In popular climate change discourse, Russia is often discussed as a lost cause of a country. It is difficult to imagine circumstances less conducive to pro-environmental reform than those that define Russia: economic dependency on petroleum, gas and mining; legal restrictions on mass demonstrations; and intimate ties between government and business interests. In spite of this, Russia has managed to host a small but potentially impactful movement fighting for eco-friendly reform.

In September, Russia ratified the Paris Agreement, making headlines as one of the last countries to formally join the accord. This decision was an important symbolic measure taken by Putin in response to the changing attitudes of the Russian people. While Russians were once famously dismissive of climate change, in part due to relentless propaganda designed to protect economic interests, the globalization of Russian society has brought a wave of counter-influence from abroad. More Russians are being exposed to environmentalist messages and news about activism through increasingly popular foreign media. Greta Thunburg is one foreign figure who has become particularly impactful, in spite of Putin’s attempts to discredit her. Thunberg's protest-centered ideology is a source of inspiration among Russian youth, who are accustomed to life in a country where meaningful protest is heavily discouraged, if not outright banned. 

Arshak Makichyan, who became well-known as the first Russian participant in Greta Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future” climate strike movement, noticed that environmentalist activity has accelerated significantly within the past year. According to Makichyan in an interview with The Moscow Times, ignorance is the primary cause of Russian apathy toward climate change. Once the conversation has begun, he says, and the information is out there, people become more willing to take the risk of participating in protests. Recent protests in Moscow have managed to gather dozens of people—an impressive number for the capital city, where politicians fear and restrict protests more than anywhere else in Russia. 

The Russian government, which still categorically opposes such cultural influence from Europe, has its own reasons for turning a concerned eye toward global warming. Contrary to Putin’s prior sardonic remarks that warming could benefit the Russian economy by turning its frozen north into an inhabitable and productive landscape, melting permafrost is actively causing damage to existing settlements. Buildings, oil pipelines and other infrastructure in the north were built specifically to last in a frozen landscape. As the frost melts and ground softens, the already outdated structures become unstable and subject to severe damage. The extent of this damage has been particularly acute, as Siberia warms more than twice as quickly as the rest of the world.

The annual $2.3 billion costs associated with repairing damaged structures in the north, combined with other climate-related catastrophes, such as destructive floods and wildfires across Siberia, have prompted a tangible response from some sections of the Russian government. A draft bill introduced by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation described climate change as a “problem” and recognized that the “unpredictable effects of climate change” outweigh the immediate advantages of a warmer country. This bill, the first in Russian history to consider legally restricting CO2 emissions, demonstrates a genuine political will to enact environmental reform. More importantly, it formalized the idea that carbon regulation, while painful in the short-term, is in Russia’s long-term best interests. 

The carbon bill was predictably blocked and debilitated by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, known as the RSPP, who represent Russia’s various oil, gas and mining companies. The RSPP is undeniably the most stubborn obstacle to environmental reform. They are influential enough to effectively participate in government decision making but are not subject to concerns about popular opinion and political necessity. 

However, even this group of economic interests is not immune to the forces of a changing world. Anti-coal policies in Europe and the United States have already incentivized several major energy companies to try and sell Russia’s increasingly unprofitable coal-fired power plants. The economic potential of the emerging sustainable energy industry is also attracting the interest of Russian investors, who are beginning to recognize the financial risks associated with dependence on non-renewable energy. Russia’s reliance on oil and gas revenue remains strong for now, but the coal phenomenon is an important reminder that the energy economy does not exist in a vacuum. The petroleum industry is similarly vulnerable to changes in international export demand and would be similarly weakened if that demand were to drop. 

Progress in climate action over the past several years has been relatively impressive, but is by no means certain to continue. So far, Russian environmentalism has relied heavily on the influence of foreign countries and could quickly hit a dead end if the Kremlin continues its current trend of pursuing inward-oriented political policies. Conditions within Russia cannot support a broad environmental movement; without influence, information and pressure from Europe, the movement has no future. In October, concern was raised by proposals from the Kremlin to prevent foreign companies from leading sustainable energy projects in Russia. In theory, this law is intended to prevent Russia from becoming dependent on foreign entities for clean energy. In practice, it will make it extremely difficult for clean energy projects to take place at all in a country where technological innovation and know-how still lags far behind Europe. Similarly, ongoing attempts by the Russian government to control and possibly even close the internet could cripple the informative and organizational role of the internet in climate activism. 

Russia plays a decisive role in the climate crisis. According to Benjamin Beuerle, a research fellow with the German Historical Institute Moscow, if all the oil in Russia is extracted and used, it will be impossible to keep global average temperatures to non-critical levels. A strong environmentalist movement in Russia is a necessity, but the current movement is in its infancy and will not develop without encouragement. It is up to the global community to support Russian protest and apply pressure on the Russian government and businesses. Without Russian participation and cooperation, no amount of climate change mitigation elsewhere will suffice.