CLIMATE AS WEAPON

This year the summer was very hot, especially in Europe, killing 1,435 people only in France, and was accompanied by large-scale fires in Siberia, Alaska, jungles of the Amazon, as well as a critical drop in the level of several rivers (e.g. the Lena River), and the atypical Dorian Hurricane, which surprisingly "hovered" over a single location causing serious damage to the Bahamas, as well as intense melting of glaciers at the poles. In Baku, high air temperatures remained in June, while July was remembered by strong non-stop winds, which was too much even for Baku, the city of winds. All the events make us ponder on climate problems.

Over the past two decades, climate change has been one of the most relevant topics at all major international summits, including the UN General Assembly, expert meetings and conferences. At the same time, it continues to be the secondary and neutral topic, which can always be replaced by sharp political and economic discussions, if one wishes to avoid acute climatic problems. In fact, absolutely everyone, regardless of religious and political views, treats climate changes with understanding and respect. In the same manner, nobody does anything significant to solve existing environmental problems... Although it is possible that, given the large-scale changes that cover an increasing percentage of the world's population, the environment will soon be the main headliner and the main concern of scientists, world leaders and economists. Conversely, if something greatly excites people, it can be used for certain political and commercial purposes. Especially in our era of fake news.

One of the main loopholes that make environmental issues a convenient tool to reach one's ambitions that are loosely related to environment per se is that scientists find it difficult to answer the most important question: how much human factor is climate? Is it possible that the ongoing changes, such as droughts, hurricanes and unbearable heat, are completely natural and cyclical? While experts are at a loss (or the audience is intentionally made to think this way), the loophole for manipulating public opinion remains free.

Lightning or illegal logging of forests?

For example, it is still unclear what caused huge fires in the Russian taiga. That is why the most wide-spread version of events in social networks is an assumption that the fire was caused to hide large-scale deforestation. According to an opinion poll by the Levada Centre, 51% of respondents believe in the above version, while 44% mention negligence of the authorities, poor work of forest services and lack of equipment as the main causes of fire. In other words, an image of the burning taiga forests is used as a convenient tool to accuse the authorities, “which do nothing to extinguish the fire or stop illegal logging” and “to preserve the national heritage”. At least a number of media and bloggers adhere to this line very clearly, without even trying to give an alternative point of view, which should be alarming. Journalists and the so-called “influencers”, who have never seen a smouldering forest, make statements from their comfortable offices and distribute them to a huge audience. Such “experts” have no idea about the specifics of extinguishing forest fires, especially in such vast areas as the Siberian taiga. They do not write anything about the fact that fires are different, and some of them even have benefits for vegetation and animals, many of which, by the way, can easily escape from the fastest fire. Finally, they almost never talk about those who extinguish these fires — about workers, foresters, firefighters. If the purpose of a publication or a post on social networks is completely different and does not relate to environmental issues but rather is a political leverage, then there is no need to go into the complexities of the craft. In this case, one can simply make a photo edit of a squirrel burning in the taiga fire, post the photo on Instagram with a screaming hashtag and wait until an overdose of angry comments. At the same time, people, trees and animals really suffer from fire, but this is interesting only as a convenient tool for manipulating public opinion.

To eat or not to eat?

In fact, ordinary people are mostly interested in their own health than misconduct of authorities. In this case, we have the staff of medical faculties of Harvard and Oxford, as well as the WHO and UN experts who claim that red meat is harmful. They usually back up their statement with references to various solid researches, which claim that a daily consumption of red meat increases the risk of premature death from certain types of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and so on by 13%. Environmentalists also join the renowned doctors claiming that the global meat industry is responsible for 14-18% of total greenhouse gas emissions 65 billion livestock around the world. They also claim that cattle breeding accounts for 39% of the pollution produced by agriculture. Moreover, if the Earth’s population grows, then the number of livestock will also grow, which in the future will only increase the negative effects. Even worse, forests are cut down or burned for pasture, as, for example, in the Brazilian selva.

Cows really produce greenhouse gases and forests really suffer from illegal logging - these are all facts that one cannot argue with, and they certainly cause concern. But on the other hand we can see a swift replacement of ordinary meat with artificial one and the success with which this process matched the unexpected and discouraging conclusions of scientists about the dangers of beef and mutton. Remarkable, the same scientific community has told us for years that meat plays a key role in good nutrition, especially for pregnant women and children. But considering the annual turnover of the global meat market (€180 billion), there is clearly something to fight for.

Owners of start-ups for growing artificial meat from vegetable proteins, as well as the so-called "test tube meat" from the cells of real meat already get multi-billion investments for example, from Bill Gates and Asian billionaire Li Ka-shing, huge profits and do not intend to stop there. Leading American and European traditional meat producers have also begun to invest heavily in global cultivated meat projects. Impossible Foods founder Pat Brown said people would switch to substitutes by 2035. It is believed that in the future, the main buyers of artificial meat will be vegans and poor people. Everything seems to be beautiful and clear - caring for the environment and the poor. It is just not clear why cattle were made the main culprit for global warming and why few people say how chemical an artificial beefsteak or kebab, generously stuffed with hormones, antibiotics and other enhancers of taste, colour and smell, will become. Or that the poor will have no choice since the meat of an ordinary cow, which drinks clean water and chews weed, will probably cost a lot of money.

Environmental justice

These days even the American politicians have also shown interest in the rights of the poor. During a seven-hour CNN telethon at the beginning of September, 10 Democratic presidential candidates shared their thoughts on environmental issues from the need to return to the Paris Climate Accord to the announcement that harming nature is as sinful and criminal as killing a man. Either way, the debates boiled down to a definition of "environmental justice", which implies that the poorest segments of the population suffer from climate change the most because they are least prepared for this. They find it more difficult or simply nowhere to evacuate, they do not have insurance for destroyed housing, and finally, the authorities in poor countries cannot help them in the same way as rich countries help their citizens in critical situations.

The statement made by senator and presidential candidate Cory Booker, who promises to “use every political tool to influence world leaders such as the current president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaru, who denies or ignores climate change”, was particularly remarkable. For some reason though the American politician does not confess that it was the industrial countries that exported for decades toxic waste to the countries of Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa, where the world's poorest and most vulnerable population still lives. “Foreign aid should depend on the environmental policy pursued by its recipients, and environmental factors should be central to any trade transaction,” Senator Booker believes, although these issues are unlikely to be decisive for business in the current political and economic order in the world. But they can be decisive for big politics. For example, if a state is considered unable to provide protection or ensure evacuation for its citizens in case of natural disasters, the international community (or a certain state authorised or not authorised by the international community) can take control over such a state to later send rescuers, troops and investments to that state 'in need'.

By the day, the latter is a very significant point. The US has already expressed concern about the "geopolitical consequences of the Hurricane Dorian", which mean that China is going to invest billions of dollars in the destroyed infrastructure of the Bahamas. Finally, when the world recognises the irreversibility of environmental catastrophe, one of the relevant issues may well become a need to take control over the most significant environmental resources of the planet. For example, according to a German fire specialist, professor Johann G. Goldammer: “With its 1.3 billion hectares of forest, Russia has enormous potential for climate regulation, if used correctly. If not, Russia will turn into a huge CO2 bomb, especially given the thawing of permafrost.” No comment.

Ecological Greta

Last year we learned about the 15-year-old Swedish citizen Greta Thunberg, who instead of school, suddenly decided to protest outside the parliament building with posters calling for urgent actions to combat climate change. This ordinary schoolgirl, suffering from several mental disorders, instantly became a world celebrity who attends the UN General Assembly, the Davos Forum, European parliaments, is nominated for the Nobel Prize, is selected the Person of the Year, has millions of followers on social networks, meets with world leaders and the Pope. She refused to take an airplane preferring a yacht instead to attend the UN climate action summit in New York; she is applauded while standing. Despite admiration and sometimes confusion as to what has caused such an incredible success, it is clear that environmental issues are becoming a convenient reason for attracting attention or achieving certain goals. By the way, there are suspicions that the success of Greta was mainly due to a well-built campaign of her parents and a PR specialist Ingmar Rentzhog. Whatever it was, the hype around Greta is infinitely far from a real solution to climate problems, which are very disgustful indeed. Consequences of environmental disasters can become so ferocious that they don't deserve an eye-candy post on social networks. Would you like watching on TV behind breakfast someone in India dying of thirst or bending somewhere in Africa from a disease after swimming in a river contaminated with chemicals? By the way, a number of scientists believe that the mental disorders of the young Swedish protester are also rooted in poor ecology. To experience negative impacts of climate changes, it is not necessary to live in a poor African village. This version is not so popular. Unfortunately, it seems that Greta is used only as a tool to achieve certain goals, not as an individual with her own problems and ruined life.