The European Green Deal is gaining speed and ramping up. This is being felt in document factories outside of Latvia. This output is being received in Latvia at an enviable speed and in large volumes, with little public involvement, or by feeding the public enthusiastic slogans. If green electricity could be produced in such a way and in such volumes, while simultaneously becoming fully independent of the content of pipelines from the East, the sense would undoubtedly be greater.
A series of politicians, as well as representatives and activists from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), speak about the European Green Deal in non-specific but very enthusiastic terms; some of them (as they put it themselves, although this is also mentioned by professionals involved in environmental issues) have "inadvertently" taken on state functions in environmental protection. Whether and to what extent this is reasonable and nationally correct is another question, which, however, will soon become even more relevant. But! Speaking about what is important for Latvia: people, work, and money, the two years of the pandemic have shown that people, work, and money are necessary, important, and both sustaining and stabilising for the state. It should be added, however, that the pandemic period has also widely opened the floodgates for slackers and chatterboxes of various ranks who tirelessly, in writing and in words, denigrate and berate those who want and are willing to work.
What has been discussed most in the Cabinet of Ministers during this time? Permissions or bans on working, support, benefits, people, and a reasonable approach to what is happening. While we manage the former somehow—by our own efforts or with the help of others—we are faring very poorly with the latter (reason)...
In the absence of a national environmental protection policy based on cooperation and understanding, ideas disconnected from science, practice, and logical thinking are gradually strengthening in part of the public, preparing the ground for serious future problems. (There is no better example, but we see a similar situation with the health sector and the pandemic, where, alongside the explanations of professionals, there is room for knowledge about 'anything someone said in a queue at the shop'.)
As very often happens in Latvia—many decision-makers and opinion-formers neither earn for themselves nor remember the time when they were active in business themselves.
Speaking about our almost 32 years of experience of independence, it is precisely in issues related to or close to the environment that we see a number of very short-sighted decisions, for example, small hydroelectric power plants, the closure of railway lines and the subsequent dismantling of tracks, the creation of a micro-reserve system which, unlike forests (National Forest Monitoring), is not controlled, and the interference of non-professionals in education, where often even in mathematics or literature the particularly narrow view of the state held by environmental NGO people dominates. (Here, one does not even need to mention everything related to renewable energy resources and the Mandatory Procurement Component - OIK).
What does climate neutrality specifically mean for Latvia, how exactly will it affect your and my household, and how will Latvia and those in Latvia earn money if...? How much is every Latvian resident prepared to pay for the ideas of the Green Deal (for example, how many people will buy an electric car in 2022, and how many such car-wanting individuals will there be in 2023?)? There are still no answers to these and other specific questions, or they are being postponed. Saying, we'll live and see, we'll think about it sometime! If, in their opinion, urgent environmental issues must be solved "immediately", is the question of "you'll get to eat, but tomorrow" to be solved in the long term? And if there is no longer, or will not be, anything to feed anyone? Is postponing a solution appropriate for the 21st century?
What does "green thinking" mean, behind which stand politicians and banks, and in whose footsteps follows a lack of knowledge and clarity? Can "green thinking" with the goal of gaining political influence be valued solely as green? Does the leader of an aggressive green organisation, who rejoices at Latvia's commitment to being a front-runner (because it will not affect him in any way), have anything to say to a Latvian citizen who farms the land and earns money for his and environmental organisations' project funds as well?
Despite repeated calls from the Ministry of Agriculture, the agricultural, peat, and forest sectors to speak clearly and understandably about the use of Latvia's resources (land, forest, peat, etc.) in connection with national development, environmental protection, and, most importantly, the desire of people to live and work in Latvia, the responsible officials continue to avoid a specific and clear plan: this much we will protect, that we will not touch, there we will work, that we will do, but in this regard, "let Europe stand to the side." There is no plan. There is no clear long-term action. There is no clarity. There are phrases that ministry officials and, unfortunately, quite a few ministers have learned from the language used in the corridors of European Union institutions, which say nothing but sound... What sounds far in a Latvian proverb? An empty barrel! Is it necessary, while acting reasonably, to turn the green deal, which is undoubtedly beneficial to us, into a good-sounding, yet empty barrel? Definitely not!
In the information published by various activists and project representatives, at least one significant flaw can be seen, namely, the writing lacks the slightest indication of the authors' personal experience in the shoes of a diligent forest or field, or peat bog, or allotment gardener owner. There is no talk of management at all. A "society" that is poorly or not at all familiar with forest or field work reads a series of general musings about "Latvijas valsts meži" or the forest sector in general that are very personally and obviously disliked by someone (There is another very important question: "Can and may the personal dislike of a person, even if they are known in society or intentionally popularised, influence the direction of policy and a very significant part of the public—especially in the capital?"), without gaining the slightest idea of how the "very experienced" critics in the forest sector manage things themselves. Giving advice, moreover, nonsensical advice, is not the same as working! Expressions of a general style—criticising locals but enthusiastically (without analysis) supporting European initiatives—are observable in the majority of environmental NGOs: criticising locals, workers, and earners without a personal example. Receiving (something, without work) is good and excellent, working and earning is bad! In fact, a series of NGOs are slowly turning into a crowd supporting the shortcomings of state structures, which also wants to chant slogans and receive something, but does not want to work.
Speaking of the criticism directed at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM), which should be considered the ministry directly responsible for environmental and Green Deal issues, it must be added: "Environmental NGO representatives also often point out: with habitat mapping not yet concluded, something has already been lost, cut down, sawn up, etc." The question is very simple: over the years, various responsible VARAM officials have been asked, questioned, queried, and asked again: "What will we do with the results of habitat mapping? What do we need? How much of what do we need in Latvia, and what will we protect?"
The answer? "We'll live and see... We'll wait..." We waited for the change of posts at VARAM. What does this give the Latvian resident? Exactly—nothing! State administration employees are those who have been least affected financially and in terms of work during the time of pandemic restrictions, which testifies to one thing: at least part of those working in the state administration do not care about the country's residents or the future of Latvia! It is clearly visible how they defend their farmers in Germany and France, and the forest sector in Sweden, Poland, and Finland. Here? Just give them a chance to tear their own people apart! (Important: this refers to those being torn, not what the tearers have earned!) Moreover, it is elegant to add "Doctor of various sciences" to one's name and surname, while at the same time allowing the view to spread in Latvian society that "everything has been cut down," "there will soon be a desert," or "let others worry about taxes and money." Not to mention the last one, the first two views do not correspond in any way to the level of understanding of even the lowest scientific degree. The same reproach could be directed at VARAM, which, without restricting freedom of speech, allows any information about our country to spread. For example, what does "poor state of many habitats" mean? Why is it so? If environmental NGOs are actively stimulating the designation of micro-reserves without monitoring them, is it clear to VARAM or not what the state of the environment is in Latvia, what we need, and does "30% of the country's territory will be protected" correspond to environmental protection in essence? Is it scientifically correct to protect just because "Europe (EU, EC, VVZK*) decided or, sinking into concern, indicated"?
A large part of people are gradually beginning to understand the situation and ask: "Where are we to go, where are we heading?" How many waves of emigration have we experienced, not counting both world wars? There, away, the Latvian "dissolves and disappears." The latest figures on demographic indicators (2012-2020) are tragic. One can calculate at what point, continuing like this, there will be "a full stop" for Latvians. Speaking about this issue, I often encounter stupid demagoguery: "How do 360,000 Icelanders live?" Forgive me, there are tribes living in rainforests with 100 or 200 members... Is the goal of the new policy the smallest possible number of Latvians? The goal must be different—preserving the space for the life and future of the nation.
Throughout this "environmental madness", one thing has been forgotten: what will happen in Latvia's countryside, will we have work, a laid lunch table, and money? Will we have people who will work in the fields and forests? How do the most extreme environmental organisations and VARAM think about and care for this? Or do the NGO and the ministry fraternally join the "reasoning" of an unscrupulous Latvian resident who secretly takes waste to the forest: "I'll throw it away on the quiet, someone will clean it up." In the case of VARAM and the more aggressive environmental activists, it sounds like this: "Let's make as much of a mess as possible, the entrepreneurs will clean it up anyway!"
* God knows what