Although this country’s industry is in the doldrums, scientists have concluded that Ukraine is making a considerable contribution to climate change and, accordingly, global warming. Experts claim that Ukraine is among the top 20 countries that pollute the atmosphere. The point is that the entire economy rests on gas and coal, while outdated technologies do not permit waste recycling. As a result, combustion products develop the eventual greenhouse effect. Scientists found a way out of the situation long ago: it is “joint implementation projects” in which investors in enterprises commit themselves to applying new waste disposal technologies. Incidentally, this will be one of the crucial problems discussed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7, 2009, in which Ukraine will be taking part.
“Ukraine is one of the top countries that are carrying out joint implementation projects. We have more than ten of them. We are making every effort to cushion the impact of climate change by way of implementing new and developing the existing projects that help drastically reduce the amount of hazardous emissions. We hope that Ukraine’s experience will promote the successful application and proliferation of joint implementation mechanisms in the world,” said Ihor Lupaltsov, chairman of the National Ecological Investments Agency of Ukraine.
It should be noted that UN Development Program (UNDP) country offices render considerable assistance in tackling climate change problems and carrying out joint implementation projects in the world.
“The UNDP is implementing worldwide energy and environmental protection projects with a total budget of five billion US dollars. This makes the UNDP one of the largest providers of technical aid for cushioning the effects of climate change. Since 1993, when we began our work in Ukraine, the total value of nature conservation projects has reached 11 billion dollars,” says Ricarda Rieger, UNDP Ukraine Country Director.
But joint implementation projects are not the only way to reduce atmospheric emissions, all the more so that environmental organizations claim that these projects are opaque in Ukraine, i.e., projects are working but… emissions still remain. So now a group of civic ecological organizations that deal with climate change is urging Ukraine’s government to carry out joint implementation projects more democratically and keep the 2008 level of greenhouse gas emissions until 2020.
“The policy of cutting emissions for climate salvation is in fact commercially viable in Ukraine. Building new nuclear and thermal power plants at budgetary expense is four to ten times more expensive than saving energy,” says climate change expert Iryna Stavchuk.
In general, experts advise following the example of Scotland and Japan in environmental policies, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
For instance, Japan and Scotland recently pledged to cut the emissions by 25 and 42 percent, respectively, by the year 2020.
COMMENTARY
Khrystyna RUDNYTSKA, climate change program coordinator, National Ecological Center of Ukraine:
“Environmental organizations are supporting joint implementation projects and their proliferation because an updated technological basis will boost energy effectiveness at enterprises and in the public utilities; it will also help recycle coalmine methane and wastes. Besides, there are a few projects in agriculture. Ukraine has no funds for this, but investors make it possible to modernize the manufacturing process and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Ukraine is one of the top 20 world atmosphere polluters. The cause lies in the economic sectors. First of all, it is the energy sector: we obtain energy by burning coal and gas, which is the main source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the losses incurred are about 40 percent. Transport also pollutes the atmosphere, because there is no regulation of transport emissions in Ukraine at all, and the taxes levied on these emissions are too small. Transport accounts for up to 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in Ukraine.
“One more factor is the way the industry and agriculture are working. Obsolete technologies make the economy work ineffectively, and the agrarian sector is ineffectively using fertilizers, for greenhouse gases include not only CO2 and methane but also nitrogen oxide found in fertilizers. Add to this ineffective treatment of the biomass and manure as a source of methane emissions.
“Joint implementation projects, such as the Kyoto Protocol mechanism, are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are spreading in the developed countries and most often occur in Eastern European countries, such as Ukraine, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic States, and Russia.
“Ukraine now has laws and procedures for their implementation. The point is that the investor should invest money in an enterprise and install new manufacturing equipment, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and form the so-called emission reduction units (ERU), the difference between the amounts of emissions produced by the old and the new equipment. The investing company will buy these units to be able to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments.
“Ukraine and the countries of Eastern Europe have now the easiest and most favorable conditions for gaining these units. Ukraine is now the world’s most energy-ineffective country. This means we consume the greatest amount of energy for a unit of products.
“Moreover, we have a lot of industries, where new equipment can and must be installed. Ukraine is now in a situation when joint implementation projects are extremely lucrative — from both the economic and ecological points of view. This is also beneficial for investors, because it is far easier to achieve the most drastic reduction in Ukraine and the developing countries — at the expense of outdated equipment and low ecological taxes.
“I will emphasize that information on joint implementation projects should be readily accessible on the website of the National Ecological Investments Agency, which is authorized to issue letters of consent. These projects should be a matter of public debate. In reality, however, website information is inaccessible (there are no data about investors and the projects they are implementing at concrete facilities), although these projects’ regulations stipulate that it be available to the general public. Nor are these projects being publicly debated upon, which paves the way to corruption.”
