Einārs Cilinskis, Senior Expert at the Department of Sustainable Energy Policy of the Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia, answers questions from zemeunvalsts.lv

The "Green Deal" in Europe - can 'green' be a "fashion statement" that is inevitably linked to financial impacts?

More precisely in Latvian – the European “Green Deal” [1] is a European Commission document that outlines the framework for a whole series of further, more detailed policies moving towards, I quote: “a fair and prosperous society with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use”. The impact of this policy will, of course, be huge – it could be compared to a transport system where horses and carriages are replaced by cars. In the century before last (19th century), that would certainly have seemed impossible. However, this does not mean that all policies within the Green Deal are well thought out. Specifically, understanding that this will be not only a European but a global long-term policy, Latvia must look at what is in our interest. Building insulation will be needed in any case, replacing imported gas with local resources is profitable, etc. On the other hand, we should hardly be in a hurry to fight the peat industry… We must defend it against hasty solutions!

Does "green thinking" differ from "green thought"?

There is no single term for “green thinking”. “Green” issues are becoming an integral part of any policy, but the spectrum of views on how to solve environmental issues is and will remain very broad. Should we rely more on market solutions or the state's regulatory role?

How have “green” issues in Latvia changed since the 90s? Do we have any inkling of the Soviet legacy of environmental problems?

Of course, problems from the years of occupation still remain: contaminated sites, the ruins of collective farm facilities, etc. However, time has passed and, indeed, in the environmental field, there are more other current issues than problems with the Soviet legacy.

Is it appropriate to make a fuss about environmental problems, including dragging out important issues? For example, Latvia and the railway.

This is a wider problem. Excessively bureaucratised (“over-bureaucratised”) decision-making is not only related to the environment or the railway. Latvia should accelerate and simplify decision-making procedures. Everything needs to be discussed well, but if you have to argue about the same thing during the territorial planning, approval of the environmental impact assessment, environmental permit, building permit, and perhaps more (I've forgotten some procedure...), it is hard for us to hope for an inflow of investment.

Can and how exactly can China, India, Indonesia, etc., be limited so that Europe is not the only "green" one?

One should have the fewest doubts about China. Climate science there is at a very high level, with a vision hundreds of years ahead and the ability to implement decided policies. India is also thinking a lot about the development of renewable energy; Indonesia looks worse for now, but its goal is to implement 6,400MW of installed solar energy capacity and 1,800MW of wind energy capacity by 2025. My conclusion: the global energy system's transition to renewable energy sources (one can debate: with or without nuclear energy) will happen. It will likely not happen fast enough to limit global warming to within 1.5 ^oC or 2 ^oC, as provided for by the Paris Agreement. Therefore, we will have to adapt more to climate change.

Should the use of Latvia's main resources - land, forests - be restricted?

These issues are regulated in every country; at the EU level, perhaps even too much. There is no simple answer here, as they say: “the devil is in the details”.

VARAM officials hint that it is time to replace bans with cooperation? Is that happening?

I no longer work in this field, so I cannot assess what is happening and what is not. I have always and everywhere stood for cooperation! I think that this can also be promoted in the context of bans. A certain resentment has accumulated, which is bad.

Is it reasonable for about 65 million m3 of timber to rot in Latvian forests? Is that acceptable in the context of the climate?

This, again, is a question about which one could write a whole monograph. The Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava” has many studies [2] on that. There is also a very wide range of problems, for example: although “Latvijas valsts meži” is constantly developing forest roads, there are places that are still inaccessible, warmer winters make timber extraction difficult, and many small private owners lack the skills and resources to manage their forests.

Are the data on nature conservation issues from Latvian state structures correct? Who checks them?

I have not studied these data specifically. Data availability is a problem in many climate-related areas. As mentioned before: “The European Green Deal will be long-lasting” means that more funds will have to be invested in data acquisition for climate, energy, and also land-use modelling and research. The issue of cooperation is also very relevant in this area; many want to keep their data monopoly, but the modern approach is open data. Digital solutions and the application of GIS [3] will have an increasingly important role.

Riga. The main concern is that the financial situation is not clear. What to do?

We do not even know how big the financial hole is yet! Let's hope that after the dismissal of the Riga City Council, the interim board will at least find out. It is clear that the lack of investment will be a significant problem, especially in a situation where borrowing capacity has been exhausted. One of the possibilities is to make use of the aforementioned European “Green Deal”. Specifically, there is enough money in the European Investment Bank (EIB)! It is necessary to develop long-term financial instruments supported by the EIB, for example, in the field of building energy efficiency, which may pay off in 20 years, but – building insulation at least does not increase, and perhaps even slightly reduces costs. Furthermore, costs can be reduced by standardised solutions and energy efficiency measures within a quarter. Additionally, one should look at where local building materials can be used. Especially – in the construction of new buildings, wood should be used as much as possible!!!!

Is the national economy even needed in Latvia? At least at the Twitter level, it doesn't seem so!

Social networks are meant for people to scream out their pain. One should be careful about drawing any comprehensive conclusion from these opinions.

Can civic activities slow down the country's development? (I quote the radio: I would like to know if other countries also have such a strange national peculiarity as Latvia. People call and ask: Where are our factories, where are the institutions, we don't have jobs, (people) are leaving. As soon as someone wants to build something, there are hundreds of letters immediately: They want to poison us! They want to destroy us! They want to sell us out! This was also seen in the 1:1 broadcast - we don't need anything, we want it for ourselves, we are fine, no factories, no businesses, just don't kill us!)

Civic activity is generally a good thing – neighbourhood associations are forming more and more actively in Riga, and people are getting involved in them. Sometimes you need to stop things too, for example, the “cemetery tram”. But – here one should return to the previously discussed issue regarding the procedure and deadlines for decision-making.