of the organisation of the science of global warming, argues that an emphasis on costly scientific methods such as global climate modelling raises issues of exclusion in international scientific exercises. Scientific dissent overall, as Bruno Latour 606 ELANA WILSON ROWE That the causal agnosticism frame expanded to encompass both schools of thought on causality and, in the post-Kyoto ratification period, diminished the overall relevance of the causal debate itself suggests that the issue of climate change in Russia has grown beyond the environmental and research problem it once was. By 2007, questions of responsibility for emissions reduction and of the political and economic consequences of international climate politics had become the most prominent.18 At the same time, however, scientific voices remained at the heart of all three Russian climate change frames. The nature of the role of the expert as framer is the topic of the following section. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Framers: when and how do experts intervene? Experts and scientific knowledge are an integral part of policy making in modern states. However, the ways in which science and scientists are incorporated in the political process varies nationally and has much to do with culturally specific practices and norms for expert intervention (Miller & Edwards 2001, p. 15; Jasanoff 2005). Historically, some eminent Soviet scientists were able to influence governmental decision making, most notably in the case of nuclear weapons testing. However, scientists were only successful in using their scientific expertise to influence government action when a given issue, such as nuclear testing or environmental problems, was already on the political agenda (Graham 1990; Roberg 1998). In the waning years of the Soviet Union, Soviet scientists increasingly participated in international scientific endeavours and environmental regimes, creating new competencies in Soviet and Russian science (Kotov & Nikitina 1998). At the same time, science suffered during the post-Soviet transition as a result of a decline in federal funds for science by 75% between 1991 and 1994; and it continued to be funded at that lower level in subsequent years (Gerber & Yarsike Ball 2002). Despite the funding crunch, however, the development of new scientific competencies and greater international experience may have put Russian scientists in a better position to influence decision makers facing complex transnational problems—a possibility that has yet to be explored in the Russian context. In order to explore the role that Russian experts may play in influencing policy making, it is necessary to examine the involvement of science and scientific voices in the three frames outlined above. In particular, three questions are used to analyse the asserts, can be expensive: ‘It appears that arguing is costly. The equal world of citizens having opinions about things becomes an unequal world in which dissent or consent is not possible without a huge accumulation of resources which permits the collection of relevant inscriptions’ (1987, p. 69). Some of the dissent forming the cyclical frame may in part be related to some Russian scientists’ frustration and scepticism resulting from exclusion from the expensive, technocratic methods that have been central to the international processes of climate science. 18 More recently, climate change gained an additional political layer by being linked to a favourite project of the Russian government—energy security. For example, at President Dmitry Medvedev’s G8 debut in July 2008, he clearly bundled these two issues together, echoing Russia’s (relatively failed) attempt to promote energy security as a central issue of the 2006 chairmanship. Medvedev noted: ‘For Russia, the matter of energy is in a significant measure a matter of energy effectiveness . . . In the final analysis [improving Russia’s energy effectiveness] will help the solution of the global task related with change of the climate and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions’ (Itar-Tass, 9 July 2008). RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 607 frames in order to illustrate the role of scientists in policy making (Jasanoff 2005, p. 260): first, what kind of knowledge is seen as needed for policy making; second, whose responsibility is it to produce such knowledge; and third, in what way is this knowledge to be expressed? Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 What kind of knowledge is necessary? The ambivalence about what is causing climate change that was so evident in the third frame outlined above, as well as the economic incentives that motivated Russian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, raise the question of how decisive scientific knowledge has been in Russian climate-change policy making. Understanding the Kyoto Protocol as an economic mechanism—ascertaining the potential benefits or drawbacks it could have on the Russian economy—seems to have been the first priority. Here it can be seen that the continuing divergence of opinions in the domestic climate science debate about causes and impacts, illustrated above by frames two and three, did not, in the end, hinder ratification. As shown above, in 2007 there was much more discussion about the design and the distribution of responsibility within any mechanism designed to cap emissions than there was about the validity of the international climate science consensus or about specific domestic debates concerning causality and impacts. This, along with the dearth of media coverage of Russian politicians creating policy for coping with domestic climate change impacts, suggests that questions of political and economic punishment and reward at the international level outweigh the scientific specificities of the problem itself. At the same time, as seen in Figure 1, the level of scientific input as a group is clearly higher than all other kinds of interventions.19 This can be seen from the pre-Kyoto ratification deliberations. As mentioned above, the decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol ultimately came directly from Putin and relevant legislation was quickly rubberstamped by the government. Nevertheless, during the governmental ‘deliberations’ prior to approving the legislation, two scientists were involved: Aleksandr Bedritskii, head of Rosgidromet, testified in favour while Russian Academy of Sciences member Yurii Izrael argued that the Kyoto Protocol had limited capacity to actually address global warming (Shapovalov 2004). While it remains difficult to ascertain the actual influence of Russian experts on policy making on this basis, one can nonetheless say that scientists and scientific knowledge seem enshrined in the domestic climate change debate, and that their presence appears to be deemed necessary and appropriate. A more specific indication of what kind of scientific knowledge is necessary relates to the time horizons relevant to policy making, namely Russian policy makers’ desire for Russia-specific, short-term scenarios. In 2005, Rosgidromet attempted to address this need by publishing a national assessment of how climate change would affect various regions of Russia in the short term. This document noted that long-term scenarios were provided at the international level (by the IPCC assessments among others), but that the strategic report itself was meant to provide more of a short-term 19 In looking for and counting different ‘voices’, I essentially kept track of how many times individuals or institutions intervened in Rossiiskaya Gazeta coverage. Such interventions could be, for example, direct interviews with relevant actors or references to particular experts, research or reports. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 608 ELANA WILSON ROWE Note: In this chart, the category ‘scientists’ includes all scientific voices (national, international, governmental, academic/independent). ‘Politicians’ includes both national and international governmental actors, while ‘other’ captures business and NGO voices. FIGURE 1. CATEGORISATION OF TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS IN INTERVENTIONS, YEAR) ROSSIISKAYA GAZETA (NUMBER OF prognosis of immediate impacts over the next 10 years, as well as providing more specific information as to how these changes would be distributed over the varied geography of Russia (Rosgidromet 2005). The need for and difficulties involved in creating shorter term scenarios for policy makers were also brought out by scientists Yurii Izrael and Vladimir Kattsov in a 2007 newspaper ‘panel debate’ about climate change (Medvedev 2007b). Izrael noted that policy makers need to know more than the overall trend of warming; they need to know what is going to happen in the next 10 or 15 years. However, as Kattsov commented, it is ‘a lot easier to establish a prognosis of the median temperature over 100 years, than over 10’. In this exchange, it is clear that the scientists see themselves as having a policy-related role, even if that role is sometimes difficult to fulfil. Whose responsibility is it to produce policy relevant knowledge? While the actual influence of experts on political decision making certainly varies according to setting and issue area, the notion that science is meant to play a role in politics is relatively well enshrined in modern states. Experts and expert knowledge are expected to contribute to public political debate and policy formation. They are meant to provide informed insight and to satisfy ‘the desire for order in the management of uncertainty. Experts therefore have to be accountable as well as knowledgeable’ (Jasanoff 2005, p. 267). In other words, scientific knowledge and those who provide it, in order to influence the policy-making process, have to be believable and trustworthy (or at least in a position in which they could be called to account should they not be). The need to hold scientists accountable certainly is a simpler task when science is carried out at the domestic level by domestic actors. Unsurprisingly, Rosgidromet has had a lasting, leading role in the production of RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 609 scientific knowledge about climate change, while various institutes within the Russian Academy of Science have also played a consistent, if lesser, role. As mentioned above, international efforts in environmental science, such as the international work on sustainability, have raised a measure of suspicion amongst Russian decision makers. In the post-Kyoto ratification period this scepticism makes the prominent ‘internationalisation’ of the debate noteworthy, especially with regard to the increase in international interventions as well as the greater coverage of global impacts (see Figure 2). Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 In what way is scientific knowledge to be expressed? Jung (1999, p. 4) notes that scientists involved in policy-oriented research or communication processes may not be committed to any particular policy outcome. Rather, they have a ‘professional interest in protecting their claim to authority over fact making. This authority, however, depends on the perceived neutrality and objectivity of the produced knowledge’. This gives importance to the way in which scientific knowledge is expressed publicly. In the Russian context, such a pursuit of neutrality is evident when scientists engage with the media through their emphasis on complexity and refusal to paint individual scientific cases with a broad narrative brush. For example, as mentioned above, scientific voices in the Russian climate change debate often seem reluctant to link observed changes (like reduction in Arctic sea ice or warming of oceans) to more broadly observed global warming (Dmitrieva 2005; Shestakov 2005a; Anisimova 2007b; Skalina 2007). To take one example, Roman Vilfand of Rosgidromet, when asked by a journalist if ocean warming overall was related to global warming, replied: ‘the question is still open . . . The problem is that Note: This chart is a breakdown of scientific interventions, weighing international interventions (including international scientists as well as references to internationally produced reports) against domestic scientists and their work. FIGURE 2. INTERNATIONAL VERSUS DOMESTIC SCIENTIFIC INTERVENTIONS 610 ELANA WILSON ROWE the ocean has its own laws, they are poorly studied and research of a larger scale, at the moment, is only beginning’ (Medvedev 2005). The importance of avoiding speculation and oversimplification was tackled explicitly by Professor Mikhail Petrosyans, head of the Department of Meteorology and Climatology at the Moscow State University: Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 When we talk about the weather that will be on the planet within 50 years and even more so 100 years, scientists often run into idle speculation. For example, in relation to the Russian North, the growth of average temperature and the melting of permafrost is often predicted. However, specific research on this question has not been carried out. For that reason, how serious the consequences of these processes turn out to be is difficult to predict. (Shestakov 2005a) This reluctance to speculate and the focus on detailed understanding and case-by-case assessment of potential climate impacts may also indicate an unwillingness to provide simplified narratives for the public sphere and by extension for policy makers. Perhaps the more consolidated narratives forwarded by the IPCC, for example, proved themselves more amenable to the public sphere and to policy making, partly explaining the surge in international voices outlined in Figure 2 above. At the same time, it was noticeable in 2006 and 2007 that some of the alternative theories forwarded by Russian scientists began to be criticised for providing confusing input to the political debate. For example, following an article on a Russian scientist who questioned the relationship between climate change and the greenhouse effect (arguing that climate change causes the greenhouse effect, rather than vice versa), Rossiiskaya Gazeta published the following critical remark by Vladimir Zakharov, a developmental biologist and Chair of the Environment Commission in the state-created ‘Public Chamber’ for civil society (Obshestvennaya Palata): You do not need to mix scientific research of the most complicated problems of changing climate with the realisation of discrete political decisions. By the way, global warming and the anthropogenic impact on climate are no longer argued against by anyone. The permissibility for realisation of Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, designed to stop negative impacts on the environment, do not elicit doubt from ecologists and economists. (Yurkov 2006) The detailed, and often slightly contradictory contributions of Russian science, are cast by Zakharov as quibbling and not of use to the political process underway. Another such example from 2007 was the response by Valentin Meleshko of Rosgidromet to research presented by the Pulkovo Observatory, which put forward the idea that the sun is causing climate change and that the world should brace for global cooling, rather than global warming: The fact of global warming does not raise doubts amongst the leading scientific authorities of the world. Various alternative hypotheses, as a rule, have no scientific basis, but are actively discussed in society and disorient the leadership of the country. Among these is the oft remembered hypothesis about the dominant role of solar activity. (Anisimova 2007a) These comments seem to suggest that the space for public scientific dissent on the issue of climate change is perhaps decreasing and that scientists in a position to influence RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 611 policy may be attempting to close ranks and present a more consolidated public narrative about climate change, like those produced at the international level. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Conclusion In many ways, the role that scientists and scientific knowledge have played in shaping Russian climate change frames corresponds rather neatly with Barry Barnes’ description of a ‘decisionistic’ society, in which experts are ‘on tap but not on top’ (Barnes 1985, p. 99). Within the coverage of Rossiiskaya Gazeta and on the issue of climate change alone, the prominence of scientific voices is undisputable. At the same time, within this debate the relevance of science can be said to have waxed and waned. While scientific debate, particularly around the issue of causality, was lively and heated before the Kyoto Protocol was ratified, the intensity of debate diminished after Russia’s international political position on the issue became clear. One conclusion that could be drawn here is that the contribution of Russia’s scientists to policy making is at its peak preceding decisions on issues where science is of relevance (for example, environmental issues) that play out partly in the public sphere. However, despite apogees and nadirs, the basic presence of scientific voices in the climate change debate on the pages of Rossiiskaya Gazeta remained relatively high (see Figure 1) and the appearance of consulting with and drawing upon expertise in policy making seems to be a part of Russian political culture. The cooling of the causality debate after Kyoto ratification also points to a divide between domestic and international science. The plethora of domestic, scientific voices often expressing views contrary to international scientific efforts suggests that domestic science had an especially important role to play in the pre-Kyoto ratification period when Russia was considering a position at odds with the international (or at least European) consensus. The increasingly prominent place of international scientific interventions (be it specific by international scientists or IPCC reports) in the post-Kyoto phase seems to be the inverse reaction (see Figure 2). I would argue that some of the attempts to counteract the interventions of scientists with alternative climate change theories are perhaps part of an effort to streamline and discipline Russian scientific contribution to domestic climate change policy in order to match the tidy, useful policy narratives offered by international science. In the pre-Kyoto ratification period, climate change contrarianism may have seemed to be enough of a contribution to the debate. In a post-Kyoto ratification period, Russian scientists may have to work harder to keep their research and themselves relevant. As Nowotny et al. (2001, p. 226) argue, narrative—that is the creation of a logical, simple storyline out of complex reality—is ‘one of the central ways in which the voices of experts are orchestrated’ and an important tool in the ‘power of persuasion’. In trying to consolidate the scientific narrative and make a clearer contribution to policy, Russian scientists may be working to ensure that science is seen as relevant to and useful for ongoing policy making on climate change in the longer term. Although Russian politics is comparatively centralised, with key figures, such as the president and prime minister, playing central roles, the creation and implementation of policy is an inherently complex process necessitating the involvement of multiple actors. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 612 ELANA WILSON ROWE Identifying how scientists have played a role in framing the climate debate is, hopefully, an initial contribution to the development of a more nuanced picture of Russian policy making. In terms of Russia’s climate change policy and politics overall, the three frames point to some broader trends and features of the debate that may influence Russian positions within international cooperation. The two more dominant frames described above certainly contain no enduring representations of climate change as global catastrophe or a common responsibility. Again, the sticking point in international negotiations in the coming years seems likely to centre on the question of the participation of developing countries and major emitters in any global mechanism in measures on climate change, rather than the issue of climate science itself. This raises a key question: would Russia—given its super-power aspirations, rhetoric about constructive contributions to international cooperation, and vast territory already affected by melting permafrost and droughts—actually walk away from international cooperation around climate change? I would argue that this is unlikely for two reasons, although it is equally unlikely that Russia will be an easy partner. First, the politics of climate change are now seen as intertwined with Russia’s international political and economic interests. In many ways, the politicisation and economisation of the climate change question may serve to keep the issue on the Russian agenda. This harkens back to the Soviet period, during which environmental cooperation was seen as falling within the realm of the state’s ‘high political’ engagement with the West and valuable as one way of maintaining interaction with other states (Victor et al. 1998a, p. 24; Kotov & Nikitina 1998, p. 519). As Oldfield et al. (2003) note, there is an overall low priority assigned by Russian decision makers to environmental issues, particularly when environmental concerns would interfere with other pressing political–economic interests. In this light, the fact that climate change is now certainly an issue of high politics and an issue at all of the ‘great-power clubs’ that Russia prioritises can be seen as positive (Wilson Rowe & Torjesen 2008). A second reason why it would be a surprising move for Russia to abruptly withdraw from global climate change mechanisms has to do with the changes over time observable within the third frame—the ‘official’ frame. The way in which this frame eventually incorporated the key tenets of the ‘international frame’ and succeeded in combining them, however ambivalently, with some key domestic beliefs, particularly about causality, suggests that Russia has succeeded in developing a ‘domesticated’ version of international discourse. Bernstein (2000, pp. 500–01) argues for the importance of international ideas and norms coming to align with existing social structures and practices (political, economic, ideational) in slow and ‘evolutionary’ change. The shifting within the third frame could certainly be read as such an evolutionary change—the development of a domestic discourse on climate change that incorporates some key aspects of, and is designed to speak to, international debates. In other words, the dominant policy framing of climate change in Russia may not be a carbon copy of other European countries’ or international framings, but it is closer to them than it used to be. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 613 Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 References Anisimova, N. (2007a) ‘Solntse ugrozhaet kholodom: Chelovechestvu pora gotovit’ sani, utverzhdaet piterskii uchenyi’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 15 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/08/15/ lednik.html.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Anisimova, A. (2007b) ‘Menyayushchayasya Arktika: Ledyanoi pokrov v Severnom Ledovitom okeane otstupaet k polyusu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 10 October, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/ 10/10/reg-pomorskij/arctic.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Arsyukhin, E. (2007) ‘Back to the USSR: Po mneniyu ekspertov Davosskogo foruma, Sovetskii Soyuz mogut vozrodit’ terroristy ili ptichnii gripp’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 19 January, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/01/19/sojuz.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Avdeev, N. (2007) ‘Solidarnost’ v razdelennom mire’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 7 November, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/11/07/ekologi.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Averbukh, V. (2003) ‘God 03’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 1 April, available at: http://www.rg.ru/Anons/ arc_2003/0104/5.shtm, accessed 3 March 2008. Averbukh, V. (2006) ‘Zimnie ugrozy’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 22 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/12/22/shoigu-zavtrak.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Averbukh, V. (2007) ‘Shtormovoe preduprezhdenie: Sergei Shoigu peredal v Rossiskuyu gazetu pol’nyi prognoz po vozmozhnim chrezvychainym situatsiyam na territorii nashei strany v 2008 godu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 27 December, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/12/27/mchs.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Averbukh, V. & Trubilina, M. (2005) ‘Kobe daet signal’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 25 January, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2005/01/25/kobe.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Averbukh, V. & Vorob’ev, V. (2005) ‘Sergei Shoigu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 18 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2005/08/18/mhs.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Barnes, B. (1985) About Science (Oxford, Blackwell). Barnes, B., Bloor, D. & Henry, J. (1996) Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (London, Athlone Press). Bernstein, S. (2000) ‘Ideas, Social Structure and the Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism’, European Journal of International Relations, 6, 4, pp. 464–512. Bogdanov, V. (2007) ‘Kto otvetit za global’noe poteplenie’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 22 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/08/22/poteplenie.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Chichkin, A. (2005) ‘Arkticheskoe ‘‘domino’’’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 25 October, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/10/25/territoriya-spor.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (1998) The Golem: What You Should Know about Science, 2nd edn (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Demenko, S. (2007) ‘Sani mozhno ne gotovit’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 18 July, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/07/18/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Demerrit, D. (2001) ‘The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 2. Dmitirieva, O. (2005) ‘Belye medvedi tonut!’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 23 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/12/23/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Dmitirieva, O. (2007) ‘Afriku i Sibir’ zhdet potop’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 20 July, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/07/20/potop.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Dolgopolov, N. (2007) ‘Problesk v londoskom tumane’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 20 November, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/11/20/mironov.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Economist (2008) ‘Global Warming: A Changing Climate of Opinion?’, The Economist, 6 September, pp. 82–84. Egorov, M. (2007a) ‘Eksperty iz OON utverzhdayut, chto glavnyi vinovnik global’nogo potepleniya— chelovek i ego zhiznedeyatel’nost’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 2 February, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2007/02/02/klimat-anons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Egorov, M. (2007b) ‘Evropeiskoe tok-shou’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 3 February, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/02/03/poteplenie.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Egorov, M. (2007c) ‘Antarkticheskaya zhara’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 22 May, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/05/22/antarktida.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Evplanov, A. (2006) ‘Neskromnye ozhidaniya burzhuazii’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 11 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2006/07/11/g8-biznes.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Galin, S. (2007) ‘Pora gotovit’ sani; Global’noe poteplenie skoro zakonchitsya’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 19 September, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/09/19/poholodanie.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Gerber, T. & Yarsike Ball, D. (2002) ‘The State of Russian Science: Focus Groups with Nuclear Physicists’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 18, 33. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 614 ELANA WILSON ROWE Glazov, S. (2006) ‘Vodnye protsedury’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 9 November, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/11/09/hamitov-voda.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Golub, A. & Muller, B. (2004) ‘Kyoto’s Future Lies in Putin’s Hands’, The Moscow Times, 5 August. Gotz, R. (2007) ‘Russia and Global Warming—Implications for the Energy Industry’, Russian Analytical Digest, 23. Graham, L.R. (1990) ‘The Impact of Science and Technology on Soviet Politics and Society’, in Graham, L. (ed.) (1990) Science and the Soviet Social Order (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Haugneland, P. (2003) ‘Tror Russland vil redde Kyoto—til slutt’, Cicerone, 3. Izrael, Yu. (2005) ‘Mnenie’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 21 October, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2005/10/ 21/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Jasanoff, S. & Wynne, B. (1998) ‘Science and Decisionmaking’, in Rayner, S. & Malone. E. (eds) (1998) Human Choice and Climate Change (Columbus, OH, Battelle Press). Jung, W. (1999) Expert Advice in Global Environmental Decision Making: How Close Should Science and Policy Get?, ENRP Discussion Paper E-99-14 (Cambridge, MA, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University). Kalmanskii, V. (2007) ‘Pomoshchnik iz Kioto’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 31 May, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/05/31/reg-ural/ural-kioto.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Katanik, N. (2007) ‘Stepashin shtopaet ozonovuyu dyru’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 1 November, available at: http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/1,78488,4576942.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Kokorin, A. & Gritsevich, I. (2007) ‘The Danger of Climate Change for Russia: Expected Losses and Recommendations’, Russian Analytical Digest, 23. Korppoo, A., Karas, J. & Grubb, M. (eds) (2006) Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Opportunities and Challenges (London, The Royal Institute of International Affairs). Korppoo, A. & Moe, A. (2007) ‘Russian Climate Politics: Light at the End of the Tunnel?’, Climate Strategies Briefing Paper, available at: http://www.climate-strategies.org/uploads/Russia_politics_bp.pdf, accessed 1 February 2008. Kotov, V. & Nikitina, E. (1998) ‘Implementation and Effectiveness of the Acid Rain Regime in Russia’, in Victor, D. et al. (eds) (1998b) Lahsen, M. (2004) ‘Transnational Locals: Brazilian Experiences of the Climate Regime’, in Jasanoff, S. & Martello, M. (eds) (2004) Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Lashkina, E. (2007) ‘Russkaya Subbota v Germanii’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 10 February, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/02/10/subbota.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Lukyanov, F. (2000) ‘Virkhi vrazhdebnye veyut nad nami’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 13 January, available at: http://www.rg.ru/anons/arc_2000/0114/8.htm, accessed 3 March 2008. Lukyanov, F. (2007) ‘Sudya po vsemu, uragan Kirill voidet v istoriyu kak odin iz samykh razrushitel’nykh v Evrope za poslednie gody’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 19 January, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/01/19/kirill-anons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Makarichev, M. (2007) ‘Neudobnaya pravda’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 15 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/12/15/klimat-konfa.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Makarov, I. (2005) ‘A teper’—o pogode’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 15 September, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/09/15/pogoda.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Medvedev, Yu. (2005) ‘Massy poshli drugim putem’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 13 January, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2005/01/13/uragan.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Medvedev, Yu. (2006) ‘Shestoe nashestvie’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 21 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/12/21/kataklizmy.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Medvedev, Yu. (2007a) ‘Klimatu gotovyat bombu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 10 January, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/01/10/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Medvedev, Yu. (2007b) ‘Iz pushki po klimatu: Avtor effektivnogo proekta bor’by s global’nym potepleniem mozhet poluchit’ priz 25 millionov dollarov’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 11 April, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/04/11/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Medvedev, Yu. (2007c) ‘Luchshe by oshiblis’: Klimat opravdyvaet samye pessimisticheskie prognozy uchenykh’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 1 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/08/01/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Merkulov, A. (2006) ‘Kholodil’nik dlya zemli’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 21 July, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/07/21/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 615 Miller, C. & Edwards, P. (2001) Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Moe, A. & Tangen, K. (1999) ‘The Kyoto Mechanisms and Russian Gas: A Powerful Combination?’ FNI Report, 18. Novoselova, E. (2005) ‘Bozh’ya kara?’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 21 October, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2005/10/21/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge, Polity Press). Ogil’ko, I. (2005) ‘Zemle grozyat teplo i vlaga’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 6 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/12/06/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Ogil’ko, I. (2006a) ‘Kataklizmy nastupayut’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 27 September, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/09/27/konferenciya.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Ogil’ko, I. (2006b) ‘Pogodu podnyali v tsene’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 8 February, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/02/08/meteo-zakon.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Ogil’ko, I. (2007) ‘Avgust budet zharkim’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 14 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2007/07/14/pogoda.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Oldfield, J., Kouzmina, A. & Shaw, D. (2003) ‘Russia’s Involvement in the International Environmental Process: A Research Report’, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 44, 2. Opitz, P. (2007) ‘Energy Savings in Russia: Political Challenges and Economic Potential’, Russian Analytical Digest, 23. Pravitel’stvo Rossisskoi Federatsii (2007) Soobshenie dlya pechati: Postanovlenie ot 28 Maya 2007 g. N 332 O poryadke utverzhdeniya i proverki khoda realizatzii proektov, osushestvlyaemikh v sootvetstvii so statei 6 Kiotskogo protokolo k ramochnoi konventsii OOH ob izmenenii klimata, available at: www.government.ru, accessed 26 March 2008. RG (2000) ‘Sezon dozhdei menyaet raspisanie’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ teoria/articles/hist/7.htm, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2002a) ‘Teplo ne kholod—ono strashnee’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ teoria/articles/phis/27.shtm, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2002b) ‘Gidra meteorologov’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 26 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/Anons/ arc_2002/0726/4.shtm, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2003) ‘Kak smodelirovat’ defolt?’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 15 October, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2003/10/15/defolt.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2005) ‘S 25 po 27 oktyabrya v Moskve prokhodila mezhdunarodnoe konferentsiya, ‘‘Informatsionnye i telemeditsinskie kibernetiki i informatiki v Rossii’’’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 28 October, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/10/28/telemedicina-anons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2006) ‘Likvidatsiya zagryazneniya Kerchenskogo proliva prodlitsya ne menee polugoda’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 13 November, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/11/13/more-ekologianons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2007a) ‘Period global’nogo potepleniya na Zemle svyazannyi s vybrosami v atmosferu dvuokisi ugleroda, prodlitsya bolee 1000 let. Iz-za potepleniya mogut poyavit’sya klimaticheskie migranty’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 2 February, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/02/02/globalnoe-poteplenieanons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2007b) ‘V Berline otmetili 50-letie Rimskogo dogovora, polozhivshego nachalo Evropeiskomu soyuzu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 26 March, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/03/26/souzanons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2007c) ‘Vladimir Zhirinovskii predlzhil evropeitsam pereekhat’ v Rossiyu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 28 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/08/28/zhirinovsky-luchshee-anons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RG (2007d) ‘Sevodnya Vladimir Putin pribyl v predstavitel’stvo Federal’nogo parlamenta Avstralii, gde ego privetstvoval Prem’er-ministr strany Dzhon Govard’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 7 September, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/09/07/putin-avstraliya-anons.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Roberg, J. (1998) Soviet Science under Control: The Struggle for Influence (Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd). Romanova, G. (2004) ‘Prirodu my izmenit’ ne mozhem’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 23 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2004/07/23/beljaev.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Rosgidromet (2005) Strategicheskii Prognoz: Izmenenii klimata RF na period do 2010–2015 gg i ikh vliyaniya na otrasli ekonomiki rossii (Moscow, Rosgidromet). Sevryukova, E. (2007) ‘Solnechnyi udar’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 26 March, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/03/26/poteplenie.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Shapovalov, A. (2004) ‘Sbylas’ mechta i Kioto’, Kommersant’, 1 October. Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 616 ELANA WILSON ROWE Shaw, D. & Oldfield, J. (2006) ESRC Final Report: Russian Views of ‘Sustainable Development’ and their Historical Antecedents, available at: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/ ViewAwardPage.aspx?AwardId¼1688, accessed 28 September 2008. Shestakov, E. (2005a) ‘Katastrofy po raspisaniyu’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 5 February, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/02/05/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Shestakov, E. (2005b) ‘Sammit nadezhd’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 6 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2005/07/06/summit.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Shestakov, E. & Annan, K. (2005) ‘Na chernyi den’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 6 July, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/07/06/annan.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Simonov, A. (2007) ‘Pokovoi vydokh’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 4 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/ 07/04/okean.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Skalina, I. (2007) ‘V pogonyu za aisbergami’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 4 September, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/09/04/reg-pomorskij/arktika.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Slavina, N. (2005) ‘Lyubov’ pod dozhdem’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 16 November, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/11/16/venera.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Smol’yakova, T. (2004) ‘Oboshlis’ bez protokola’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 16 April, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2004/04/16/Kiotsky.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Snegirev, V. (2005) ‘‘‘Poslezavtra’’ bylo vchera’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 28 January, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/01/28/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Sorokina, N. (2005) ‘Lovlya bez pravil’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 11 November, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2005/11/11/lavrov.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Sorokina, N. (2006) ‘Klimat bez prava peredachi’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 1 November, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2006/11/01/glob-teplo.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Sorokina, N. (2007a) ‘Opasnaya Arktika’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 27 July, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2007/07/27/arktika.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Sorokina, N. (2007b) ‘Goryachii sneg’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 28 November, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/11/28/oon-doklad.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Stepanov, A. (2007) ‘Tri gradusa zhazhdy’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 9 April, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2007/04/09/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Suprunova, I. (2003a) ‘Vyklyuchite dozhd’’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 27 August, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2003/08/28/Vykluchitedojd.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Suprunova, I. (2003b) ‘Nash chelovek v nebesnoi kantselyarii’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 22 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2003/08/22/Nashchelovekvnebesnojkantselyarii.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Tolstov, V. (2004) ‘Apokalipsis otmenyaetsya?’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 19 March, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2004/03/19/apokalipsis.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Valentinov, A. & Sokolova, I. (2000) ‘Krovopiitsy s togo sveta’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 6 September, available at: http://www.rg.ru/Anons/arc_2002/0906/6.shtm, accessed 3 March 2008. Victor, D., Rustiala, K. & Skolnikoff, E. (1998a) ‘The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice’, in Victor, D. et al. (eds) (1998b). Victor, D., Rustiala, K. & Skolnikoff, E. (eds) (1998b) The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Volkova, M. (2007a) ‘Idushchie vmeste’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 8 June, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2007/06/08/sammit.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Volkova, M. (2007b) ‘Poteplenie v Sidnee: Na vsemernykh forumakh stalo modno govorit’ o pogode’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 10 September, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/09/10/sidney.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Vorob’ev, V. (2007) ‘Evropeiskaya dymokratiya: Problema izmeneniya klimata vpervye vynesena na sessiyu Genassamblei OON’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 1 August, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/ 08/01/oon.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Vorontsov, A. (2006) ‘1937 god ne povtoritsya’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 13 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/12/13/poteplenie.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Wilson Rowe, E. & Torjesen, S. (2008) ‘Key Features of Russian Multilateralism’, in Wilson Rowe, E. & Torjesen, S. (eds) (2008) The Multilateral Dimension in Russian Foreign Policy (London & New York, Routledge). Yakovenko, A. (2005) ‘Mozhno li izmenit’ klimat na planete?’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 16 November, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2005/11/16/yakovenko.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Yakovenko, A. (2007) ‘Baliinskaya karta budet prinyata na konferentsii OON, posvyashchennoi izmeneniyam klimata’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 4 December, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/12/ 04/a193074.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Yakovlev, A. (2006) ‘Posle nefti’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 5 December, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2006/12/05/neft-prognoz.html, accessed 3 March 2008. RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 617 Yarygin, Yu. (2004) ‘Moskva v russkii khokkei ne verit’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 20 January, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2004/01/20/maslov.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Yur’ieva, D. (2007a) ‘Klimat v nokaute’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 30 January, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2007/01/30/klimat-konferencia.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Yur’ieva, D. (2007b) ‘Odin protiv vsekh: V obrashchenii k kongressu president SShA govoril ob Irake, meditsine I ekologii’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 24 January, available at: http://www.rg.ru/2007/01/24/ obrashenie.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Yurkov, A. (2003) ‘Den’bi iz vozdukha’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 18 December, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2003/10/15/defolt.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Yurkov, A. (2006) ‘Vokrug Baikala’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 10 February, available at: http://www.rg.ru/ 2006/02/10/bajkal-zaharov.html, accessed 3 March 2008. Zorin, A. (2006) ‘Klimat nastupaet na cheloveka’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 21 October, available at: http:// www.rg.ru/2006/10/21/klimat.html, accessed 3 March 2008. ZumBrunnen, C. (2009) ‘Climate Change in the Russian North: Threats Real and Potential’, in Wilson Rowe, E. (ed.) (2009) Russia and the North (Ottawa, University of Ottawa Press). Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 Appendix: Voices in the climate debate Scientists (Russian) Rosgidromet Foreign scientists/International science (IPCC) Ministerial/Duma/regional Business Putin/Kremlin Foreign politicians NGOs (reports) Total interventions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 1 1 3 1 1 5 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 1 8 6 18 4 1 1 1 16 1 1 2 (R) 8 1 3 5 14 2 2 2 42 2002 Scientists (Russian): Russian physicist Valeriy Byurdrakov; Georgii Golitsyn, Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of Russian Academy of Science (RAS) Rosgidromet: Alexander Bedritskii Foreign scientists: Khzien-Bang Oi, American scientist Putin/Kremlin: Vladimir Putin NGOs: World Watch report; WWF report 2003 Scientists (Russian): Yurii Izrael (Rosgidromet/RAS) 6 2; Oleg Belotserkovskii (RAS) 2004 Scientists (Russian): Alexander Belyaev (Deputy Director of Science at the Institute of Geography at RAS) Rosgidromet: Bedritskii Ministerial/Regional/Duma: Konstantin Kosachev, Duma representative Putin/Kremlin: Andrei Illarionov, Kremlin advisor 618 ELANA WILSON ROWE Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 2005 Scientists (Russian): Izrael; Alexander Kislov, MGU Professor; scientists from RAS and MGU (including Kislov and Boris Revich, Head of Science at the Centre for Demography and Human Ecology of RAS); Gennadi Dmitriev, Roskosmos; Mikhail Petrosyans, Head of the Department of Meteorology and Climatology, Moscow State University Rosgidromet: Roman Vilfand, Director of Rosgidromet; A.I. Vinogradov, Deputy Head of Rosgidromet Foreign scientists: scientists at the Centre for Climatic Research at the University of East Anglia and the British Meteorological Bureau; American physicist Fred Zinger; IPCC Ministerial/Regional/Duma: Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Emergency Situations; Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Aleksandr Yakovenko, Deputy Minister MFA Foreign politicians: Kofi Annan 2006 Scientists (Russian): Izrael; Russian scientist M. Budyko; Rustem Khamitov, Rosvodresursov; Aleksandr Minin, scientific worker at the Institute for the Global Climate and Ecology of Rosgidromet/RAS Rosgidromet: Bedritskii (62); Boris Lekontsev, regional Rosgidromet of Altai krai Foreign scientists: Roger Antsel of the University of Arizona; Oxford scientist Norman Myers; UK scientist Sir John Houghton; World Meteorological Organization data/ report Ministerial/Regional/Duma: Shoigu; Vladimir Zakharov, representative to the Commission on Ecological Security and Protection of the Environment of the Public Forum of the RF Business: Nicholas Stern of the World Bank Foreign politicians: Tony Blair NGOs: UK organisation Tearfund report 2007 Scientists (Russian): Leonid Lukin, Head of the Laboratory of the Ecology of the Sea at the Institute of Ecological Problems of the North of RAS; Institute of Global Climate and Natural Ecology (Rosgidromet/RAS); Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Head of the Laboratory on Cosmic Research at Pulkovo (RAS); physicist Vladimir Kattsov; Izrael; Golitsyn; Boris Revich, Human Health Institute of RAS; Center for Demography and Human Ecology Rosgidromet: Sergei Frolov, Head of the Laboratory of Ice Movement at the Arctic and Antarctic Scientific-Research Institute; Alexander Egerov of the Arctic– Antarctic Institute; scientists from the Voiekov Observatory; Roman Vilfand, Rosgidromet; academician Vladimir Kotlyakov, Head of the Department of the Voiekov Geophysical Observatory of Rosgidromet; Alexander Khlepnikov, Arctic– Antarctic Institute Foreign scientists: IPCC 6 7; American scientists from the Center for Atmospheric Research; Roger Eindel from Arizona University; Australian scientist Tim Flannery; UN report ‘Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided RUSSIAN FRAMINGS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 619 Downloaded By: [Wilson Rowe, Elana] At: 09:18 20 May 2009 World’; French scientists; UK scientists; James Hansen at NASA; UK Hadley Centre; Union of Concerned Scientists (USA); scientists at the University of Colorado–Boulder; scientists from NASA Ministerial/Regional/Duma: Shoigu; Yakovenko; Sergei Mironov, Federation Council; Alexander Novak, Governor of Krasnoyarsk krai Putin/Kremlin: Putin Foreign politicians: George W. Bush; Angela Merkel NGOs: NGO ‘Zashchita Prirody’; Society for Governmental Accountability (USA)