Log File For Chat Room 1

Shvetsova: Hello, everybody

Nozdryakov: Hi everyone))

Pivoeva: Good day

Larichev: HELLO EVERYONE !

Kurganova: Good morning to everybody8-)

Rybalova: Hello!

Larichev: DEAR STUDENTS, PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS. YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION ONLY WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME. PLEASE DO NOT INTERVENE IN THE DISCUSSION BEFORE IT IS YOUR TURN TO ASK A QUESTION.

Nozdryakov: and who is going to be the first?))))

Larichev: VIVTONENKO,RYBALOVA,NOZDRYAKOV,KURGANOVA,PIVOEVA,SHVETSOVA,MAMAEV ETC.- THIS IS THE CURRENT ORDER

Nozdryakov: ))

Larichev: DEAR COLLEAGUES, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR PROF.MITCHELL. HE SHOULD BE HERE SHORTLY.

Shvetsova: How long the chat is suppose to last?

Larichev: TILL 9 AM

Larichev: HELLO DR. MITCHELL! THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING.

Mitchell: hello, sorry I am late -- I am here now, however. My apologies

Mitchell: I am happy to answer any questions

Larichev: ITS FINE ! WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE FIRST QUESTION. NATALIA VIVTONENKO PLEASE

Vivtonenko: According to data of Universal Bank there are about 1.5 billions of people which are below the poverty level (they have not more than one dollar a day). Another two billions can spend not more than two dollars a day. There are more than half of population of our planet. I consider that people who starve don’t think of environmental protection at all. And there are a lot of rich people who are not interested in it either. They think only about their profit. I would like to ask is it possible to improve environment if we are minority? What chances do we have?

Larichev: DEAR STUDENTS, PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS. YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION ONLY WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME. PLEASE DO NOT INTERVENE IN THE DISCUSSION BEFORE IT IS YOUR TURN TO ASK A QUESTION.

Mitchell: Vivtonenko question: This is a good question. One issue I would point to is that the level of interest in environmental protection does depend somewhat on level of income -- generally poor people don't pollute as much because if they are so poor that they cannot afford to while ... (i will type ... when I am going to continue the answer) ...

Mitchell: while rich people are generally thought to pollute somewhat less because they can afford to be concerned about environmental protection. This is called "Environmental Kuznets Curve" analysis. ...

Mitchell: But the United States demonstrates that rich countries also are responsible for a huge share of our environmental problem. I guess my only real answer to the question is to say "I don't know how much chance we have of solving the problem, but we therefore must try even harder." Next question?

Larichev: RYBALOVA ANNA PLEASE

Rybalova: What aims and issues of environment protection are most important for you? What aims and issues of environment protection are most important for you?

Mitchell: I have two answers to Rybalova's question. The first is to say that climate change is likely to be the largest environmental problem faced by the earth for the next several hundred years. Increasing evidence shows that humans are having a huge impact on the environment thru emissions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases. This will raise sea levels by several meters, change ecosystems drastically, reduce snow pack in mountains requiring more dams to hold water, killing off species. So, climate change is to me the largest problem. ...

Mitchell: But the second answer is that there are so many ways that humans are harming the environment, that I think it very important that people work to fix whatever problems they are aware of and believe they can make a difference in fixing. If its cleaning up a wetland or marsh in your town, or negotiating to fix some global problem -- all efforts are important. Next question?

Larichev: NOZDRYAKOV ARTEM PLEASE

Nozdryakov: 1. I wanted to ask you about relatively new problem...the problem of the 21-st century probably – the space pollution…is it a problem, first of all?? And how to respond to it??

Mitchell: I don't know much about space pollution. I do know there is lots of space debris. My guess is that it is a problem more because it will cause problems when humans want to use space for more satellites or other space objects. But I do not believe it is an environmental problem itself. But perhaps I do not know enough about it. If you know of articles I should read on it, please send them on to my email at rmitchel@uoregon.edu Next question?

Larichev: KURGANOVA TATIANA PLEASE

Kurganova: There are a lot of international treates. How do you explain the situation with the?Why some countries comply them and other ignor?

Mitchell: A fundamental problem with international law is that states cannot be forced to do things against their will. It is true that sometimes countries comply and sometimes they don't. One way to think about this, however, is to recognize that people do not comply with national laws in their own countries only because there is enforcement. They also may comply because they believe that doing so is the right thing to do or because of incentives or other factors. Norms and other social forces can work at the international level, they just are much weaker than at the national level. So, the important questions are those that seek to find out how we can design treaties so that countries will comply more than they would have otherwise. Much research is still being done on this. I think the crucial issue is simply to avoid assuming either that international law always work or to assume that it never works. The right answer is to recognize that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and to do the research to figure out how we can make it work better. Next question?

Larichev: PIVOEVA MARIA PLEASE

Pivoeva: Opinions of scientists are not always listened to by the governments nowadays. I would like to know what can be done to improve this situation.

Mitchell: Another very good question -- all have been good questions so far! The question of when policymakers listen to scientist is another important research interest of mine. We have just finished a book that will come out this fall that looks at this question. Our key finding has been that science often doesn't influence policymakers because the science is either not RELEVANT to the decisions that people are making or it is not considered LEGITIMATE by those people. Thus, ...

Mitchell: science would not be relevant if it proposed policies that were not politically possible in a country. Likewise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (over 3,000 scientists now invovled, I believe), has had increased influence by becoming more legitimate by involving more scientists from developing countries. Governments of developing countries now listen to the IPCC more because they believe that their views and concerns are being taken seriously. Next question?

Larichev: SHVETSOVA ANTONINA PLEASE

Shvetsova: During the last week we discussed different kinds of environmental problems. One of them was “problems that do not exist, but we believe that they do”. Who could be interesting in “developing” such problems?

Mitchell: There is some interesting research on "perceptions of risk" -- people often believe that some problems that in fact are not very risky are far more risky than other problems which actually are more risky. Thus, women in America are more concerned about breast cancer even though they are more likely to die from heart disease. Thus, American women worry about the wrong thing -- they should be more concerned about protecting themselves from heart disease. That is one type of issue. I do not know of people who are actually going out intentionally trying to convince people of problems that do not exist -- the opposite, however, definitely happens. That is, there are people who do try to suggest that environmental problems for which there is strong scientific evidencde do not really exist. Many people try to argue, for example, that climate change is not occurring. That is, perhaps more of a problem == where people argue that a real problem is not one, because the costs of acting to correct the problem are too high. I hope that answers the question. Next question?

Larichev: MAMAEV GLEB PLEASE

Mamaev: What are the most probable environmental disasters and man-caused catastrophes are forecasted? Have any measures to prevent them been taken?

Mitchell: By the way -- if your group can do so, I am happy to stay on the chat until 10:15 to make up for the fact that I was late "arriving." I think the floods in New Orleans, Louisiana and the tsunami in Indonesia are indicative of the sorts of problems we will see in the future. Climate change is likely to lead to sea level rise and larger storms. Human efforts, such as levees to protect against flooding, can fail as they did in New Orleans -- so here is where an environmental problem of the hurricane was made far worse by human problems in designing and building the levees ......

Mitchell: As for the tsunami, here too there was a combination of environmental and human problems. People build houses and hotels near the coast but they have ruined the coral reefs nearby by fishing and dynamiting corals and other activities. Without the reefs there to protect them, the damage of the tsunami was far worse. My guess about the future is that the worst problems will be in coastal areas due to the combination of higher sea levels and worse storms. Several islands in the oceans of the world on which people currently live will be under water. Bangladesh will be flooded severely and many of those people are likely to die because their poverty will give them few ways to avoid the problems. Next question?

Larichev: NUPPIEVA MARIA PLEASE

Nuppieva: 1. Karelia is name “wood republic”. Volumes of deforestation are growing now. It can lead to catastrophic consequences for our region. What decision of this problem is correct?

Mitchell: Deforestation is a large problem in many parts of the world -- I did not know that it was a large problem in Karelia. Stopping deforestation is difficult. I think some important steps are trying to reduce the demand for wood products, either by providing alternatives or by reducing demand more generally. So, getting people to build smaller houses and build them with brick may be one solution. On the other side of the equation, it is also helpful to say that there are some better ways to cut timber from a forest and some worse ways. I do not know much about this, but I am sure there are experts who can tell you that if you want to take a certain amount of wood out of a forest, that if you do it by method X, it will be very environmentally damaging but if you do it by method Y, it will be less environmentally damaging. I also think that a useful approach in these cases is to work with the local people who are the ones involved in the timber industry to find ways that they can still make a living doing lumber work but can do so in a more "sustainable" way. Next question?

Larichev: FAVORSKAYA MARIA PLEASE

Favorskaya: Treaties and laws are supposed to stop legal devastation of nature resources, but what are the ways to stop illegal trade? There allways will be companies and people that sell and buy the cheapest things, and they don't care about ecological image and public opinion?For example, 15% of russian timber is exported illlegally

Mitchell: Yes, indeed. Illegal logging, illegal fishing, and illegal use of CFCs (that destroy the ozone layer) are all very real problems. My major thought on this is simply that we should first attempt to set up the correct rules and then slowly try to make them better and better. Thus, the use of CFCs was going up every year before the Montreal Protocol in 1987. That treaty made CFC production largely illegal and lead to major reductions in CFC production -- but illegal production has continued. That said, however, the level of illegal production is very much less than it was before the Montreal Protocol was signed. So real reductions have occurred. Similarly, on timber, perhaps the best thing is to make sure that most timber harvest is conducted under legal rules that try to promote sustainable management of forests. Then, slowly both governments and nongovernmental organizations can work to try to address the illegal cutting of forests. That is an important task. Next question?

Larichev: DO WE HAVE POLYAKOVA JULIA HERE? IF YES, PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR QUESTION.

Larichev: I GUESS NOT.

Favorskaya: Polakova is absent today

Larichev: PROF. MITCHELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND ANSWERS. IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION INDEED!

Mitchell: I am glad to have had such interesting questions. All of you are clearly thinking hard about these issues -- they were all impressive questions. Again, my apologies to all ofyou for keeping you waiting. If you have any other questions that you would like to ask me, please email me at rmitchel@uoregon.edu and I will try to respond with useful answers. It was a sincere pleasure and I hope the rest of the class is going well. Thank you all.

Larichev: THANKS AGAIN DR.MITCHELL! THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND GOODBYE.

Kurganova: Goodbye

Mitchell: Goodbye.

Pivoeva: Goodbye everybody

Favorskaya: Goodbye! Thanks for your unswres!

Nuppieva: Thanks and goodbye

Shvetsova: Thanks for your answers,prof. Mitchell. It's a pity that the chat was shorted of time.Anyway, thank you

Favorskaya: Alexandr, what about the other questions? Should we send them to you?

Mamaev: Thank you and Good bye!

Nuppieva: Alexander,when we can sent our questions anew?