In Latvia, too, it is fashionable to use modern and politically correct words that often sound like they lack any clearly visible deeper meaning in the speaker's mouth. They must be used because it is required. Therefore, it is all the more important to talk to people who understand words and terms practically, so that when conversing, there is no doubt about what we are talking about. On 2 July, we spoke with Ivars Šmits* about sustainability. Today, the conversation is with a professional for whom the Green Deal is a daily job.
In Latvian, we translate the European Green Deal as 'Eiropas zaļais kurss' (European Green Course). Elsewhere in Europe, when communicating in English, the local translation of each EU member state comes to mind less often. Our neighbours, the Estonians, use the term 'green agreement'. Why, in your opinion, are there such differences?
I haven't thought much about this; the differences in translation don't cause me any problems. If the word 'deal' were translated as 'darījums' (transaction), it would indeed sound different. I view the process as a direction (a course) in which to move to reach the goals set and established: climate neutrality and the preservation of biodiversity. When I think and talk about these issues, I quite like the Latvian version. I haven't delved into the question of why someone concluded that the translation should be exactly this, but the way I personally feel the content of this process—the set of planned policies and draft regulations—is consistent with the word 'kurss' (we are heading towards specific goals).
The Green Deal is not just an idea or a direction, but large volumes of documents, even massive piles of them. Can these plans be defined more briefly, specifically, and clearly?
Given the number of sectors that are and will be involved in this process—namely, the public sector, the private sector, and every individual separately—I suspect there is no way to describe it all better and more concisely. For example, the 'Fit for 55' graphic best characterises the Green Deal for me. In fact, it will be the life of every person and all of us that will change.
Every sector and line of business is important for achieving the goals of the Green Deal. I think the volume of information and documents is exactly as it should be. We must understand that for a sufficiently long time, we as humanity (the collective of people) have ignored the scientists' calls to act. There are even claims that we have the last chance to board the last carriage of the departing train through the final door so as not to face wild changes in the functioning of our planet. If we had started acting sooner, we would certainly not have to face these piles of documents. Timely action would have prevented a situation where a sharp, even radical, transformation is expected in virtually all areas of life. Delaying action is one of the reasons why the regulatory framework is so broad and complex right now.
Looking at it from the other side, it is important to understand what exactly I or we should do, and what our actions are in implementing the Green Deal. It is by no means necessary for everyone to understand the direction of every action 'down to the bone' or in every detail. For example, working in production, in a carbon-intensive industry, it is essential for me to understand what the Green Deal means for our company. It is not just daily work at the company, but also participation in various public activities and platforms to cover and explain the relevant issues. It is important to understand this so that at some point there is no desire to just throw in the towel and do nothing because 'it is complicated and expensive'. If we want our children and grandchildren not to have to flee from floods or excessive heat, or for us not to have to encounter millions of people forced to leave their homes in other parts of the world, we must act and think!
Is it clear to you what the Green Deal is and what exactly you should (or should not) be doing?
Speaking of the company, we have clear goals and a very detailed action plan. I will emphasise that the internal goals to be reached in the company are quite precisely measurable. The most important issue to solve is the reduction of CO2 emissions, because in the production process, about 2/3 of emissions occur not in connection with the fuel used, but with the specific production process—CO2 emissions are generated when limestone is calcined. Solutions for cement producers will not come easily, but they will be (are)! Regarding the remaining 1/3, we have done the maximum possible (reaching 90% this year, and planning to reach 98% in replacing fossil fuels with alternatives next year and the year after).
The alternative is SRF (Solid Recovered Fuel)—household and industrial waste that, once processed, has turned into fuel. Unfortunately, we currently import the majority of SRF because waste sorting is still poorly developed in Latvia, and consequently, there are problems with fuel production.
The day before our conversation (2 December), I discussed with a representative of the Riga City Council how we could produce as much fuel as possible from waste in Latvia. The problem is ensuring quality criteria, even though the volume of waste generated is large. We also use shredded car tyres and tyre fluff as fuel, and we are researching the possibilities of using sewage sludge, which is still an untouched field in Latvia. In this regard, we have done everything possible that today's technology allows. I will add that the combustion of the aforementioned fuel takes place at a very high temperature (1500-2000 °C), and the remaining ash goes back into production.
Regarding the largest share of emissions, we are in a situation where we need to work on innovative technologies, namely, CO2 capture, storage, and further utilisation. At the Latvian company and at the SCHWENK Group level, we are working on the best implementation.
Currently, there is a feeling that, in relation to the Green Deal, the public sector is not keeping up with everything happening in the private sector. For example, the current regulatory framework dictates that CO2 storage in Latvia's geological structures is completely prohibited. The worst part is that such a prohibition is planned to be incorporated into the new Climate Law (at least that is the plan for now). The prohibition is being taken over from the current 'Law on Pollution'. Together with like-minded people who are interested in developing technologies that fully comply with the goals of the Green Deal, we are working to convince representatives of the responsible sector (the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development and the Ministry of Economics) that changes in the regulation are necessary. Latvia has a full chain of stakeholders—emitters, testers and implementers of new technologies, including potential producers of new, more environmentally friendly fuels, as well as the users of these fuels.
As I mentioned, the company has a concrete plan, but at the moment there is no legal framework in which to operate. The situation is strange—we have done enough in the company to practically reach climate neutrality in production, but there are legal obstacles to implementing it at full capacity.
We have joined the EU-co-funded international project GENESIS. We are testing CO2 capture and purification equipment at the Brocēni cement plant. As you can understand, we are doing a lot to implement plans at the company, but we lack support from the public sector. Working in industry associations, we talk and feel that many of us want to act in our industries or business sectors, and... often you hit a wall—where support is needed for introducing sustainable practices, there is a lack of listening ears and understanding.
There is still a distinct fragmentation of duties in Latvia. Each ministry has its own small field, like a piece of a mosaic, but there is no overarching management. Companies know what needs to be done, we think about it, we act at various levels, and we conceptually understand it.
People say: 'Brussels and its actions or decisions are not as frightening as Riga.' I hear something similar from you
We are concerned about whether Latvia's public sector representatives have devoted all their energy to coordinated focus on implementing the Green Deal. There are areas and industries where changes will have to be introduced. The European Commission, of course, has developed a series of various policy documents, but that is not all; the legislative procedure has not yet finished. The direction is clear; we can expect nuances.
In my opinion, a very critical eye of an expert is needed to understand whether a 'shampoo for all hair types' will be suitable for absolutely every situation in life in all EU member states. Every situation in a specific industry must be assessed, where, for example, conditions in Greece or Spain differ from conditions in Sweden or Latvia. Here, it would be important for member states to clarify their position, express it, and defend it at the EU level in order to make the necessary changes to the rules. As I emphasised before, there is currently no certainty that Latvia is doing everything possible. It is not clear whether all processes have been triggered to do everything that needs to be done.
For example, right now we see 'different speed' companies. About 20% of companies are still operating in the shadow economy, where people do not pay taxes. What kind of Green Deal and sustainability are we talking about in that case? There are companies that are leading the way—they are the pioneers of sustainability. The same is observed in the public sector: there are institutions that work in a modern and contemporary way, and there are areas where...
The Green Deal in Latvia is currently at the stage where one points to another: 'That is not our responsibility, that is something for you to do.' There is a lack of clarity and leadership. The National Energy and Climate Council, led by the Prime Minister, has recently resumed its activities and become active. Time will tell how effective that will be. In relation to the Green Deal, I would like very clear coordination so that information is channelled and reaches everyone involved: who has to do what, how and by how much emissions are to be reduced, which projects it is possible to apply for, etc.
In the cement production industry, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is very important. We welcomed this initiative because one must not forget in Green Deal processes: the European Union must still maintain its competitiveness while encouraging the rest of the world to change and also significantly reduce emissions elsewhere. It is clear that Europe, with its 10% of global emissions, is unlikely to fix the world alone, but the incentive must be there: everyone who wants to export their carbon-intensive goods to the EU will be forced to pay for their emissions, which will motivate a shift to climate-friendlier technologies, thus getting closer to the overarching goal—the achievement of climate neutrality. Where is the 'but'? The Ministry of Finance is preparing Latvia's position on this issue; we have already expressed our view twice. What does the Ministry of Finance say? 'Latvia is very cautious because goods from third countries will become much more expensive.' Such a stance creates the impression that Ministry of Finance employees have not understood that such a mechanism is being created within the framework of the Green Deal, rather than being a supporter of cheap, polluting goods. It looks sad.
The need you mentioned to look at each EU member state individually is very important. The public sector often expresses an opinion that does not fit the geography, where, apparently, they think conditions in Portugal and Malta are definitely the same as in Denmark and Finland. For example, various coefficients or situations are incorrectly applied to Latvia. What to do if we have nothing to send or no desire to send anyone to the EC to defend Latvia's interests? It needs to be done, but it is not happening!
Regarding defending Latvia's position, it is important to have an understanding of the big, achievable goal, so that defending Latvia's position (which is certainly necessary) does not turn into defending inaction. That would be important! If the data somewhere is not correct or precise, we must do everything to ensure that, accordingly obtained and submitted, the correct data ends up in the right place.
In this regard, I will add that data, of course, is a big problem in Latvia, not just when talking about emissions. A very serious problem in Latvia, and just as serious an untapped opportunity, is the lack of data exchange, alignment, and use. These processes are practically not happening.
An elementary example—our company works in cement, concrete, and mineral materials production. Building materials production is an industry where there is a huge share of the shadow economy, which we have talked about a lot publicly. The Association of Building Materials Producers, of which we are active members, has just released a study on the shadow economy in building materials production. The company's individual efforts are linked to a desire to speak out loudly and change the situation with the shadow economy in mineral materials processing as well, where many processes take place completely in the 'black' zone (not even 'grey')—there are no permits, they dig, transport, sell, do not pay taxes, and even dump construction waste in the pit they dug. There is a part of processes that happens in the 'grey' zone. Of course, you are not the first person I am telling this to; it has been discussed with the State Revenue Service (VID) and the State Environmental Service (VVD). What do they answer us? VID explains that VVD does not provide the necessary data. Here is a simple example of how, as a result, the state suffers serious losses! It is money lost to the state and all of us.
The story is sadly classic. When talking about data, there is another trend that the forest industry regularly encounters and which for some reason gains support in part of society: 'Let's take the data that we 'like better'. 'If scientifically more accurate data is unpleasant to us, we will not use it. We will invent reasons for such behaviour.' Returning to construction waste: Latvian forests and waste. The Green Deal is a high shelf to reach for, but the volume of various types of construction waste, tyres, and black bags in forests has a tendency to increase. High shelves to look at, and a series of unresolved elementary things.
Waste in forests is a problem without a single, clear, isolated solution. There will be no answer for tomorrow or even the day after. This is long-term work with people of all ages, educating them about the situation, explaining what it means. If at least some people look into the problem situation, thoughts arise, and a change in habits can occur. Since both of us are from Jelgava, you probably remember the situation in the late 80s, early 90s at city bus stops—a demolished bus stop where clothes and broken bottles were lying around. Of course, here and there we will still encounter similar sights, but in the fundamentals, society has developed; most people have 'emerged' from the Soviet understanding. Demolishing or breaking things is no longer an everyday part of society. Long-term education is important. For example, I look at information from time to time on what to throw in which bin, whether I am doing it correctly. If we look just nearby in Sweden, waste sorting there is a part of everyday culture and life, but that is a serious, decades-long, long-term issue. Also, in my opinion, there is a lack of control and a real awareness that there will be a penalty for an infringement. People still feel free to do bad things. If there is a feeling that I can take old tyres and a broken fridge to the forest, leave them there, and nothing will happen to me, the feeling 'It's okay!' will remain. I think it is important here to strengthen the capacity of both the police and the VVD. The deposit system for bottles could also contribute its share to improving the situation.
Have you thought about what the changes we call the Green Deal will require from every resident of Latvia? Do you think it is time to talk about all this?
I agree, we need to talk, and very active state involvement is needed. One of the components of the Green Deal is the idea: 'the implementation of it (the Green Deal) must not leave any person behind.' The Green Deal is not a deal for the wealthy or the middle class so that inequality is implemented or strengthened on a large scale with its help. Latvia is in the leading ranks in terms of inequality for various reasons in various issues. It is important that all activities proceed in such a way that inequality does not increase, but the opposite happens.
As for how much it will cost everyone, I don't think it is in my competence to judge, and I don't know if anyone can say right now. It is important that the European Union funding available to us is used as efficiently as possible, rather than spent just for the sake of spending. Will that happen with us? We can each make our contribution and keep a vigilant eye, but... We must remember that it is not only the Green Deal that will cost something, but we are still paying for what we have not done until now and for the consequences of inaction—heat, drought, storms, pollution, etc. In the short term, the Green Deal may perhaps cost a lot, but what is the alternative? Historically, more than once we have experienced a time when something seemed impossible, but in the end, it has happened.
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/ilgtspejiga-saimniekosana-dabiski-dzivot-un-stradat-intervija-ar-ivaru-smitu-spekozola-kustibas-dibinataju
Photograph by Pjērs Pellegrini used