TO SURVIVE

It is already obvious that the heat of summer 2010 will go down in the history of the planet as an abnormal phenomenon. At the same time, it has raised a new round of discussions in the scientific community on the topic of natural cataclysms. Ecologists assert that mankind has entered a predicted phase of climate change and global warming, urging the world community to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, a number of scientists describe the ecologists' statement as nonsense, underlining that not humanity, but the planet itself is responsible for global warming, alternating between glacial and hotbed periods. Which point of view does the well-known Russian ecologist Vladimir Slivyakov, co-chairman of the Ekhozashchita international ecology group, support? Here is what he had to say in an interview with our correspondent:

- In your opinion, what is happening with the climate and what is your opinion on the latest developments?

- Climate change is certainly taking place and nobody is arguing about that any longer. The overwhelming majority of scientists-climatologists agree that the anthropogenic factor is definitive. In other words, people are currently making a decisive contribution to a swift rise in average temperatures on the Earth and the acceleration of climate change processes - this is a scientific fact. No doubt about this remains if we compare the figures on emissions of carbon gas by mankind and the data on the rise in global temperatures on the planet. If greenhouse gases had not influenced climate warming directly, the curve of emissions and the curve of temperature fluctuations would not coincide, but they do coincide.

Certainly, there have been different periods on the planet - warming and cold spells, but not so rapid. Now, when the people are constantly accelerating the process of climate change by the emission of greenhouse gases, neither people nor other living beings on the planet have time to adapt. Therefore, it is predicted that by the middle of the century, about 30 per cent of living species on the planet may disappear; part of the Earth will be under water, many island states are threatened with disappearance, and these are not the only, or even the most terrible, consequences of the climate change which threatens mankind. That is to say, this is a very big problem; just as we have sharply accelerated the course of climatic warming, we are now paying a big price for it. And mankind does not understand at all how big this price will be.

However, the most negative consequences can still be prevented if we start to dramatically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere globally. As for the climatic sceptics amongst scientists, who still call into question the scientific facts about rapid climate change and its anthropogenic character; there are still some, but they are very few. They are usually either quite extrovert people, whose scientific researches haven't previously attracted great attention and now all, of sudden, they have a chance to become prominent. Or, they are scientists sponsored by oil, coal and gas companies, who support arguments that climate change doesn't exist, or that it has no anthropogenic character and that people cannot affect climate. Here, the point is that the cancellation of grants for companies engaged in the extraction and sale of fossil fuels (oilmen etc.) is already being discussed at international level. Given a broad international consensus on a decrease in emissions of greenhouse gases, such companies will suffer most and will lose much more money.

- In your opinion, why cannot scientists come to a general consensus on the question of climate change? After all, it is a matter of rejecting double standards, uncertain conclusions, certain games and, surely, in the face of catastrophe, mankind should unite. Have scientists really not yet thought of a method which would offer an accurate and unequivocal explanation to all about what is happening?

- The intergovernmental group of experts on climate change, uniting over a thousand of the best scientists-climatologists worldwide, does offer quite unequivocal conclusions about climate change and anthropogenic impact. The negotiations between countries on climate change in the United Nations are based exactly on those conclusions. It is very unpleasant to accept, but the time for hypotheses has come to an end, the time has come for scientific fact. Otherwise, the 192 countries that have ratified the Convention of the United Nations on Climate Change, wouldn't sit at the negotiating table discussing how to cope with climatic chaos. Today very serious things are being discussed at the negotiations in the United Nations, in which I have participated as an official observer since 1995. For example, the establishment of assistance funds, which already amount to tens of billions of dollars and, by 2020, should reach the fantastic sum of 100 billion. It is difficult to imagine that so much money would be allocated without confidence that the problem is really very serious and that people can affect climate change. So, regrettably, the terrible truth about climate change is not a fairy tale, but a scientific fact from which there is no escape.

The introduction of purer standards is part of European efforts to improve the ecological situation. It would be desirable for Russia, Azerbaijan and other countries of the commonwealth to go the way of improving the ecological situation and make these efforts a priority of state policy. A clean environment is not a luxury accessible only to the West and the rich in general. There is quite an economic dimension - the healthier the environment you have, the less you spend on eliminating pollution, the less people will be ill, that is to say, the capacity for work will increase and the country will provide more services and production, so it becomes richer. The cleaner your nature is, the more tourists you will attract. There are still a host of other aspects indicating that ecological well-being is economic well-being. While we do not understand this, we will remain poor. Therefore, new and purer standards need to be introduced everywhere, the economy can only gain in the future.

As for automobile fuel, the future is not for traditional fuel of this or that Euro standard, but for biofuel. Further, the technology of electric vehicles is developing positively, they are already being made and anyone can get them. Being objective, our countries certainly lag behind in these aspects. But Europe and the West in general will pass from gasoline to biofuel and will also develop electric vehicles. The fact is that 40 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions, which is a huge figure, come from burning fuel for transport. Here lies the greatest potential to reduce emissions. For some time, until Europe transfers completely to pure transport, citizens from CIS countries will still be allowed abroad in ordinary cars. But as soon as Europe moves to pure transport, we will simply not be allowed there in dirty transport. We react to new trends too sluggishly, even to those which are obviously in our favour. We must change this and be open to changes which will anyway take place sooner or later, because the earlier we adapt, the better we will live.

- What do you think of the doomsday concept for 2012? In your view, what can mankind expect if the thawing of glaciers, the desalting of the Gulf Stream and changes in air mass proceed? After all, scientists explain the anomalies of the current summer by these closely interrelated factors.

- My attitude towards 2012 is the same as to any other year. I hope nothing especially terrible occurs in that year. The thawing of glaciers, which is already taking place, the halting of the Gulf Stream and other catastrophic consequences of climate change can lead to catastrophe for mankind. Nature will endure it all, but mankind may not, therefore we have to take seriously the necessity to struggle against climate change and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases on a global scale. Measures to adapt to the climatic changes predicted also play an important role. While developing a policy, all states should proceed from the threat from the catastrophic consequences of climate change and to take every possible measure to adapt.

There is an alternative - to do nothing and hope that it will all go away. But only people who don't understand the scale of the threat can argue this way. Take the government of the Maldive Islands, which could disappear under water completely; it does not challenge climate change and its anthropogenic nature. The CIS would do well to learn from this small, but very reasonable country because, if we do not do anything, the Maldives will be one of the first to disappear, but then our turn will come. And it may occur, not after one thousand years, but within the 21st century.