ALL PHOTOS

Russia has not yet ratified the Paris Climate Agreement due to the need to adopt national documents on the transition to energy-saving technologies and introduce appropriate amendments to the current legislation
Moscow-Live.ru

The Paris Climate Agreement came into force on Friday, November 4th. This happened 30 days after the document was ratified by 55 countries that account for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The date of entry into force of the agreement was announced a month ago by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the organization's website reported. UN Climate Secretary Patricia Espinosa called the adopted document historic. According to her, he "lays the foundation for another world," reports .

The global agreement on climate change was adopted in December 2015 in Paris. Representatives of 195 countries have agreed to reduce emissions into the atmosphere in order to keep the increase in air temperature on the planet until the end of this century within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels.

Ideally, the increase in average temperature should not exceed one and a half degrees. According to scientists, this will avoid climate change, which is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible, writes The Guardian.

The Paris Agreement should replace the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2020. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement stipulates that all states undertake obligations to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere, regardless of the degree of their economic development. The document does not provide for quantitative commitments to reduce or limit CO2 emissions, so each country will independently determine its policy in this area.

Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, told reporters that 96 states have ratified the agreement so far, TASS reports. According to him, for last days Required documents contributions by Denmark, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. An important step towards overcoming the second threshold was the simultaneous ratification of the agreement by China and the United States.

Russia has signed the Paris Agreement, but has not yet ratified it due to the need to adopt national documents on the transition to energy-saving technologies and introduce appropriate amendments to the current legislation.

Earlier, the head of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Sergei Donskoy, noted that the signing of the Paris Agreement on Greenhouse Gases would push Russian enterprises to modernize production and use more environmentally friendly equipment. He also stated that, despite the absence of quantitative obligations in the agreement, Russia has pledged to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 from the level of 1990, Rossiyskaya Gazeta writes. In June, Russian presidential adviser Alexander Bedritsky said in an interview with TASS that Russia would join the Paris Agreement no earlier than 2019-2020.

On the eve of the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, the UN announced the need to tighten its rules. In order to fulfill their obligations, the parties to the agreement must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by another quarter more than promised, according to a report released on Thursday by the United Nations Program for environment(UNEP).

"In 2030, emissions are expected to reach 54-56 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, well above the 42 Gt needed to create an opportunity to limit global warming to two degrees this century," the organization said in a press release. According to UNEP calculations, even if all the requirements of the Paris Agreement are met and the forecasts for the level of emissions to be achieved by 2030 are confirmed, at the end of the century the overall temperature will increase by 2.9-3.4 degrees Celsius.

June 1st US President Donald Trump announced that. According to the president, the withdrawal from the agreement will be carried out in accordance with UN procedures and will take up to four years. The president described his decision as "the fulfillment of a sacred duty to America and its citizens."

The U.S. withdrawal from the deal means a quarter cut in UN climate funds allocated to the least developed countries, as well as the fact that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States will be slower. If the United States withdraws from the agreement, it will be difficult for the global community to achieve its goals, since the United States is the largest source of funding and technology for developing countries in their fight against the effects of climate change.

Why is the US withdrawing from the agreement?

Trump promised to make this decision during his election campaign last year. He has repeatedly stated that the Paris Agreement harms the American economy and reduces the number of jobs. According to Trump, US participation in the treaty threatened to lose 2.7 million jobs by 2025. Trump says deal could hurt economic interests The United States, which he puts first, would enrich other countries such as India and China.

“This agreement is not so much about the climate, but about giving other countries a financial advantage over the United States,” Trump said. “Other countries applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement. They were crazy with happiness. Because doing so would put the United States we love so much at an economic disadvantage.”

Trump has said he wants a new deal that he says will be fairer to the world's first economy.

What does the Paris Agreement provide?

The Paris Agreement, which replaced the Kyoto Protocol, provides for a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The document also provides for the allocation of $ 100 billion to developing countries by 2020 to solve environmental problems.

The purpose of the agreement is to prevent a rise in the average temperature on the planet by 2 degrees by 2100. Scientists believe that a more significant increase in temperature caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can lead to irreversible consequences for the environment. Each of the parties to the agreement determines its contributions to the achievement of the declared goal on an individual basis.

The agreement was adopted at the Climate Conference in Paris in 2015 and 2016. The agreement was signed by more than one hundred and ninety countries. Of these, 147 have ratified it. Russia has signed the Paris Agreement, but has not yet ratified it.

How did you react to the US withdrawal from the agreement?

Former owner of the White House Barack Obama believes his successor Donald Trump's administration is "giving up on the future" by pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

“I believe the US should be at the forefront of this group,” Obama said. “But even in the absence of American leadership, even as this administration joins the pathetic handful of countries that are abandoning the future, I am confident that our states, cities, and our businesses will do even more to lead and preserve for future generations our common a planet that is one for all of us.

The governors of the states of California, Washington and New York, which account for a fifth of the US economy, Jerry Brown, Jay Inslee and Andrew Cuomo announced the creation of a climate union. They promised to prove to the world community that the US could continue its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including limiting the use of coal in the electricity industry and adjusting its emission quota systems.

Elon Musk- founder of Tesla and SpaceX - left the White House council in protest. He will no longer be a consultant to the US administration.

President Trump's rejection of the deal has sparked frustration among G7 leaders. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a telephone conversation with Trump expressed her regret. French President Emmanuel Macron in a conversation with Trump said that the US and France will continue to cooperate, but not on climate change.

The Kremlin said that alternatives to the Paris climate agreement on this moment No. According to Press Secretary of the President Dmitry Peskov, "effectiveness in the implementation of this convention without key participants will be difficult."

Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China Li Keqiang stated that China will fulfill the obligations stipulated in the Paris Agreement. China's state news agency Xinhua called the US decision a "global step backwards."

And about the economic war with traditional energy sources supplied by the Russian Federation to international markets - oil, gas, coal. However, the obvious threat to the energy and economic security of Russia does not stop the supporters of the Paris Agreement.

Mikhail Yulkin, head of the working group on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management of the Committee on Ecology and Nature Management of the RSPP. In the article “Paris Agreement: Difficulties in Translation,” Mikhail Yulkin directly says that “this document draws a line under the hydrocarbon era and opens the era of a green economy on a global scale.”

Mikhail Yulkin argues that due to an illiterate and inaccurate translation into Russian, some provisions of the Agreement are interpreted incorrectly - but in fact the document quite fully describes the decarbonization measures. At the same time, the author frankly replaces the terms approved by 193 countries international agreement the wording that he himself would like to see there. Central to his concept is "low-carbon development", which, by the way, is never mentioned in the 29 articles of the Paris Agreement.

But the author is silent about the issues of adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, the importance of which is repeatedly emphasized in the Paris Agreement. Why? Because Mikhail Yulkin heads the Center for Ecological Investments - and, from his point of view, investors should go where they don't want to go and don't want to go yet.

It is proposed to solve this problem by primitive methods in the style of "take away and divide". According to Mikhail Yulkin, it follows from the Paris Agreement that “revenues generated by carbon-intensive industries should be redistributed in favor of low-carbon industries and activities.” That is, for example, the income received by oil and gas companies should not be spent on the military-industrial complex, not on the construction of kindergartens, not on the training of doctors, and not even on the World Cup. No, it is necessary to “ensure the flow of financial and other resources”, for example, in favor of manufacturers of solar panels.

A similar point of view, by the way, was recently held in Germany - but it quickly became clear that the Chinese produce solar panels much cheaper, and the recipients of "redistributed" resources, unfortunately, cannot withstand the competition. It is precisely this deplorable result that attempts to artificially stimulate initially weak industries or even create demand for services that are not in demand by consumers lead to. It is significant that the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia is now actively promoting the need for a bill that should oblige all domestic enterprises and organizations to report on greenhouse gas emissions. Those who will - not for free, of course - will support this process are already ready: the Center for Ecological Investments, headed by Mikhail Yulkin, provides services in the field of inventorying greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Yulkin also speaks of the need for a gradual cessation of investment in the extraction of hydrocarbon fuels (oil and gas), as well as in energy and transport, which use this fuel. But, if you follow his theses, you need to ensure the growth of investments in

“carbon-free energy and transport”. Obviously, what escapes his attention is the fact that "carbon-intensive" energy companies form the basis of the Russian economy - from orders for mechanical engineering and shipbuilding to financing the training of representatives of highly skilled blue-collar workers.

In fact, the lobbyist for the Paris Agreement and the author of Nezavisimaya Gazeta in his article suggests that the main strategic documents of the Russian fuel and energy complex and projects for their renewal are considered nothing more than a threat to the energy and economic security of the country. In particular, a new version of the Energy Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which is being prepared by the Russian Security Council, calls “the establishment of excessive requirements in the field of environmental safety” one of the main threats “in terms of the sustainability of production and the provision of services by fuel and energy companies.” “Requirements for the subjects of the fuel and energy complex in terms of ensuring environmental safety are in some cases excessive, economically and technologically not always justified, which leads to an increase in the costs of ensuring environmental standards for production and consumption,” the draft Doctrine until 2035 says.

In addition, the Doctrine classifies “toughening of climate policy measures in the world”, as well as “changes in the structure of global demand for energy resources and the structure of their consumption” as the main threats in terms of “competitiveness and sustainability of exports of Russian fuel and energy resources”. The draft Energy Security Doctrine also talks about the risks of these threats being realized. For the state, these risks will result in a reduction in tax, customs and other revenues to the budget, for society - a further reduction in funding social sphere, For Russian companies TEK - decrease financial stability and investment attractiveness, for ordinary citizens - rising prices for energy resources, increasing bills for electricity and heat supply.

Thus, it becomes quite obvious that the main goal of the Paris Agreement is not to care about the climate, but to change financial flows, to completely redistribute the entire world energy market. This is what various experts have already paid attention to. Thus, in the report of the National Energy Security Fund, published in June 2017, it was said that the "Low-Carbon Rate" is detrimental to the enterprises of the domestic fuel and energy complex, which is the main source of revenue for the state budget. At the same time, the report was skeptical about the prospects for a positive effect on the Russian economy from investments in low-carbon technologies: “The bulk of low-carbon technologies will have to be imported. Thus, the main profit from Russia's transition to a "low-carbon economy" will be received by foreign manufacturers, in particular, China and Taiwan, which account for the lion's share of solar panels produced in the world. In return, Russian manufacturers will get only an increase in costs and a drop in the competitiveness of their products.

In turn, the Institute for Natural Monopoly Problems (IPEM), in its report on the risks of implementing the Paris Agreement, noted that “a significant proportion of measures currently being discussed in Russia to combat greenhouse gas emissions, unfortunately, are characterized by significant risks for national economy, social stability, energy and food security”. Among these risks were mentioned: a threat to socio-economic stability, especially for regions where there will be a need to carry out professional reorientation of the population and create new jobs; limiting the pace of Russia's economic development, caused by an additional increase in prices for electricity and heat; decrease in the competitiveness of Russian goods and the loss of sales markets; strengthening of territorial disproportions in the socio-economic development of the country's regions; rising inflation as a result of rising prices for electricity, gasoline, food and other goods.

Problem global warming so often considered at various levels that it has ceased to be something frightening for ordinary people. Many do not understand and do not realize the catastrophic situation that has developed with the Earth. Perhaps that is why, for some, a very serious event passed by, which concerned the settlement of issues related to minimizing the amount of harmful emissions resulting from anthropogenic activities.

It took place back in 2015 in France, it resulted in an agreement known to the world like the Paris Agreement. This document has a rather specific wording, which is why it has been criticized more than once by environmental activists. Let's see what kind of agreement this is and why the United States, one of the main initiators of the conference during which the discussion of the treaty took place, refused to take part in this project.

Invisible atomic attack

In 2017, scientists made a shocking conclusion - over the past twenty years, as a result of human activity, as much energy has been released into the atmosphere as multiple explosions of atomic bombs would have released it. Yes, it was explosions - not one, but many, many. To be more precise, every second for 75 years on the planet, atomic bombs equivalent to those that destroyed Hiroshima would have to be blown up, and then the amount of heat released would be equal to what a person produces, “just” doing his economic activity.

All this energy is absorbed by the waters of the World Ocean, which is simply not able to cope with such a load and heats up more and more. And at the same time, our long-suffering planet itself is heating up.

It seems that this problem is far from us, the inhabitants of safe regions where tsunamis are not terrible, because there are no oceans nearby, where there are no mountains, and therefore there is no risk of landslides, powerful floods and destructive plates. Nevertheless, we all feel unstable, atypical weather, and breathe nightmarish air, and drink dirty water. We have to live with this and hope that the will of politicians will be enough for serious accomplishments. The Paris climate agreement could be one of them, because it is based on the voluntary consent of those in power to save our planet for posterity.

Ways to solve the problem

Perhaps the most serious problem for cleansing the atmosphere is the release of carbon dioxide. Its sources are the people themselves, and cars, and enterprises. The Paris Agreement on climate change is aimed at supporting the convention signed earlier in the UN on a similar theme.

The difficulty with CO 2 condensation is that it hardly dissipates on its own. This gas does not break down, it cannot be released artificially, and, according to scientists, its amount that is already in the atmosphere will reach a normal level that does not affect the climate of the planet if a person completely stops producing it. That is, factories, factories, cars and trains must stop running, and only then will the process of negative emission of CO 2 budget begin. It is unrealistic to fulfill such a scenario, which is why the Paris Agreement was adopted at the forum in Paris, according to which the participating countries undertake to reach such a level of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, at which its amount would gradually decline.

This can be achieved in the case of creating high-quality barrier systems that clean up CO 2 emissions from enterprises, replacing fossil fuels (gas, oil) with more environmentally friendly ones (wind, air, solar energy).

Conditionally significant event

The Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, in December. Six months later, in April 2016, it was signed by the countries participating in the consensus. The agreement entered into force at the time of its signing, but it will enter into force a little later, although not in such a distant future - in 2020, until then the world community has time to ratify the agreement at the state level.

According to the agreement, the powers participating in this project should strive to keep the growth of global warming at the level of 2 degrees at the local level, and this value should not become the limiting threshold for reduction. According to Laurent Fabius, who moderated the meeting, their deal is quite an ambitious plan, ideally to reduce the rate of global warming to 1.5 degrees, which is the main goal promoted by the Paris climate agreement. The USA, France, Russia, Great Britain, China are the countries that at first take the most active part in the project.

Essence of the Paris Conclusion

In fact, everyone understands that it is almost impossible to achieve outstanding results in reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement was accepted both by politicians themselves and by some scientists with a bang, because it should push global community to stabilize the ecological situation, as well as to stop the process of climate change.

This document is not about reducing the concentration of CO 2 , but at least peaking its emission and preventing further accumulation of carbon dioxide. 2020 is the starting point when countries will need to demonstrate real results in improving the environmental situation in their territories.

The governments of the participating countries must report on the work done every five years. In addition, each state can voluntarily submit its proposals and financial support to the project. However, the contract does not have a declarative nature (compulsory and mandatory for execution). Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement before 2020 is considered impossible, however, in practice, this clause turned out to be ineffective, which was proved by US President Donald Trump.

Goals and perspectives

As we have already said, the main purpose of this agreement is to put into effect the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted back in 1992. The problem of this convention was the unwillingness of the parties to take real and effective measures to prevent global warming. The words once declared on the stands were only loud rhetoric, but in fact, until the moment the Paris Agreement was approved, the countries that have the greatest economic activity, in every possible way hampered the processes of reducing their carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by their enterprises.

Still, the climate problem cannot be denied anywhere in the world, and therefore a new agreement was signed. Its fate, however, remains as vague as that of the previous treaty. The main confirmation of this point of view is the assertion of environmental critics that the new convention will not be effective, because it does not prescribe absolutely no sanctions against those who violate the recommendations adopted under the Paris Agreement.

Participating countries

The initiators of convening a conference on climate change were several countries. The event took place in France. It was hosted by Laurent Fabius, who at that time served as prime minister in the host country of the conference. The direct signing of the convention took place in New York. The text of the original document is kept at the secretariat; it has been translated into several languages, including Russian.

The main activists were representatives of such countries as France, Great Britain, China, USA, Japan and Russia. In total, 100 parties officially took part in the discussion of this convention.

Treaty ratification

In order for the Paris Agreement to fully enter into force, it had to be signed by at least 55 countries, but there was one reservation. Signatures were needed from states that emitted at least 55% of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in total. This point is fundamental, because, according to the UN, only 15 countries constitute the greatest environmental danger, and the Russian Federation is in third place in this list.

At the moment, more than 190 countries have already done this ( total number- 196), including the United States. The Paris Agreement, which no one had previously allowed themselves to withdraw from, was announced by the Americans after the inauguration of the new president, making a lot of noise in the world political beau monde. In addition, Syria did not sign the treaty, and Nicaragua was one of the last countries to ratify it. The President of this state, located in Central America, previously did not want to sign the agreement, citing the fact that his government would not be able to fulfill the requirements set before him.

harsh reality

Alas, no matter how many signatures there are on the form of the agreement, they alone will not be able to rectify the catastrophic situation in the ecological system of our planet. The implementation of the Paris Agreement depends entirely on the political will of the officials responsible for monitoring compliance with legal standards by enterprises. In addition, as long as the development of oil and gas will be lobbied at the state level, it is impossible to hope that climate change will decline or even decrease.

Russian opinion

Russia did not ratify the Paris Agreement immediately, although it agreed with it immediately. The snag was largely due to the fact that entrepreneurs had a strong influence on the president of the country. In their opinion, our state has already reduced the volume of harmful substances emitted into the atmosphere, but the signing of the agreement itself will entail serious economic downturn, because for many enterprises the implementation of new standards would be an unbearable burden. However, the minister natural resources and ecology holds a different opinion on this matter, believing that, by ratifying the agreement, the state will push enterprises to modernize.

US exit

In 2017, Donald Trump became the new president of America. He considered the Paris Agreement a threat to his country and its stability, stressing that it was his direct duty to protect it. Such an act caused a storm of indignation in the world, but did not make other world leaders stumble from the goals proclaimed in the document. Thus, French President E. Macron convinced both his electorate and the entire world community that the treaty would not be amended, and the doors would always be open for countries that wished to withdraw from the agreement.

Russians can pay for saving developing countries from climate change by increasing prices for electricity and heat

The Paris climate agreement, which is supposed to prevent a global increase in temperature, entered into force on November 4. It implies, in particular, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Its developers are confident that such measures will prevent global warming on the planet. Our country has signed this agreement, but ratification has been postponed until at least 2020. What are the risks of the agreement? This issue was discussed during the hearings in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation (OP). Its experts believe that first it is necessary to develop an appropriate national methodology, since the tools offered by the West do not look indisputable and cause criticism. In addition, the Paris Agreement may entail the introduction of a carbon fee, and this will lead to an increase in the price of electricity for Russians by 1.5 times.

The Paris Climate Agreement, adopted under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015 and signed by many countries in April 2016, has effectively become a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. It is aimed at curbing the rise in temperature on the planet.

Last year, environmentalists estimated that the global average temperature had risen by more than 1oC since the 19th century, with most of the increase starting in the 1980s and continuing to this day. According to a number of experts, all this was the result of active processing and combustion of hydrocarbons, which leads to the greenhouse effect. In order to contain rising temperatures, the world's industrialized countries need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

However, whether the Paris climate agreement will be a way out of the situation and whether it will prevent a tragedy of global proportions is a big question. This document in its current form contains a lot of shortcomings. It was these gaps that were discussed during the hearings in the Public Chamber of Russia.

“Many aspects of the agreement are controversial in expert circles. This is also connected with the general attitude to climatology and warming,” Sergey Grigoriev, chairman of the OP commission for the development of the real sector of the economy, opened the hearings with these words.

The secretary of the OP Alexander Brechalov joined his opinion. “The first point of work in this direction will be the discussion of the results of the analysis of the socio-economic consequences of the implementation of the agreement, that is, the implementation of this idea. Any ill-conceived measures can drastically increase the financial burden on both companies and the population,” he said.

According to the head of Roshydromet, Alexander Frolov, one of the key problems associated with the ratification of the Paris Agreement is its scientific validity. In addition, so far this agreement is only a framework and there is no modality in it. Further climate change is inevitable and the reasons for this process have long been understood. “We need a long-term development strategy until 2050,” Frolov said.

The same thesis was confirmed by Sergei Grigoriev. “The climate has always changed - both in the 17th and in the 18th century. Now the main problem is that there are no national methods. We refer only to foreign ones. The time has come to make efforts to develop a national methodology, because the theses that are put forward as indisputable raise big questions,” he said, emphasizing that “the degree of politicization and politicking around this topic is unprecedented.”

One of the stumbling blocks of the Paris climate agreement is the introduction of the so-called carbon tax - the payment for emissions. These contributions are planned to be sent to the Green Climate Fund, and then to developing countries for the program of "adaptation" to global climate change. Those who seek to limit the import of energy resources are interested in introducing a "carbon fee", for example, countries Western Europe. On the contrary, states whose economy is tied to the extraction of hydrocarbons and fuel production consider this mechanism not ideal. Thus, the budget office of the US Congress noted that the introduction of a "carbon fee" will lead to an increase in prices for many goods. And for Russia in its present form, it can lead to the most unpleasant consequences. According to the calculations of the Institute for Problems of Natural Monopolies, the damage to the Russian economy threatens to amount to $42 billion, or 3-4% of GDP.

“It is not clear from the agreement what we have signed. The draft decision turns the agreement into a liquidation document and involves intervention in internal politics our country through environmental mechanisms. Those who ratified it will supplement it without our participation,” Vladimir Pavlenko, a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, believes.

Moreover, he believes that the Paris Agreement is a vivid example of the application of double standards, created to get the opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of any state, and primarily Russia. “The double standards of the Paris Agreement make it difficult to prove that our absorbing contribution is environmental donation. In the European Union, emissions exceed their absorption by 4 times, in the USA and China - by 2 times. In Russia, the balance is positive in favor of absorption. Our absorption resource is estimated at 5 billion to 12 billion tons, that is, 10 times more than in this document. So are we sinks or polluters? - asks Vladimir Pavlenko.

By the way, there is confirmed evidence that many countries that have ratified this document are falsifying information. For example, India records its emissions as a Brazilian sink, while the Americans post them as Canadian. There are also serious suspicions about the intention of the West to use our absorbing territories under bilateral agreements with different countries.

“It is necessary to switch to the format of a thoughtful study of numbers and threats,” agrees Konstantin Simonov, Director General of the National Energy Security Fund. - It is very important to tie the ratification of the agreement to the lifting of sanctions. The world community needs to decide whether we are with it or not. But for this it is necessary to put an end to the trade war.”

Moreover, we must not forget that there is a risk that the Paris climate agreement will result in additional and unexpected costs for ordinary Russians. “We all understand that we live in difficult economic conditions, and any ill-conceived decisions can cause a serious blow to the country's economy,” Sergei Grigoriev believes.

As noted in the report of the Institute of Natural Monopoly Problems, the introduction of a carbon fee could lead to a significant increase in electricity prices. The construction of replacement generating facilities will require about 3.5 trillion rubles. Under this scenario, the cost of a kilowatt for large commercial consumers will increase by 50-55%, for small commercial consumers - by 28-31%, for the population - by 45-50%, that is, 1.5 times. Obviously, without having worked out all the nuances, the ratification of the Paris Agreement will be a premature decision. In this regard, the participants in the hearings in the OP indicated their readiness to promote all initiatives and proposals in the future, up to President Vladimir Putin.