An interview with Ojārs Spārītis, President of the Latvian Academy of Sciences

From time to time, buzzwords emerge in society, the use of which seems mandatory if one is to be considered clever and modern. At present, such a word is “sustainability”. How should one act so that sustainability – with an eye on the future and consideration for coming generations – has a lasting and understandable meaning?

The question both contains an answer and fails to provide one. That is good! A question to which the answer can be predicted in advance is a bad one!

The issue of sustainability is philosophical, but it has been made philosophical by the modern social and political intellectual environment, where sustainability is discussed in all sectors. A small country with a small economy feels the lack of sustainability most acutely when there is a lack of funding to ensure the sustainability of one or more sectors. The simplest answer – what to call sustainability – would be: the skill to manage in such a way that your (the state's, a company's, or any individual's) income can secure sustainable operation in any sector – education, industry, medicine, forestry, defence, etc.

In the world, since the emergence and development of intensive imperialist capitalism, material assets have been stratified and have ended up in the hands of increasingly narrow groups of the population. The rest, who do not own or have sufficient access to financial resources, are forced to earn them in various ways, which is why the word “project” has been “invented”. Implementing projects for the redistribution of funds is the first admission to society and to ourselves that there is not enough money for everything! Competitions are announced in which perhaps the best project or projects will win and receive funding. The others will be told: you were not competitive! The issue of sustainability for any nation and land is a yardstick of its health and longevity. If one does not think in terms of sustainability, if people are forced to think and calculate from one drastic legislative change to the next and anxiously wait for what the new laws will bring; if life is planned from one Saeima election to the next, but we cannot be certain what will happen in the coming four years once a new Saeima is “acquired”… The mentioned examples prove the fragile nature of sustainability.

In science, promises of sustainability “glow, shimmer, and shine” in various documents composed and prepared in state institutions, starting with the National Development Plan, smart specialisation plans and projects, and ending with any planning documents with which institutions “shower” scientists in Latvia. Why? To send them to Brussels and gain the favour of officials there, which would over time materialise financially in the form of structural funds or other internationally funded sources! Such redistribution and management of funds do not testify to sustainable thinking or planning! Continuity has been forgotten – namely, the transferability of principles introduced by one government to the next as a mandatory task, provided that the revealed or implemented principles or mechanisms have proven useful. In science, we are experiencing a situation where, during each Saeima term, the rules change, and the availability of funds changes. Funds are “tossed” from one sector to another, from one objective to another, according to the whims of the minister or ministry officials! In this way, the scientific community is condemned to ambiguity and insecurity, forcing scientists even to emigrate, providing them with minimal remuneration – at the level of half-time or quarter-time positions. For example, representatives of the humanities and social sciences are forced to take long leave during the summer months or settle for a pittance after a state programme ends. How does the state, or does it, see itself in this situation as a mechanism capable of reproducing education, science, or economic stimulation? Do we need science that would be able to accumulate and multiply the funds invested in the national economy? Or are we to remain a land that extensively exploits its resources and trades only in litres of milk, gravel, clay, peat, and timber, until they run out, because we have too little oil and gold, or none at all. Those are questions for politicians, the government, and the executive branch.

What could scientists do to make the “fashion” of sustainability tangible? Scientists are the active minds of the nation who have been and are constantly being utilised! The desire of the scientific sector to assert itself and resist poorly developed plans and development models is well known, but it does not always reach listening ears. Why? Power, the “Excel spreadsheet”, budget redistribution, cuts, and the “favour scissors” of allocation or non-allocation are not in the hands of scientists! Scientists, unfortunately, are the segment that is dependent on politics. I believe that in every sector, the thoughts of scientists are directed towards development and process. The path of science and the scientist in every sector is not to “toss about” from one extreme to the other, but is situated on set methodological tracks… Long-term thinking is a characteristic feature of an intellectual society, and the scientific community could and would be able to provide the national economy and also politics with the much-needed sustainability. But!!!! …the voices of scientists are listened to far too little! Unfortunately, whether scientists' recommendations make it into political documents is decided by a thumbs-up or thumbs-down during a Saeima vote, but – this thumb has nothing to do with sustainability!

Climate change or variability. Fashion, a business plan, reality… What is being talked about?

Talk about climate issues is certainly very old! When I was at school, my geography teacher used to say: “Children! Write down the temperature and precipitation! Note in your notebooks what is happening in nature: what is blooming, when it is blooming, when the sun is shining, when it is raining, and when the snow is falling!” My parents, unbidden and unprompted, for decades noted such occurrences even several times a day in a calendar. Of course, we had “amateur” thermometers at home, not ones meant for science. Several years ago, I gave the calendars with notes on temperature and other climate change observations to the Museum of Natural History so they could be used if necessary. In my childhood town of Priekule, there was no state weather station at the time. Back then, observations of nature's events were not associated with climate anomalies! The “anomalies” of my childhood were the powerful storms of 1967 and 1969. I saw the aftermath of the damage, and it horrified me at the time! But – it was explained to me that storms, tsunamis, and volcanoes, whether one likes it or not, have a place and a purpose on Earth! After the storms, brigades of Ukrainian forest workers would come, clear the forest, saw the logs, and the forest would grow again in those places.

Recently, as the head of the Academy of Sciences, I have more opportunity to participate in world-class science forums with top-tier scientists participating. World-class scientists, including Nobel laureates, publish their research, announce it, warn, inform, and stir world public opinion. But I myself have remained somewhat at the level of a “doubting Thomas”, because, as an echo to my own realisations, there was Juris Paiders' article in “NRA”, which reviewed Professor Oļģerts Āboltiņš's book “From the Ice Age to Global Warming”. This is not a work written today; it is about 10 years old! The creation of the book was a long process, summarising several years of observations and research, as well as global experience. We cannot claim that Professor Āboltiņš gained any material benefit from his work, or was interested in a tendentious steering of public consciousness! The conclusion, which a minority of the world's population is ready to agree with: the warming and cooling of the globe is a finite wave-like – periodic (cyclical) – phenomenon. As the globe warms or cools, phenomena occur that people are horrified by today! Tornadoes, heat and drought, changes in flora, the duration of the seasons… All of this affects human health, capacity for work, sleep, and also productivity and the animal kingdom… We can assume that in all spheres where man explores earth's resources with the power of his intellect, more ingenuity, imagination, and resourcefulness are needed to deal with climate changes influenced by human activity.

My conclusion, perhaps, is politically incorrect, and it is not customary to speak about it loudly at this moment. I truly admire “NRA” editor Anita Daukšte, who dared to publish J. Paiders' article contrary to the opinion dominant in society. The warming and cooling of the globe happens by itself without human action; these factors that influence the periodic warming and cooling of the globe make up about 93-95% of the total volume of climate-influencing factors. The anthropogenic factor, about which people worry the most loudly, is 5-7%. From the time when the steam engine was invented, when wood, coal, and gas began to be used for heating and continue to be used, when gasoline and diesel fuel are used in engines, and air travel has developed… if that all together is only 5-7%, one must ask: “What is the reason for the current hysteria, and why is the attention paid to it so massive?”

One must think in economic categories! In economic games, there are known and new players, such as Donald Trump, who does not take into account either warning signals or loud voices but is trying to “restart” the US economy with extensive production, without worrying that the consequences of industrialisation might affect the globe. The president, of course, is harshly criticised. If we look at how other countries and their leaders act… In words, they express adherence to warning signals and compliance with global protocols (the Paris and Copenhagen agreements), declare emission reductions, etc. At the same time, China continues to develop industry, and its “chimneys are smoking”, India is developing its economy; other countries, which are aware of their economic lag behind world leaders, are forced to develop their economic sector extensively. Therein lies the answer: management driven by industry and capital! Both of them “order the policy”!!!! Industry and politics give money to scientists, while scientists develop technological solutions that business turns into money. The cycle is closed! Business circles estimate that the hysteria stirred up in the world will allow for the development of technologies, new ways of obtaining energy, and new engineering solutions. Both production and sales will benefit from this! The intensity of the processes will increase, and for that, we need politicians – as motivators, and scientists – as implementers! How to explain the scientists' massive “agreement” with the hysteria? Quite simply! A scientist is the same kind of hired employee as a street sweeper! If there is no dust or fallen leaves on the streets, the sweeper will have no work! If a scientist is not “placed under the nose a contract” with specific funding: to discover this or that alternative energy source or emission limiter, the scientist will go hungry… Business “feeds” politics and, through politics, business “feeds” science! A vicious circle in which there are few scientists capable of saying what they think and objecting! It is more advantageous to agree.

Two weeks ago in Sweden, I spoke with representatives of the Academy of Engineering Sciences, who remarked: “In Sweden, it is not popular to criticise or object to Greta Thunberg's activities, because they are currently a Swedish brand. The small European country is currently quite visible and heard in the world thanks to these activities!” In my opinion, the Greta card is being played in an inhumane way, forcing a teenage girl to be a mouthpiece for politicians and a world agitator.

A recent topical issue related to science: an opponent tells the author of a professionally and correctly conducted study, without denying its accuracy and the correctness of its methods: “I do not believe it! It is not that you are mistaken, but I do not believe it, because your work does not correspond to my beliefs, criteria, etc.!” What should be done in this case? What should be done?

An interesting moment: synergy! The business order: spread the hysterical message: “Destruction and the end are near! We are falling into an abyss!” in connection with our generation's “happiness or luck” to experience the moment of the globe's existence when the temperature is cyclically rising again. Of course, it is forgotten that hysteria takes over a part of society automatically, like a herd of animals! By comparison – there is a bunch of animals beset by horseflies. The animals start running around; society does the same! It is noticeable that in many places, spring comes at the wrong time, winter – just the same. Skis in the attic are waiting for snow and do not get it; autumn is endlessly long… Of course, this leaves an impression on traditional agricultural crops, and winter crops are retreating, giving way to more heat-demanding crops. Conifers, which like a cooler climate, are also retreating, but broad-leaved trees are appearing in their place. Global warming is currently in that phase where changes are tangible compared to the short period that is a human lifetime. But modern humans, unlike the individuals of the distant past, are able to measure and establish changes. If people in the past reacted to them with the migration of whole nations, modern developed people react with the introduction of new technologies, but peoples living in primitive conditions and poverty – migrate.

Looking at the developments in Latvia, we see and feel that winds and storms visit us more often. These are not only autumn or winter storms that wash amber or algae up from the sea. Now, we can expect winds over 20 m/s at any time of the year, even several times a month. The question of “to believe or not to believe” is transferable and linkable to the visible natural phenomena and their influence and vice versa – namely – the transfer of the feeling created by surprising, frightening, or incomprehensible natural events to the general, loud, emotional opinion. There is a great deal of biological nature in a human, and it sometimes conflicts with the human as a social being!

What would be more correct – to scream hysterically and feel part of a like-minded crowd, or to deny and sneer, or… a middle path, namely, to use the situation?

This year in Tokyo, I participated in one of the world's largest scientific forums, the “Cool Earth Forum”, which was dedicated to reducing CO2 emissions, modelling the negative consequences of warming, etc. In a panel discussion, a number of the world's leading scientists, Nobel laureates, concluded that different spheres and sectors must be aggregated to understand what is happening, and: global industrial development until approximately 2050 under the influence of the anthropogenic factor will produce CO2 emissions and harmfully affect the world more than compensating and neutralising activity will be able to balance! After 2050, a balance is expected. Therefore – one must live and work.