I have tried many times to understand why I became involved in ecology. Why I threw everything rushed to organize to implement dozens of environmental projects around the world — from Antarctica and the Arctic to Colombia and North Africa, why I suddenly realized that what is engaged in ecology at the moment is much wider than just environmental issues. And speaking of "environmental risks" it is necessary to take into account the risks that lie in the adjacent disciplinary spaces: sociology, Economics, education, regulation and management of industrial technologies, energy, as well as in the blocks governing the emotional and cultural development of any social unit, including Philology, philosophy, history, art and architecture.
After all, it does not seem funny, but it so happened that now the world environment has become one of the dominant factors influencing the emotional atmosphere of society. That is, in fact, ecology is now the most important mechanism of political and social influence.
After all, now in the world, if we exclude direct political and military technologies of influence, as well as leave out direct propaganda, there are several mechanisms that can have a significant impact on the global balance of power in any society under any political system. Actually, if you simplify, there are only three such mechanisms:
Mass-cult (including mass-market and pop culture from music and movies to clubs of Housewives) — in fact, being a mechanism of soft propaganda, has a significant psychological disciplinary impact on the adoption of mass consciousness of the necessary settings.
Sport — also, long established as a propaganda tool, can not only influence serious changes in Patriotic sentiments on a national scale, but also is a stable mechanism of direct political pressure. The situation with WADA and the Russian Olympic team at the last Games is only confirmation of this, but it all began long ago and now this tool is simply developing and progressing in its methods of influence.
And finally, Ecology — it has a global impact on any geopolitical processes: from legislative and regulatory international acts (for example, as approved in December 2015 in the framework of the Paris summit on climate change, the so-called "Paris agreement", which, in fact, determined the overall development of the planet's economy for the next 25-50 years, as the next few years, all the States of the world have committed to subsidize the development of various "green" technologies and this, according to the laid plan, should be one of the main drivers of new economic growth, and in fact, is limiting the development of some and promoting other players in the international geopolitical arena) to "bleaching" of political and business figures and their removal in the "supranational" field.
But mass culture and sport have long been monetized and divided into spheres of responsibility and influence mechanisms. And the environment - not so long ago originated tool - is less frequently used and less active in big politics. For a long time ecology has been considered a refuge for political outcasts, "freaks", moderate and not too moderate left and only now serious politicians began to understand how this is a serious mechanism of influence. Already now we can see how almost all the leading world powers, with the support of corporations, have significantly increased their activities in the development of new environmental technologies and new rules of international law governing the use of any technology within the framework of new, environmental standards, which, in turn, are also not formed from the air and pursue, most often, corporate goals. In fact, we see the formation of environmental "star wars", which, later, will bring the most successful participants in the process not only new technologies, but will provide, with the help of new rules of international law, the ability to control the vector of development of other participants in the civilizational process. After all, as you know, only the one who sets the rules of the game can win. And there is no need to go far for examples here – the fact that now in such a distant 1945 Andrei Gromyko managed to write most of the main UN installations and push the right of any member of the security Council – that is, including the USSR - to veto still gives us the opportunity to qualitatively influence global political and economic processes. Similar processes will now be observed in the segment of international law that regulates environmental problems.
And it's not conspiracy. It's just a mechanism of influence on the emotional background of society. Easily run and banal controlled.
And guaranteeing control over separate local both territorial, and economic zones.
Now — and there is absolutely nothing to hide — the globalization of many processes in the world has reached a more than tangible scale. It is known that two thirds of the consolidated budget is in financial and economic centers. The power of individual segments (state, region or city — whatever) of the financial map of the world, with each stage of globalization, is increasingly dependent on revenues from local industry and the ability to negotiate with it. So there are few mechanisms of influence on the internal agenda, few tools that work with local elites. The threads that can be manipulated by local businesses and the mechanisms for implementing local strategies are lost.
But ecology — ecology remains a mechanism that helps local authorities on the one hand to regulate the emotional background in the segment, and on the other — to negotiate with the population, business and economic center. Ecology is essentially a mechanism of regional regulation, an argument for global agreements and image positioning of power at any level. Who controls the environmental agenda can control many processes.
At the same time, the lack of tools to regulate the environmental agenda ensures the stagnation of the region's development in the medium term.
Aggravated (real or artificial — it does not matter) environmental problems entail a series of related troubles. Tourist failure, leaving the region's most highly qualified personnel, reducing the overall moral and ethical background ("if the government allows us to poison what I will hesitate to throw garbage out the window?"), reducing the level of the cultural field ("it's funny to think about classical music in the trash...") and as a result — the fall of the region not only in fictional ratings, but also in the real economic and political field.
And these are only the most basic and visible risks that have to be taken into account in the development of even an intermediate strategy.
And I still don't fully understand why I started doing all this. Why is this a very painful question for me and why am I trying to fix the situation.
The fact is that I am doing this and my point of view is being listened to in many countries.
I cooperate with many environmental centers, but in Russia, for the most part, it is all confined to the research center Ecology.Expert
Go to Ecology.Expert