To the strategy of managing environmental safety of the Russian Federation and its regions in modern conditions

In connection with the upcoming review of the Strategy for Environmental Safety until 2025, it is foreseen that changes and additions to it will be necessary in new socio-economic and political conditions. At the global level: due to the unidentified causes (natural or anthropogenic) affecting global climate change, the RF should withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate due to fundamentally incorrect estimates of contribution of countries CO₂ issuers in relation to the area of their territories. Because the share of CO₂ emissions per unit area in the Russian Federation is much lower than in other countries, with very low population density and dispersion over production and infrastructure. In the exchange processes on the territory of the Russian Federation, up to 46,5% covered by forests, vegetation is able not only to bind anthropogenic CO₂, but also to produce significant amounts of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere compared to other countries. Therefore, when investing capital in the Russian economy, countries with a large contribution of anthropogenic  CO₂ per unit of area must pay an environmental rent. At the regional level, the new direction of the Strategy for ensuring environmental safety of regions should be gradually moved to the assessment of territories not by the level of anthropogenic loads on the environment, but by the amount of their assimilation potential, as an indicator of the ability of nature itself to restore the quality of the environment in natural and economic complexes; to an adaptive system of natural resources management, according to the need not to fight against emergencies, related to climate change (landscape fires, mudslides, floods and so on), and adapt to environmental changes through the systematic relocation of infrastructure and production to less affected areas.

1. Stiglitz J. Globalization: Disturbing trends. Moscow; 2003. (In Russ.)

2. Yakovets V. Globalization and interaction of civilizations. Moscow: ZAO Edition "Economy"; 2003. 441 p. (In Russ.)

3. Huntington S. A. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1996.

4. Kokin A. V. Warming of the climate: ununderstood reality. In: Materials for public lecture «Ecological myths of modern ecological utopias at the XXII scientific-practical conference «Science week». Rostov-on-Don: From the PTA; 2008. 23 p. (In Russ.)

5. Kokin A. V., Sadovnikova Y. Y. Ecological misconceptions and assimilation potential of nature. Rostovon-Don; 2013. 88 p. (In Russ.)

6. Kokin A. V. The Biosphere’s Assimilation Potential. Rostov-on-Don; 2006. 180 p. (In Russ.)

7. Bill O. O. Ecological rent: essence, variety, form. Economics issues. 2006;(11):104–110. (In Russ.)

8. Philinova E. G. Rent natural, ecological, economic problems of definition. Notes of the Mining Institute. 2014;(208):75–80. (In Russ.)

9. Bezlipov V. A., Часовnikov S. N. K question about ecological capacity of territory and ways to evaluate it. Fundamental research. 2015;(12-4):751–754. (In Russ.)

10. Gusev A. A. The assimilation potential of the environment and the system of ownership of natural resources. Economics and mathematical methods (EMM). 1997;33(3), July. (In Russ.)

11. Kokin A. Challenges of glocalization. To manage or adapt? And is it possible to ratify the Paris agreement on climate? In: Alternative models of globalization and the problems of modern global dynamics. Col. Monograph. A. W. Albekov, G. H. Matishov, A. M. Starostin (eds). Rostov-on-Don; 2017:321–327. (In Russ.)