Chat Session with prof. Ron Mitchell (March 16, 2005)

Ershova: Good morning, dear collegers.Wish all of you good work.

Turnin: Helo to ewerybody!

alexeis: Hello everybody. Welcome to the chat

alexeis: I will be moderating today and I do have a few rules

Glotov: Good morning!!! Helo! Any news?!

Smirnova: Hello from Yaroslavl!

Zimina: Zimina: Good morning. Glad to meet you!

alexeis: Please ask your questions one at a time, i know this is difficult but when the question is being answered I will ask to remain quite. Please try to follow these requests.

alexeis: We will waite for a couple of minutes and then start the chat. I see that prof. Mitchell has joined us already. I say we begin in about 2-3 min, to let some of the students come on time and join our chat

alexeis: Ron, do you have any introductory comments? Now is the time to "say" a few words to the students

Kurganova: Good morning [evening] to everybody from Saratov!

Bukhlaeva: Good morning!

Zherikhina: Good day for all!

Sivova: Glad to meet everybody!!!

Gribanova: Good day

Ron: Welcome to all the students and I am looking forward to this chat. I will wait for the first question. But to help Alexei moderate the chat, I will try to end each statement either with a ... so that it is clear that I will continue in a second or an [end] to signal that I am done with answering that question. [end]

Meilach: Good Morning! Greeting from Chelyabinsk

Lada: Hello everybody!

Subochev: Hello from Moscow!

Burnakov: Hi, Ed and everybody :)

Tsarikaeva: Good morning, everyone! Greetings from NOSU. We're here: Inga Nikolenko, Lana Tsarikaeva and Marina Tsogoeva

Meilach: May I ask the 1st question?

Zherikhina: Good day from Yaroslavl!

Meilach: I would like to ask about your opinion about Kyoto protocal and it's ratification by Russian Federation. Make it change the behaviour of thecoutnries?

alexeis: OK, FOLKS, LET'S BEGIN OUT CHAT. THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO START FROM THE EAST OF RUSSIA, SO THE FIRST QUESTION GOES TO BLAGOVESCHENSK, IF THEY PRESENT

alexeis: EDUARD, I AM MODERATING THE ORDER OF QUESTIONS, PLEASE WAIT TO SEE IF BLAGO HAS A QUESTION, THEN YOU ARE NEXT

Leluk: Hello from AmSU!

Goncharov: Good time of the day from the USU!

Meilach: Alexey, ok, sorry for my interrupting

alexeis: LELUK: YOUR QUESTION PLEASE, YOU ARE FIRST TO START TODAY

Ron: While we wait for Blagoveschensk question, let me respond to Meilach on Kyoto. On the Kyoto Protocol, I think Russia's ratification means and the agreement's entry into force mean that the regime is more likely to gain strength. I believe that there is much good that *may* come from the Russian ratification. It will put allow many countries to make changes that they might have been "scared" to make otherwise. Also, I think it will create normative pressure (that is, "moral" or social pressure) on countries like the USA that do not ratify. So it *may* even influence countries that are not members. [end]

Goncharov: Good time of the day from the USU!

Ron:

alexeis: THANK YOU RON, AMSU ARE YOU READY?

Meilach: Thank you, Ron.

Glotov: Ron, thank you very much for your interesting lectures! Dealing with the problem of genetically modified products. Some people think, that they have to survive in the world of growing population, others (Green Peace) belieive GMs are biological pollution. What is your opinion of GMs?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE, A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Leluk: What will be the results og Russia's ratification of Kyoto protocol both for Russia and the world community?

Ron: On GMOs, I think it is a particularly difficult problem to resolve. Most people in developed countries are concerned, as you point out, about the biological issues but those in developing countries are rightly concerned about growing enough food to feed themselves. Higher yields from GMOs could be helpful. There are other solutions, however, not least a better and more equitable system for distributing the food we already have in the world so that those in developing countries get a greater share of that food. The other issue, of course, is that one would like to avoid a situation in which major food companies (usually Monsanto is named but there are others) do not gain excessive control in developing countries. [end]

alexeis: THANK YOU RON. SINCE THE KYOTO QUESTION WAS ALREADY ANSWERED... NEXT QUESTION FROM USU PLEASE

Meilach: Alexei, if Kyoto protocol is so topical subject, could I ask one more question about it?

Glotov: Thank you, Ron.

alexeis: OK, ONE FOLLOW UP ON KYOTO FROM EDUARD

Goncharov: it would be great if we could get some feedback on how exactly eco-feminist perform their policies on dealing with EP?

Meilach: Can the pressure be only 'moral' or 'social'? And may the protocol be efficiency if the USA dont ratify it?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE, A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Ron: On Eduard's Q re: Kyoto, I am actually not particularly concerned about the US not ratifying the Protocol. I would prefer that we did, but even if the US government does not, many states and cities in the US will be taking action to do Kyoto-related reductions. Even some universities are trying to become Kyoto-compliant, and Russia's action to ratify Kyoto will increase the number of actors who do that. Oregon (the state where I live) is taking action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions along with California and Washington and all the New England States have done the same. So even if the US gov't does not ratify, American people may take some action. One also hopes that the Kyoto process is one that, over time, helps sustain a process that leads to more and more reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, both on paper and in practice.[end]
I will now respond to Goncharov's Q re: ecofeminism ...

Meilach: thank you, Rom!

Ron: Ecofeminists are, in my limited knowledge on the subject, particularly interested in changing values so that people become more caring for, and less harmful to the earth, because they change their relationship to the earth. That is not a process that necessarily goes thru "policy". One might think about it in ways similar to how any religion changes what happens in the world -- it is not thru "policies" per se but by changing how people think about their place in the world and what they value. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. have all had *enormous* influences on how people behave over the centuries even though they often have had little interest in immediate policy issues. An ecofeminist might say that change today's policy is less important than changing the values people have ten or twenty years from now. And they may well be correct![end]

alexeis: THANK YOU RON. NEXT QUESTION FROM SARATOV PLEASE

Kurganova: NGOs play the tremendous role in forming the environmental mind. What role the state organizations pray in it?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE, A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Ron: Interesting question from Kurganova - I think it is sometimes hard to see the role that governments play in shaping the "environmental mind" because it is often subtle. Governments shape our environmental concern, at least in part, by creating social structures that lead us to either ignore or foster environmental protection. When a government does not charge us for the use of an environmental resource (for fishing, or mining, or logging) it tells people it is okay not to worry about those environmental impacts ... [more to come] ...

Ron: but if a government does charge taxes (e.g., on gasoline), provide recycling facilities, penalize those who pollute rivers, and make environmental education part of every student's education in school when they are young, then that suggests a very different environmental mind being promoted by governments. Too often, governments essentially say that the "status quo" is okay. This is a question that would be good for students to discuss more in class after this session - what role should governments have in shaping people's "environmental mind." [end]

alexeis: THANK YOU RON. NEXT QUESTION FROM YAROSLAVL PLEASE

Ershova: Why the government or NGO don`t try to stop the future ecological problems, such as antibiotics in farming, the chlorine in the water and so on?

Kurganova: Thank you, Prof.!

alexeis: MOSCOW, YOUR QUESTION PLEASE

Ron: On Ershova's question, I think one reason why it is difficult to stop future environmental problems is because of uncertainty. If we are not sure that something is really causing a problem, then two things happen. One, it may seem not worth spending money to avoid a problem that may turn out not to be a problem. And second, uncertainty about whether something is a problem or will be a problem allows those political actors who benefit from the current situation to argue (compellingly) that "see, there is nothing to worry about." So, only when we have already done the damage and the damage is visible can we begin to fix it. The ozone loss problem under the Montreal Protocol is a good example in a way - Dupont said something like "we will take action as soon as they prove that CFCs are causing a problem." But that took a while to prove. The precautionary principle can help alleviate this problem. [end]

Subochev: MOSCOW In the next ten years, is China likely to get actively and seriously involved in resolution of global environmental problems like global warming? If it is, in what way?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE, A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Glotov: Ron, to the problem of global warming, what do you think, are the recent tsunami in Thailand, floods in Europe & snow falls in the USA “the links on one chain" & the consequences of global climate change?

Ron: From Subochev, the role of China being involved in environmental problems is a large issue. With almost 1/4 of the world's population, their choices will make a big difference in the environment of the future. Notably, they are one of the few countries in the world that actually have a policy that attempts to limit population growth (altho by means that not all people think are the best). Regarding global environmental politics, however, I think China will get more involved, in part because being part of the international scene these days requires countries to be active on security affairs, economic affairs, but also human rights and environment. So, I think they will be involved more in the future. [end]

alexeis: THANK YOU RON. NEXT QUESTION FROM PETROZAVODSK PLEASE

alexeis: OK, WE MOVE BACK EAST- NEXT QUESTION FROM AMSU PLEASE

Ron: As for Glotov's question about tsunamis, floods, and snow fall -- the problem in linking any of these cases to climate change is that there is very large natural variation. Consider for a moment that we are talking about global average temperature increases in the 2-5 degree range due to global warming. But in an average day the temperature in any location varies by more then 30 or 40 degrees and over the course of a year by almost 100 degrees. So its hard to see a 2 to 3 degree change. Likewise, snow falls and floods may be natural variation or a new trend. My sense is that the tsunami, however, has almost nothing to do with climate change -- this is a geological event not a climatic one (altho perhaps new science may show they are related but I do not believe that has been shown yet). [end]

alexeis: THANK YOU RON. AMSU DO YOU HAVE AQUESTION?

Glotov: Thak you very much

Ron: One note -- in my degrees of temperature, I was using Fahrenheit (so you need to convert to Celsius) -- apologies for the American system of measures![end]

alexeis: OK, AMSU IS QUITE, SO WE MOVE TO SUSU, EDUARD, YOUR QUESTION PLEASE

Burnakov: In environmental science, there is a divide among scholars on many problems of climate change theory. Is it really a hard problem to understand? May our world be in danger merely because of the scientists' disagreement?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE. A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED. USU YOUR QUESTION IS NEXT

Tsarikaeva: Alexei, when is NOSU's turn, please?

alexeis: TSARIKAEVA: SORRY, YOU ARE NEXT WITH 2 QUESTIONS, SINCE YOU MISSED ONE ROUND

Ron: On Burnakov's Q, uncertainty and disagreement among scientists may indeed slow down policy action. The difficulty is that there are risks of action as well as risks of inaction. I think one important issue for scientists is how to demonstrate to policy makers the issues on which they agree. Scientists often agree on much but don't state that and focus on their disagreements and this can make it easy for policymakers to say "the scientists disagree so we don't need to do anything yet." But more often the scientists agree on quite a bit and have a basis for action and they could have more impact if they could tell that clearly to policymakers. It is also important for policymakers to figure out how to act when things are uncertain in a way that avoids catastrophic problems. The precautionary principle provides some guidance on these issues but it is difficult to implement well.[end]

alexeis: TANK YOU RON. QUESTION FROM NOSU PLEASE

Tsarikaeva: Thank you. Will the over-population be one of the main problems in fifty years?

Denisjuk: Hello, Ron!The question is from Petrozavodsk State University. What ways of encouraging different countries(both developing and developed)to work together in solving enviromental problems do you consider valid?I mean,we know that co-operation is important,but how to achieve it?Do we have to make countries to work together or should it be voluntary?Thank you.

Ron: On Tsarikaeva's Q, I am quite sure that overpopulation will be the major factor driving environmental problems for the foreseeable future. One thing I think about often is that we all get mad at others for not recycling, driving cars too much, or other environmentally "bad" behavior but notice how often people feel that something is wrong with them if they do not have children. Overpopulation comes from everyone feeling that having more children is a good thing. I think a big change will have to occur in how we think about the role of having children in the world. And that will run into conflict with many values people hold as very important and has implications for religion as well. So it will be an important issue to think carefully about in the future. We must control how many people we have as well as how much each person harms the environment.[end]

alexeis: TSARIKAEVA, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?

Tsarikaeva: Yes. Prof. Mitchel, why did you decide to take up EP as your main academic interest?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE. A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED. NEXT QUESTION WILL BE FROM: Denisjuk: Hello, Ron!The question is from Petrozavodsk State University. What ways of encouraging different countries(both developing and developed)to work together in solving enviromental problems do you consider valid?I mean,we know that co-operation is important,but how to achieve it?Do we have to make countries to work together or should it be voluntary?Thank you

Ron: I took up EP as my main interest, in a funny way, because I worked on nuclear weapons and conflict in the 1980s and when I got back to graduate school at Harvard it was around 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union meant that nuclear weapons issues were going to be of less importance. I had a good professor who encouraged me to work on international environmental issues very early on and I am very happy he did so. It is a small but very important and fun field to work in. [end] Now to Denisjuk's Q.

Ron: On Denisjuk's Q, I don't know that there is much alternative to voluntary cooperation. The US or any other very powerful country can try to force states to do certain things. But often it is more effective to use inducements -- an English saying is "you can attract more flies with honey." So, perhaps we can induce cooperation by offering financial assistance. I also think, however, that there are important ways to get environmental action that do not require governments to initiate them. Merck, the drug company, pays Costa Rica to preserve the rainforest so that Merck can use plants there as the basis for new drugs. NGOs started the notion of debt-for-nature swaps involving banks and governments protecting certain areas. There are many innovative people out there working for environmental protection without waiting for governments to take action. Governments ARE one important way but not the only one. So, I think we all need to figure out what each of us thinks is the best way to make the earth more sustainable and then spend our lives trying to work on that. I hope students in this course do that, whether at home, at work, or in whatever other ways they can and I hope they keep working on it for a long time.[end]

alexeis: QUESTION FROM SUSU PLEASE

alexeis: SORRY, USU PLEASE

alexeis: WE ARE BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL LINE UP

Goncharov: USU: is there any statistical evidence on everyday choices such as recycling, not wearing furs, 'green' consuming,etc making a difference in the economies and environments of Europe and North America?

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE. A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Kurganova: Saratov: Could we ask the question too? So we have to finish our participation in 9. The last time developed countries place the toxic production in the third world countries. Do you know any measures what state or nonstate actors assume for environment defence there? From what countries [developed or developing] its come?

alexeis: OK, GONCHAROV'S QUESTION, THEN KURGANOVA. THEN WE HAVE TIME FOR TWO MORE QUESTIONS

Ron: On Goncharov, I don't know about statistical evidence -- I don't imagine there is much. But my guess (just a guess) is that much of these things do not make very much difference. I don't know the numbers at all but even in my own life, I don't think the "environmental" choices I make really make a huge difference. I am a typical American in many ways and I consume many things that most people in the world do not. So my consumption is very high and even if I reduce it or recycle 10 percent or so, it is still probably very much higher than almost anyone in Africa, Latin America or even most of Europe or Asia. Americans are particularly large consumers and so us "cutting back" still leaves us having more negative impacts than most people. That is not a good story but I think it may well be true. [end] and on to Kurganova.

Glotov: One more question from NOSU, please. Adding to Kurganova's question. Who regulates moving radioactive wastes from one countries to another?

Ron: On Kurganova, I don't know much about environmental protection in developing countries but there are some groups in those countries, including lawyers and NGOs who are doing many things to help protect their own people's from being exploited as they have been in the past. Unfortunately, they do not have much power or money and so it is difficult for them much impact, but they are "fighting the good fight" and may well be doing more to protect the environment and people than many others in the world. [end]

alexeis: OK, NOW THE QUESTION FROM KURGANOVA IS ANSWERED WITH A FOLOOW UP FROM GLOTOV

Ron: Radioactive wastes are regulated under several environmental treaties and several arms control treaties as well. Since radioactive waste involves nuclear material, IAEA gets involved as well. [end]

alexeis: QUESTION FROM YAROSLAVL AND MOSCOW PLEASE. THESE WILL HAVE TO BE THE LAST QUESTIONS

Subochev: MOSCOW Do you think that among different kinds of terrorism ecological terrorism (terrorist activity promoted by environmentalist groups) is a real problem now? Could you give some examples of eco-terrorism?

Glotov: Thank you, Ron.

alexeis: PLEASE REMAIN QUITE. A QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Zherikhina: In what areas of environmental and ecological problems Russia and USA may collaborate? Do you see some priorities directions in this collaboration?

Ron: Eco-terrorism is not a very common or large problem (and my guess is less of one since Sept 11 because they don't want to be aligned with such actions). Some recent examples in the US of eco-terrorism are the burning of several large cars (SUVs) at an automobile seller and the burning down of a large housing development in Colorado (I believe). If you want to read more about this, in a sort of fun way, read Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang" which talks about eco-terrorism which is also called "monkey-wrenching" (as an English idiom). [end]

Ron: I think there are numerous ways the US and Russia can cooperate environmentally. On climate change to be sure, but also on radioactive waste, on acid precipitation, on GMOs, on deforestation of temperate and boreal forests, of nitrogen fixing in soil due to agriculture. There are numerous areas for working together, either thru our governments or thru NGOs or people working together. And there is a long history of this. One of the first environmental treaties ever signed was the 1911 Fur Seal treaty (yes, 1911!) and this treaty was VERY successful at helping the fur seal population recover. So, it is good to end on a positive and optimistic note that we can solve some environmental problems. And it is good to both learn from those positive experiences and feel optimistic knowing that we may be able to solve these many problems we face.[end]

Zherikhina: In what areas of environmental and ecological problems Russia and USA may collaborate? Do you see some priorities directions in this collaboration?

alexeis: THANK YOU, RON FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT. I THINK THAT MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED DURING TODAY'S CHAT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND TO THE STUDENTS AND FACULTY THAT WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER CHAT WITH PROF. MITCHELL ON APRIL 13TH (MT) AT 8 AM. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL WHO PARTICIPATED IN TODAYS CHAT. HOPE YOU ENJOED IT AS I DID. THE LOG OF THE CHAT WILL BE SOON POSTED ON THE IDL'S WEBSITE. FROM MOSCOW-- GOOD BYE ALL!

Zherikhina: Sorry

Ershova: Good Bye from Yaroslavl, thank you for your answers, Ron!

Subochev: Professor, colleagues, thank you very much for a really nice talk. Buy from Moscow!

Sivova: Thank you for the interesting answers.

Smirnova: Thank you very much, Ron, for an interesting chat.

Tsarikaeva: Thank you so much, Prof. Mitchel! Bye everyone!

Goncharov: Thanks to everyone for a nice chat from USU

Ron: Thanks to all -- this was fun. VERY interesting and challenging questions from all of you. I hope you continue to work on these issues and help make the world more environmentally friendly. Best and thank you for an enjoyable evening (evening for me - morning for you!). Bye. Ron.[end][end][end]

Glotov: Thanks to everybody from Vladikavkaz! Good bye!

Kharlamov: Thank you, Professor!

Sivova: Thanks to everyone!!!

Back to other news