Russia’s environmental agenda: what really needs to be corrected

The Soviet Union was an advanced state in terms of environmental protection policy. Of course, in reality, everything was ambiguous, and here we can recall, for example, various accidents and man-made disasters – Chernobyl, Mayak, the tragedy of the Aral Sea … But with all this, we fought against pollution of nature, as they say, with the whole world. It was in the Soviet Constitution for the first time in the world that the need for nature protection was fixed. Thus, Article 67 of the Constitution of the USSR (“Brezhnev’s”) stated that “citizens are obliged to protect nature, protect its wealth.”

You can also add the collection of waste paper by citizens systematically organized in the USSR (for 20 kg of recyclables – a subscription to buy a scarce book, A. Dumas, for example), as well as the collection of scrap metal, old things, etc. At the same time, not only schoolchildren collected recyclables: a plan for the delivery of scrap metal etc. was, for example, in industrial and other enterprises. A separate collection of organic waste was also organized – for processing for livestock feed. Doesn’t it remind you of today’s fashion for separate collection and “environmental consciousness”? All this was put on a serious state basis. Say, for the delivery of glass containers, you could get decent pocket money.

I will add that the length of protected natural areas (reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, national parks) in the Soviet Union was colossal. This, by the way, is also characteristic of modern Russia. But the foundations for the preservation of unique natural monuments or, conversely, typical biological systems, were laid precisely in the USSR. Here our country was also among the pioneers.

And here I would like to note that a few decades ago we really lived in an advanced advanced developed civilization. But now, of course, we are not talking about nostalgia, although at the end of this part it must be added that the USSR was also the key creator of the main global decisions to protect the environment, and again, every Soviet schoolboy knew about the greenhouse effect or “ozone holes”, which was not close at that time in the “enlightened West”.

Much later, serious signals came from the West about the “carbon footprint”, “carbon damage”, “global warming”, etc. Now, at least in Russia, it has become clear to almost everyone that this whole story was conceived to achieve political goals and win in a global economic war on the front of international competition.

The Western struggle for “carbon neutrality” is, of course, a way to de-industrialize competitors and an attempt to oust manufacturers from “environmentally hazardous regions” from the global market. Scientists around the world are already tired of explaining that the increase / decrease in global temperature in the atmosphere is cyclical, and the carbon footprint from active volcanoes is incomparable in scale with the damage caused to the atmosphere from all industrial enterprises and cars around the world combined.

Another thing is that ecology is a very convenient tool for labeling and unfounded political accusations. “How? You don’t like nature? Don’t you feel sorry for the poor little animals?” The conclusion from the interpretation of the answers can lead to serious consequences: a ban on entering international markets, unilateral sanctions, political pressure, etc. We are seeing all this now, when the West is fighting everything that is somehow associated with Russia, but we are here, As they say, don’t get used to…

But, abstracting from Western propaganda and Western accusations, we must not forget that nature must be protected, and this is not someone’s whim, but an urgent need. And here it is important to note several key environmental aspects that we need to deal with now in order to preserve not only nature, but also our civilization.

The first pressing issue is, of course, water. On the one hand, we have a lot of it (Baikal alone is worth something!), but on the other hand, most of the water resources of our country are under constant man-made and other threats. Damage to our rivers, seas, lakes and groundwater is caused not only by mining, but also by numerous industrial enterprises, as well as public utilities (water disposal) of our cities and other settlements. The key problem is the deterioration, destruction or obsolescence of sewage treatment plants, and this problem has already acquired a nationwide character.

The lack of a systematic approach to ensuring high-quality wastewater treatment is not financial or even bureaucratic, but ideological. It is important to understand that the construction of new and high-quality reconstruction of existing treatment facilities is not some kind of regular expenses and expenses, but investments in the modernization of infrastructure and the creation of conditions for the quality of life and, as a result, economic growth.

And here we again run into a discussion with the financial and economic bloc of the government and the leadership of the Central Bank about the nature of such expenses. Left-wing economists (to which I include myself) have a firm conviction that it is not only strange, but also stupid to spare money for the modernization of infrastructure (as, for example, for the resettlement of citizens from dilapidated housing). These are investments, which means that they ensure GDP growth and form the basis for further socio-economic development. And here you can turn to any sources of additional financing – the National Welfare Fund (NWF), borrowings, targeted emissions …

I won’t bore anyone with exact calculations, but the need to modernize wastewater treatment and related facilities amounts to trillions, while it is clear that part of these costs is intended to be borne by the business. As for the state (for example, the reconstruction of communal infrastructure), investments in the modernization of the urban economy at the federal level are clearly necessary if we want to ensure the quality of life and “unwind” the spiral of economic growth. It is strange that such things have to be explained to someone at the state level …

The second most important problem is the “black sky” in many of our industrial cities. And this is not only about air pollution where millions of people live, but about the complex damage caused to nature and human health by emissions from industrial giants. Here we remember primarily Krasnoyarsk, but there are environmental problems in almost every Ural or Siberian city in Russia – in Bratsk, Novosibirsk, Chelyabinsk, etc.

How to solve this problem? We understand that almost all industrial assets are now in private hands … How to get a private trader to invest (and this is a serious investment) in equipment that makes it possible to make emissions into the atmosphere safe? Here, of course, the state should play a key role, or rather, state supervision not just of emissions, but of the operation and timely modernization of environmental equipment. Current state control should be not only over what is thrown away, but also over how the necessary facilities work in a regular or special mode, as well as over how environmental technologies are introduced in production.

The state has enough powers for this. It is important to use them more effectively. The private trader’s interest is understandable: “spend less, get more.” But millions of people see “black skies” almost daily, see blue or green snow in winter, and tons of toxins enter the lungs of humans and animals.

Another serious environmental problem in our country is the threat of thawing permafrost. It is important to understand that permafrost is not something far away in the north. Permafrost occupies more than half of the land area of ​​our country. Throughout this territory there are hundreds of cities, thousands of other settlements, hundreds of thousands of various structures. I’m not talking about the fact that the critical volume of mining is carried out in this particular climatic zone.

What is the danger of melting permafrost? It would seem that it will be warmer, life will be easier, etc. There are several aspects here. First, the ecosystem is changing unpredictably, and the consequences of these changes can be the most catastrophic in terms of natural disasters. Secondly, there is a transformation of the upper layer of the earth’s crust, the destruction of familiar landscapes, which, on the one hand, also changes the ecosystem, and on the other hand, can lead to large-scale destruction of buildings and structures. Finally, thirdly, viruses and bacteria (including very ancient ones) are now in natural freezing conditions, which pose a danger to both the animal world and humans. Their eventual return to active life could also be catastrophic.

It is obvious that the thawing of permafrost occurs both for natural reasons and as a result of active human resource management. We understand that we have no right to curtail economic activity in the northern regions. I will say more, the active presence of a person there will only increase.

In this regard, along with the control functions of the state for environmental protection already outlined above, it is important to intensify human activities to preserve permafrost in the Arctic and the Far East. There are a number of positive examples and successful experiments here, when the conscious creative activity of a person allows not only solving economic issues, but also preserving the northern ecosystem.

One of them is the experience of the Russian ecologist Sergei Zimov in the village of Chersky in the north of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), which showed that promoting the active distribution of ungulates in the Far North (not only deer, but also, say, bison, bison, deer, etc.) contributes to the strengthening and biodiversity of the vegetation cover of the territories, which at the same time expands the food supply for ungulates and protects the permafrost from the threat of melting and the release of the same methane. I am sure that this experience needs to be translated at the state level in most territories of the North.

Of course, environmental threats in our country are not limited to the above problems. Here it is necessary to recall the notorious garbage reform, poaching, swamping, the invasion of hogweed, forest fires, industrial waste disposal, the need to raise flooded or abandoned ships in the waters of rivers and seas, garbage removal from the North, etc.

There can be only one conclusion from what has been said: we need more government. And in the field of control, and in the field of conscious economic activity, and in the field of active restoration of the ecological balance. Let’s hope that together we will achieve this. After all, the planet, like Russia, we have one.