A conversation with Ilze Ozola, Dr. geol., “Centre for Lake and Mire Research”

Before our talk, you mentioned climate “panic”. Looking at the industrious part of Latvian society, including the forestry sector, people have not fallen into a panic! Is “climate panic” worth worrying about?

Sadly, in many places, climate “panic” is gathering pace. There is talk that everyone is to blame for our collective mess, the result of which is the virus (Covid-19). For some reason, it is forgotten or not mentioned that everything happening is a natural process, and that humans are also natural and a part of nature! We must think, read, and educate ourselves – that is the only effective and usable method of action! If we trust only one information source, which might be a person, a web source, a news agency, a media outlet, etc., we must keep in mind that people (employees) are associated with every mentioned source: each with their own convictions or views. And, as often happens, facts or information are selected to suit these specific convictions or views, while everything else is ignored. I would recommend seeking out opponents of a particular viewpoint or stance and reading what they have to say as well; read the arguments and information from both sides. I do this quite often myself in many fields. The principle, for example, that “there was an article in ‘Dienas Bizness’, and that is the only truth” or “there was a publication in ‘Delfi’, and that is how it definitely is,” or “the material in ‘Science Direct’ contains indisputable facts…” has long since ceased to work. One must look at and read as many sources as possible on a given topic! If we want to know rather than panic, and want to understand rather than rely blindly, there is no other way! We must be educated! And that is personal work for everyone.

Climate scientists and relative groupings: there are climate researchers, there are politically correct climate researchers, there are… What is the situation in your opinion?

It is similar to the pharmaceutical industry, where, given the demand for specific medicines, something is synthesised, advertised accordingly, and eventually sold. Moreover, people are usually told that these particular drugs are the best ones that will help them personally or their loved ones. I am convinced that something similar is happening in the field of climate science: something is financially supported, promoted, and stimulated; conversely, that which does not seem correct is not financially bolstered. I see a problem in the fact that research that would allow us to obtain and understand the “other side’s or a different” perspective, results, or data is pushed aside, while the shocking data is shown to the public. Recently, there was a youth protest against climate change, where one of the posters displayed a research fact: every new inhabitant of the planet creates the most emissions. A new person born into the world means an even higher consumption of resources. Therefore, let us not be surprised that these young people will not have children at all. Climate panic can have very devastating consequences.

When worrying about climate issues, strange comparisons are often heard: Europe and South America, the Nordic countries and Bangladesh, or central Africa.

European climate neutrality, at which the USA and China “sneeze”... and rightly so, because who are they manufacturing for? How much of what we use daily is produced in Europe? We “shove” it off to China, import it into Europe, use it up, and sell the waste to Africa and India. We tell the world that by 2050 we will be very, very white and fluffy.

In Africa or Bangladesh (in reality), we look at our own waste and think: “What pigs they are there, and how good it is that we don’t have that!” Oh really! It is enough to look deeper and understand the waste problem in the forests managed by “Rīgas meži”. In numbers: about 60,000 ha and 1,600 m3 of waste every year. We live in Europe, there is talk of “zero waste”, there are many such (zero waste) shops in Riga, but… 15 people are busy collecting waste in “Rīgas meži” every single day! So, one part of society lives in one world and reality, while the other lives in a completely different one. One part of society is politically and financially supported in various ways, which is clearly visible and audible, but the other is effectively neither involved nor addressed, because if waste continues to accumulate in the forests, something is being done or is happening entirely incorrectly. Something is being financed incorrectly. Something in the current situation is pointless!

In the European Union, there are plenty of regulations and conditions that are talked about and that they want to implement, but one only has to go to Greece (an EU country) to see the quantity of plastic bottles on the roadsides. Why? The answer: “We are used to it!” ... To a Latvian citizen who sees the situation more broadly, the “pressure of climate rules” seems disproportionate, whereas elsewhere everything flows calmly on its own path. What to do? There is neither balance nor proportionality here.

But wasn’t it similar in the Soviet Union? Latvia has always somehow been an A-grade student in fulfilling quotas, while others first figure out how is best for themselves, and only then act as the union (or whoever) demands. If we are talking about waste again, there should, of course, be no departure from common sense here. Let the Greeks sleep in their own rubbish; we must think about our own! The most effective advertising campaign for the waste problem would be one that helped prevent waste from being created in the first place. All the time, constantly, at every possible and suitable moment, remind people: “Don’t buy it, you don’t need it! Think carefully, do you really need it? Can this item be repaired, are spare parts available? When it breaks, can this item be recycled?”

But what do we see? Black Friday! Buy! Bankruptcy prices – buy! A good example, in my opinion, was the information campaign on the need to wear seatbelts in a car, where they used very harsh videos. Likewise, they must show the kind of filth that is often seen in forests and roadsides, or by the railway. Yes, on one hand, we talk and want to be “green”, but on the other – if there is such an amount of waste in the city (or forest)…

I live in the countryside myself and know “tilting at windmills” well. During the Big Clean-up (Lielā talka), waste is collected along the roadsides, and that same spring, they “burn” empty sour cream containers, tyres, and plastic toys in a bonfire at the edge of the garden. I do not like to mention Soviet times out of place, but here I clearly see the lingering hypocrisy: one thing we show and talk about, another – what we do in our own yard.

If the streets in Riga, for example, are clean and tidy, in the forests near Riga we often find or see a proper pigsty. At the same time, we talk beautifully about climate neutrality, which it is not yet time to talk about. We must talk about very elementary and understandable requirements of hygiene and respect!

At one time in Europe, they fought against plastic bags, and they started producing them thinner. A thinner bag tears more easily; let’s say, 1 kg of carrots is now put into two bags. The pressure on nature becomes greater. Recommendations? In the supermarket, an additional charge for taking a bag. Later, a plastic bag would cost 10 euros apiece. Even later, for the goods arriving on the market to serve – for example – at least 10 years! If they break or tear in the 8th year, the customer receives a new one!

Exactly! A key thing is the long-term use of appliances, so that a kettle or a television, or a washing machine lasts for years; a fridge as well, and a mobile phone should not need to be changed every six months.

The mires close to your heart… What is happening in them?

Over the past year and a half, I have worked a great deal on educating the public, participating in and organising many hikes. What have I understood from that? A large portion of people know very, very little about mires and environmental issues. When you tell such a person specific facts, their thoughts change and their knowledge expands. Of course, there are people whose stance or understanding cannot be changed and whose store of knowledge cannot be added to. My task is not to convince, but to inform. Yes, there are people whom no facts affect – however much they know or do not know (or want to know), that is enough for them! As they came, so they left! It is particularly difficult with young urbanites: they are convinced that by living in an IKEA-style minimalist flat, eating only healthy food, regularly going out into nature, and occasionally getting involved in a vote against logging or lynx hunting, they are definitely “green” and head and shoulders above others. When I explain with facts and scientifically, I have to face great resistance.

For example, we go into a mire, we listen to the enthusiasm about the wonderful environment where “no mire should be touched or disturbed”. “Peat extraction must be closed.” Hang on! If you go to the shop, you will buy and subsequently eat a lot of fruit or vegetables that have been grown using peat. You go for a walk in a forest that has grown from seedlings raised in a peat substrate. People don’t want to accept that, or it is not understood.

Since I have previously had connections with peat extraction and production, part of the so-called “green sector” still considers me a producer.

Green. What does this word mean now, aside from colour or youth?

If one speaks of the word “green”, until now I applied it to myself one hundred per cent. Definitely! Now, thinking about the people to whom society has “pinned” this label, I unfortunately conclude that the green label has quite a black lining – being against logging and dreaming of a log cabin; calling a pellet producer “thick”, but heating one’s house with his products; shopping with a cloth bag, but not caring at all where the car repair shop puts your winter tyres; being against hunting because it is not humane, but closing one’s eyes to how humanely the meat arrives on your table; using the tax money earned by the producer to fund their own projects, the goal of which is to ensure that the producer does not produce. At the moment, I am contemplating whether I even want to “pin such a label” on myself. The people whom I can truly call green (without the black lining) often do not work in any sector related to nature conservation, live in harmony with the rhythms of nature, and do not even know they are “green”. Pinning on labels and categorising people is so stupid and destructive! It even tears apart friends and families.

Sadly, I often encounter the opinion or notion that a defender of nature is automatically good and “green”, while a producer is grabbing money and destroying nature, which is why listening to his opinion is like soiling your hands. Neither side wants to give an inch, because if you give the green lobby their way, we will live in a reservation, but if the producer wins in some matter, soon there will not be a single tree or mire left in Latvia. It is precisely these positions that distance us from a healthy discussion between producers and nature conservation representatives. I see that they call each other stupid, because one side “understands nothing about nature”, and the others retort that “money doesn’t grow on trees”. Do you want to listen to someone if they simply call you a fool? That is how, for the umpteenth year, we sit in trenches and dream of Latvia’s success story, climate neutrality, and biodiversity.

It would be logical to use the taxes paid by the producer to understand (research) how to reduce the producer’s impact. How many “green” non-governmental organisations have gone to the producer, saying: “We work with money that would not exist if you were not producing. How could we jointly figure out how to manage things so that the environment is less impacted and recovers faster from that impact?” Instead, huge amounts of money are spent on information campaigns to prove how one side is good and the other is bad. The “average Joe” is tired of this, “shuts their ears and scrolls further down their Facebook newsfeed…” Why show images of a tsunami over the Vanšu Bridge? People are tired because they are constantly trying to be taught a lot of things (including many absurdities). There is a lot of text and news; to get attention, one must start screaming.

Let’s not waste time, money, and energy on screaming; let’s climb or crawl out of the trenches in the kindergarten playground and work together... so that there is more of both nature and money!