About a year ago, the Norwegian nonprofit organization Miljostiftelsen Bellona published a report titled “The Russian Arctic: Defense and Money over Ecology” on the Russian version of its website. The organization blamed Russia for the lack of transparency of the work carried out in the region, as well as for the difficulties that the Arctic Council countries have in exchanging scientific, environmental and other critical information. The report also expressed concern that the decline in scientific cooperation in the Arctic is increasing the risks of disasters in the region.
We cannot disagree with the last statement. Scientific cooperation in the Arctic is very necessary. But it is strange to reproach Russia that it doesn’t cooperate with the other members of the Arctic Council because the very members wanted not to communicate with the biggest Arctic country. Meanwhile, Russian scientists don’t stop studying the region even after that. For example, while Bellona made its lie report, the scientists from Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the RAS were conducting a big study on the risk for plant ecosystems of the Russian Arctic from atmospheric pollution in a changing climate.
This study is one of the biggest researches in this field. The scientists have analyzed data of each ecosystem of the Russian Arctic zone since 1980. Moreover, they predicted the risks for various plant species in the studied ecosystems for 25 years ahead. The data have not been hidden from the public or from scientists in other countries. They are available, though, so far only in Russian. Yes, they are available, and the fact that the information cannot be read in the West because of ignorance of the language or refusal to cooperate with Russian scientists is not Russia’s fault. Bellona, in its turn, didn’t report about that due to the incompetence of its experts or working off one’s order.
But if we are talking about the study of environmental risks for the Arctic zone, Canadian and American environmentalists should pay special attention to this study. According to the data obtained by the Russians, decrease in ecological risks for the plants of the Chukotka zone is not predicted in the next 25 years. The Chukotka region of the whole Russian Arctic is particularly close in different criteria to the Arctic regions of the United States and Canada where there are problems with pastures for caribou. For example, in the Canadian province of British Columbia, three copper mining operators are causing deadly damage to lichens, which are the main food for the caribou population. In Alaska, the ecosystem is also in danger again. Democrats overturned ex-President Trump’s decision to allow hydrocarbon extraction in the peninsula’s protected areas. But in November, there are new presidential elections in the USA, and it may happen that Trump will go to the White House again, and then he will annul Biden’s ban. The caribou population will be at risk once again. To assess the future of this reindeer species, scientists in the USA and Canada should know the forecasts of risks to lichens in Chukotka. Perhaps this study can help Americans and Canadians in assessing the dangers to the caribou live-stock.
This shows that all Arctic states should closely cooperate with each other on environmental issues in the Arctic despite any political disagreements. Important work that Russian scientists are doing in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation must be available for every country, not only for the domestic scientists in audience. Because of the biggest territory of the Russian Arctic, it is the Russians who have a unique opportunity to study Arctic nature in all its diversity and share the results with foreign colleagues. Such result will be interesting for any Arctic state.
Organizations like Bellona, on the contrary, should be paid attention to. They only do harm and not protect Arctic nature by pushing false narratives, they not only deceive their audiences, but also bereave the scientific community of valuable data that could be a powerful argument in the fight to preserve Arctic ecosystems.
Fig. 1. Distribution of a single normalized risk from SO2 atmospheric pollution for various plants in the regions of the Russian arctic for 1980, 2020 and 20250, taking into account climate scenarios (RPC 4.5 and RPC 8.5 are two base scenarios)
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.