Weaving environmental issues into a conversation, consistently using the word "sustainability", and mentioning the European "Green Deal" in passing is a peculiar absurdity of many recent discussions, as it quickly becomes clear that the interlocutor knows how correct and appropriate it is to use these words or phrases, yet, when asked to explain more specifically, begins to get tangled up in phrases and would rather change the subject of the conversation. That is why it is all the more important to talk to experts and professionals who face the heap of problems moving towards the Latvian national economy every day and see clearly, and know, what is real and what – "correct", what is green and what just looks like it on a poster, or sounds hollow on the radio. Do many people in Latvia have an inkling of what exactly – in every home, family, business, clan, collective (etc.) – the loud ideas from Europe will give us? What will we have to, or be forced to, give up, what will we want and be able to afford?

Speaking of the current Green Deal and the processes associated with it, you yourself have quite often emphasised the need to calculate and to cooperate. For example, for four ministries to cooperate: Finance, Economy, Environmental Protection and Regional Development, and Agriculture. People have been talking about the need for inter-ministerial cooperation for a long time, so it seems it is still not happening at the necessary level. Why?

I would not want to strictly claim that the ministries, much like four feudal states, rarely talk or only do so through ambassadors. Let us start with the question: who leads a ministry. Yes, the urge is to answer: the minister! No, the work of a ministry is led by the state secretary! Documents and solutions for specific situations or issues are developed by ministry staff. The question of cooperation is not about kingdoms or the opposition of two different political forces, but about human relationships and spheres of responsibility. I want to emphasise that putting together the many and varied aspects, nuances and details of the Green Deal requires very serious work. It is not simple and will not be accomplished by a ministry intern: it is work for top-level specialists in every ministry, whose shortage (and a substantial and long-standing shortage at that) is felt in every ministry. It must be added that the high-calibre specialists currently working in the ministries are very busy resolving issues in their specific spheres of responsibility, so these people often have neither the time physically or practically, nor any other opportunity to work with their colleagues from other ministries—specialists of the same high calibre. What I have said can be considered both an explanation and an excuse, but... it is easy to say or imagine that there should be one ministry instead of four—that, in all likelihood, would solve nothing.

Returning to the choices that will have to be addressed in the Green Deal process: to give up (something) or to afford (something)—this will be a decision not just for the state, but also for the private sector.

It is a mistake to think that the Green Deal is something new. It is not! The strategies, mindset, and processes included in the Green Deal started a long time ago; for example, the story of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is several decades old. Biodiversity protection measures, such as Natura 2000 sites, are also quite “old”. The Green Deal, of course, includes a number of new things.

The big picture, which is quite broad and complex, is seen by few people, and the aforementioned fact gets in the way: everyone has their own sphere of responsibility and their own interests. For example, the public and private sectors. Many have expectations and hopes that “the situation will affect me less”, “it will cost me less” or “I will be compensated for it”, or “others will compensate my losses because, I think, that is their duty”, etc. I think it is a familiar situation.

Former high-ranking representatives of state environmental institutions allow themselves to say that “just because you have a forest, you have a duty to give it up for the benefit of nature and society”, how do you even dare to talk about compensation”... Namely, the yearnings of former state officials are clearly visible: “if you own property, you have a duty to give up a lot of things”.

The opposite situation is seen in the private sector, where a representative thinks— “if you require me to work with more modern equipment, please compensate me or buy it in my place”. Such mutual expectations or wishes are naive, unproductive, and will never come true. Instead of hope, it is necessary to act together and effectively for the benefit of the Latvian national economy.

The answer to the question about cooperation: it is necessary within the public sector, between the public and private sectors, and within the private sector itself. For example, it is not possible to stop or significantly reduce the export of pulpwood at the state level, but processing opportunities must be created right here on the spot, and the private sector needs to think about that.

The Green Deal is aimed at reducing consumption. This is planned to be done through every resident’s “wallet”—it will be more expensive, they will consume less. Has it been estimated how much everything will cost?

In official documents, one can find the so-called investment or calculation part, which concludes that the implementation of the Green Deal in Europe will cost 1 trillion euros. Moreover, one can read a “soothing” breakdown: 1/2 of the money will come from the EU budget, 1/4 from national government budgets, and 1/4 from private investments. Firstly, the estimate of 1 trillion euros is wrong, because for Europe, that is a small sum. Secondly, it has been calculated what and how much needs to be purchased, but it has not been calculated by how much and how income will decrease, for example, if a certain type of business is completely phased out. There is no such calculation! Here one must start to be careful. By playing with the situation, for example, one can rejoice that the EU compensated ship owners for the cutting up of fishing vessels or factory owners for the closure of sugar refineries. At the same time, those employed in fishing, agriculture, and industry lost their jobs, and they were compensated for nothing.

Another example: the fundamental tenet of the Green Deal is that we, Westerners, spend and consume too much. We must consume less! We should not eat so much meat, we should not drive cars powered by fossil fuels, we should not do a whole series of other things that are harmful to the climate, environment, and nature. How to achieve that? How to get a driver out of a 15-year-old diesel car? How is a family to swap a pork roast for salad? Through high costs...

To these ends, one day a litre of fuel will cost 5 euros... How so? (An example regarding smoking: in the 90s cigarettes cost pennies, now the price of a pack is several euros, even though the cigarette manufacturing process has not become more expensive in that time.) What will happen at such a moment?... But just like with Covid vaccines, society is by no means in agreement on climate issues either. If governments do not count on the potential consequences, a striking example is France and the yellow vests. This movement was “created” by a very good initiative (from an environmental perspective)—to reduce private car diesel consumption, excise duty on fuel was increased. What happened in France, how did people perceive it? There was great dissatisfaction, which manifested in the yellow vest activities.

One must reckon with something similar in the future; people will not simply accept changes because, well, they are considered correct and reasonable. There will be a fight for jobs and for the usual levels of consumption. To give this up voluntarily, one educated generation will not be enough, which is why they will try to solve the situation like this: with the money at citizens’ disposal, one will be able to buy much, much less.

How correctly would it be to explain that? Because quite a few people perceive the word “green” with enthusiasm, without thinking about the practical side.

I am certainly not the best connoisseur of societal behaviour models. Since the pandemic and the vaccine era, my optimism about specialists in this field has also decreased significantly. For example, academic specialists speak quite ineptly about these issues, which has led to a very serious disappointment. I do not know the correct explanation, but it will certainly have to be done, it will have to be explained!

Is your critical assessment and disappointment regarding the inability to describe the situation briefly and clearly?

Both about that (the explaining), and the approach, and the attitude. What do we see? Those making decisions and solving the situation have a limited level of patience and empathy, which might be understandable if we recall how we act when our children are naughty for a long time. At such a moment, the schoolmaster principle starts to work: “You will do as I say!” What next? In Southern countries, people take to the streets in such a case; in Latvia, the “stupidity” of a law is compensated for by non-compliance with it. I predict that we will see such situations in the future as well, because the modelling of societal reactions or actions before very important decisions happens very rarely or not at all. Instead, the trial and error method is at work. It will cost dearly, and that worries me the most. We do not realise the consequences of what is happening.

What might they be? When we sit in a modest, nicely furnished poorhouse and proudly pound our fists on the table: “We already knew it would be like this! We told you so!” ... That will be three seconds of satisfaction and will not save us from this poorhouse. What do I mean by that? The Green Deal combines two ideologies: those people and that society, which is very wealthy, can afford technologies that are much, much kinder to nature and the environment, and they will be able to resolve the situation and adapt or live with it. For example, in Norway, they are already changing diesel cars for electric cars. Latvia is not Norway. Before a city dweller moves to the countryside, they must realise that they will have to give up many comfort-creating elements, or else—they must be wealthy enough to still be able to afford them. Providing a city-like level of comfort in a rural homestead is undoubtedly more expensive!

Latvia’s economic situation, compared to other European countries, shows: “We will have to give up!” So—are we ready for that and what will we give up?

The second part of the Green Deal ideology is similar to the children’s game: “Freeze!” Namely—stay in the position you are in; whoever cannot do that, loses the game. Unfortunately, in the “game” of the Green Deal, we are in a disadvantageous position. For example, in the taxonomy, when talking about forests, it is indicated that one will not be able to build new forest roads or install new drainage systems. What is the situation in Latvia in this regard? Because of the 50 Soviet years, we have fallen far behind other forest countries in terms of forest infrastructure. That is a fact! If you tell a forest owner in Finland: “You will no longer build roads in the forest”, I think the answer will be—“I do not need any more anyway!” A lot has been built in Finland! There is a lack of roads in Latvian forest management; we cannot answer like the Finns.

This is just one small example; a similar situation exists in many sectors: we are being (will be) told to “freeze” at the level we are currently at. But... we cannot say: “We have enough!” By freezing, we will be the losers. How will that manifest? From the European Union’s point of view (if one perceives the EU as a whole), it is probably correct in remote border areas (for example, in Latvia), where, compared to the tulip fields of the Netherlands and the wind farms of Denmark, there are much more significant environmental and biodiversity values, to say: “Let us create one large EU-level Slītere Reserve.” That is logical from the perspective of Brussels or EU offices. Only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How will we in Latvia feel if we are told: “You cannot earn and work, we have other goals.” I, as a nationally-minded Latvian citizen, will resist that—I want to see prosperity in Latvia, we need it so that we can be proud of our country, so that we can fight for it, so that we can pass it on to our children. That is important to me!