Recently there is an active discussion of prospects on introduction of the EU of a cross-border tax on emissions of carbon dioxide.

I would like to begin analysis of the most difficult collision connected with a carbon cross-border tax with basic things. Unfortunately, a certain myth round this subject which completely changed for itself reality has managed to develop. Participants of discussion as if also remembered that is the cornerstone of this notorious problem, but at the same time act, as if under hypnosis of rhetoric.

So, there is a climate change problem. Within this problem two hypotheses compete. The first claims that the planet is gradually warmed, and as the reason is an activity of a man. This hypothesis is guided by the data which are saved up for the last 200 years as a result of direct climatic supervision (generally in the territory of Europe). Supporters of this hypothesis say that because of the increased planetary temperatures there will be melting of glaciers and the coastal cities will be waterlogged. Thus, the main enemy is CO2; it is necessary to reduce strongly burning of fossil fuel in general and it is better to stop it to prevent global warming.

Thus, it stays behind scenes that carbon dioxide is necessary for plants. Many researchers write with surprise that recently green material of plants on the planet increases. It occurs against continuous shouts of defenders of ecology about mass deforestation.

The second hypothesis is guided by the data on a paleoclimate received from analysis of cores of the Antarctic ice, as well as on geology. These experts claim that the climate of Earth in itself, without influence of a man, is subject to the most serious fluctuations. In the Jurassic Period average temperatures of the planet were much higher than today, as well as maintenance of CO2. Moreover, in the last millions of years a tendency of rather global cold snap prevails. Intervals between glaciations become shorter, warming were less expressed. Last «glaciation» was observed in the XVI-XVII centuries. We live during a warming era after that cold snap. According to the forecasts of many scientists, there will be a new cold snap in the next millennium. The glacier at first will cover the USA and then the North of Eurasia.

It is good for these hypotheses to remain sometime within frames of science and to be a subject of discussions of experts. Nevertheless, politicians have already made a choice. The hypothesis of global warming became a subject of global action. Why did it happen? The subject is not only that one thousand years is not important term for politicians, after all, they will not live at this time. The reasons are covered in economy only.

EU countries have no their own serious reserves of fossil fuel. Those fields that exist have already been almost exhausted and there are practically no chances to find new. Respectively, import of energy carriers grows that is bad for economy: you give to someone money, which could be earned by your companies. As the answer to this question the concept of «green» European power was born. Right at the beginning it looked attractive. The EU is one of world technological leaders. Of course, Europeans will be able to develop any technologies. At the same time import of hydrocarbons in the EU will be complicated that will keep the import countries in a tone.

It became clear rather quickly that the plan failed in fact. First, for production of wind-driven generators rare-earth metals are required. The monopolist (with a share about 80%) on supply of such metals is China. China quickly arranged production of solar panels. As a result an overwhelming share of the «green» equipment applied in Europe — the Chinese production. So, they struggled with importers of hydrocarbons and got to dependence on China.

Meanwhile the countries leaders in a share of «green» power (in the EU it is Germany and Denmark) received natural result: they have the most expensive electric power in Europe. It is a huge problem for competitiveness of the enterprises. The government tries to solve this problem, shifting tariff load from industrial consumers to the private sector. It is not pleasant for a consumer. They have enough problems. The real located income falls, the retirement age should be raised, pension accumulation also melt. It creates risks for social stability. What should be done?

A decision arises by itself. «The kingdom needs money» — as the Danish medieval king used to say, and we will take it but not in domestic market but there, abroad. We will tax import, and there will be funds for fulfilling social obligations. I would like to highlight this moment which for some reason often escapes from discussions. Though many people in Europe sincerely believe in global warming and would not like allowing climatic collapse, the main goal of the European politicians is to find money for implementation of social obligations to the citizens.

Who will suffer most of all? Of course, China, after all this country is a leader in emissions of carbon dioxide. The People’s Republic of China annually burns as much coal, as much all other countries taken together. In reply this country will start imposing taxes, duties and other sanctions against the European partners. Russia? Russia will run in this fight of giants somewhere away below. Frankly speaking, for this story matters only how will agree Europe and China, if agree. Simply nobody thinks of losses of Russian companies.

It is paradoxical, but it is even good for Russia. Europe does not have (contrary to constructs in the heads of the Russian political scientists) «anything personal» against Russia. And Europe should be heated. It became unexpectedly cold in Europe in winter. Contrary to the hypotheses, it became colder than it was expected. It appeared that solar panels and wind-driven generators are not enough for heating. Europe began buying more fossil fuel, and it is awful, dirty coal. The Russian fuel will be required further for EU countries without looking and contrary to.

And what will be Russia? And in Russia Anatoly Chubais, as he has been doing it throughout his career, expresses a westernized position. Let’s remember in what his activity on a post of the head of RUSNANO consisted. He organized production of solar panels, accumulators for electric cars and wind-driven generators. Unfortunately, all this turned out more expensive than in China and did not «shoot». The reason Chubais, as we remember, saw in «too cheap gas» in Russia. Any «green» technologies are impossible at so low price of gas in Russia. Let’s raise gas prices! And we will knock down weak competitiveness of the Russian industry, and we will anger the consumers, who are not really happy with their life even without this problem. Precisely in the same logic Chubais urges to impose a tax on burning of hydrocarbons — that, of course, will be reflected both in economy of the companies and in consumers. Whether it helps or does not help Russian companies to break cross-border barriers — it seems to me, it does not really interest Anatoly Borisovich.

What will be as a result? We will agree with Europe, we will look for compromises. Russian gas is not Chinese coal, it is the purest type of fossil fuel. And Europe needs it, especially as to receive hydrogen from natural gas is much cheaper than from water. Namely hydrogen became a new love of the European politicians. I am sure that demand for Russian energy carriers will be restored, and all contradictions will be overcome.