Russia’s New Energy Strategy Could Lead to Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from Russian energy sector was carried out in accordance with the Energy Strategy until 2050, and they were compared with the target indicators of the Low-Carbon Development Strategy of Russia until 2050. It was shown that fundamental trends in the development of global energy—the energy transition associated with the decarbonization of the global economy—were not taken into account when developing the Energy Strategy. The actual refusal to develop renewable energy sources and the failure to use carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies make it impossible to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality for the national economy by 2060, even taking into account the new increased estimates of carbon absorption by Russian forests. Ignoring the global trend towards abandoning coal fuel, recorded by authoritative national and foreign energy agencies (the Institute for Energy Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the International Energy Agency), has led to inflated estimates of Russian exports of this type of fuel, the world trade of which will decrease several times by 2050. Refined estimates of methane leaks during oil and gas production in Russia correspond in specific values to the indicators of other major producers of oil and gas resources (the United States and Canada), but are approximately two times lower than those obtained from the Earth’s remote sensing data. The main provisions of the two strategic documents on Russia’s development until the middle of the century contradict each other to a certain extent and, therefore, cannot be implemented simultaneously. The result of these contradictions could be Russia’s refusal to fulfill its pledges to decarbonize the economy and its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which will undoubtedly exacerbate the confrontation with growing global trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".