Сlimate change has been a matter of heated debates between Conservatives and Democrats throughout many years. What if we cold-mindedly consider the pros and cons of each position from a purely economic point of view? As it will be exposed further, a proactive, therefore, a Democratic stance, implicating recognition of global warming and the necessity of climate change posed risks management is beneficial for countries including Russia in long-term.
Those who hold a conservative position deny the anthropogenous nature of climate change. They contend that introducing carbon emission regulation and imposing fines on corporations results exclusively in an excessive financial burden on corporations, which consequently, become demotivated and less competitive. According to their view, climate change mitigation policies involving governmental intervention result in price level rise, frightening away potential customers and provoking the malfunctioning
…show more content…
The Paris climate agreement reflects the world community consensus on the transition to low-carbon development, which is a particularly serious challenge for countries dependent on hydrocarbon exports, including Russia, where revenues from drilling off oil and gas constitute a significant proportion of GDP. Global acknowledgment of environmental risks incites a wide range of phenomena posing risks for those, who ignore current trends. To illustrate, today the number of stock exchanges requiring carbon disclosure from companies to be listed is rapidly growing. Transparency of such statistics grants investors and consumers a right to prop up «green» companies by directing their funds in a manner according to their values. Countries generally successful in cutting emissions stand for introducing carbon taxes and other sanctions on «dirty» products, as this helps to put pressure on their