Poisoning and Coverup in Sunny Tuapse

The Moscow Times reports:

A toxic fertilizer spill has caused unprecedented protests in Tuapse, which is located 110 kilometers north of Sochi, pictured in this file photo. Sochi and neighboring areas will host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games.

A toxic fertilizer spill in Tuapse, Krasnodar region, has sparked unprecedented protests in the small seaside town, with locals venting their rage at development that they say is putting their lives and health in danger.

About 3,000 residents of Tuapse, located just 110 kilometers north of Sochi, which will host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games, rallied in protest on Saturday. They called for a fertilizer shipping terminal, owned by fertilizer giant EuroChem, to be shut down.

In March, a spill at the centrally located terminal, which is still not officially operational, blanketed the town in fertilizer dust, leading to a spike in respiratory problems throughout the town, locals said.

Russians desperate for Toilet Paper: Won’t you help?

Paul Goble reports:

In the latest test of the old notion that those in power can survive almost anything except being laughed at, environmental activists in Moscow and St. Petersburg plan to collect toilet paper for Vladimir Putin since he apparently feels Russia has too little of it and is prepared to allow Lake Baikal to be contaminated in order to produce more.

On March 27th “For Baikal,” a coalition of Russian public organizations that seek to defend that environmental wonder from being contaminated by the restarting of the Baikalsk paper mill on its shores, staged demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg to call attention to this issue.

The demands the group raised were not new. They seek to prevent the Baikalsk plant from sending waste products into Lake Baikal, to find alternative jobs for any workers displaced if the plant is closed permanently, and to prevent the burial of nuclear wastes in the region under the terms of a plan approved by Putin earlier this year. But in order to attract attention to their demands, organizers are calling on all those who will take back to bring not only “a good attitude” and posters or banners in defense of Lake Baikal but also “a roll of toilet paper” because Putin and his regime have suggested that the Baikalsk plant must be allowed to operate because Russia lacks enough of that essential product.

Toxic Russia, Destroying itself and the World

The United Nations and the IOC are both condemning Russia’s appalling environmental butchery of the Sochi region as it is raped in preparation for the Olympics.  Paul Goble reports:

Thursday, Russia’s Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak appealed to ecologists “not to block” the construction of facilities for the Sochi Olympic Games now planned for 2014, the latest indication of the way in which Moscow has found itself under pressure from environmental activists.

Kozak told a session of the inter-agency commission preparing for the games that UN experts had not found “major ecological problems” in their study of the environment around Sochi and that Russian ecologists should accept their conclusions rather than take steps to prevent construction from going forward

As Kommersant reported, environmentalists were not impressed by Kozak’s remarks. Igor Chestin, director of the World Wildlife Fund of Russia, said that he “does not understand how Russian ecologists can ‘block’ the Olympic project; we simply don’t have such power.”

But the situation in Sochi is a matter of deep concern, he continued, because “the ecology of the region has already suffered and now one can talk only about minimizing harm,” given that the government’s current approach, if it continues unchanged “will lead to a catastrophe with human victims.”

Putin Gives Russia an Environmental Nightmare

Reuters reports:

Pesticides still poison people in the ex-Soviet Union almost two decades after the fall of the Communist superpower when farm managers liberally sprayed chemicals over fields, an environmentalist said in an interview.

Olga Speranskaya — who won an international award last week for her push to clean up the Soviet Union’s toxic legacy — also said the global economic crisis had diverted cash from cleaning up chemical waste, including from Soviet-era factories. “There is a lot of concern about toxic contamination. It’s getting worse and especially because of this financial crisis,” she told Reuters by telephone. “Our governments show a lack of political will to tackle chemical contamination and now they have one more excuse because of the financial crisis.”

Russia’s ecology ministry declined to comment.

Toxic Russia

Russian reporter Anastasia Ustinova reports in the San Fransisco Chronicle on Russia’s catastrophic envirnmental nightmare and courageous Russian who dares to demand better from the Kremlin:

The residents of Chapaevsk, a city in Central Russia, say the lakes near local chemical factories are dead from toxic waste, no longer freeze and contaminate the town’s water supply.

In the western Russian city of Dzerdjinsk, the mortality rate of children and adolescents is 50 percent higher than the national average because of pollution from chemical plants. The city is one of the world’s 10 most-polluted places, according to the Blacksmith Institute, a consulting firm in New York.

Such environmental disasters are well-known thanks to Olga Speranskaya, a petite, 46-year-old physicist who is the driving force behind a nongovernmental group that works to identify, reduce and safely store chemical stockpiles in Russia and the republics of the former Soviet Union. For her tireless work, she is being honored with the Goldman Environmental Prize.

Annals of Russia’s Nuclear Nightmare

Thinking of visiting Moscow, or even moving there? Best think again, my friend, best think again. The Moscow Times reports:

What many children in a densely populated eastern Moscow suburb used to think of as a good little hill to play and toboggan on has turned out to be a radioactive waste dump — one that local residents and ecologists say could spill over and contaminate a larger area.

The radiation-emitting dump on Bulvar Marshala Rokossovskogo, which was unearthed during incomplete cleanup works, poses a danger to Muscovites, said Vladimir Chuprov, head of Greenpeace Russia’s Energy Unit. He said the works, suspended half a year ago, were not done properly, leaving the site in a potentially dangerous state.

“The bad news is that the water has flowed in,” Chuprov said. “This water might contain radioactive materials. Liquid is much more difficult to recover and keep from spreading.”

Russia’s Toxic Rivers

The Chicago Tribune reports:

Igor Shopen jabbed a branch into the edge of the Volga River, a stone’s throw from the Saratov Oil Refinery’s rust-covered storage tanks. In a matter of seconds, black crude billowed from the riverbed like ink from a squid.

In the air, the scent of oil hung thick and heavy. Along the shore, piles of picnic trash dotted the beach. Tossing the stick onto the brown-black sand, Shopen’s voice quavered as he sized up the fate of a river long revered as a gateway into the soul of Russia.

“What we face here now is the question of ecological collapse—the question of life or death of the environment here,” said Shopen, a local environmentalist who as a boy spent his summers swimming in the Volga. “I am proud of this great river and I want it to remain great after I’m gone.”

The river that Russians call Mother Volga has been the country’s lifeblood for centuries, as beloved here as the Mississippi is in the U.S.

Today, however, segments of the Volga serve as little more than ashcans for riverside factories that are pushing the river toward the brink of environmental ruin. Russian scientists estimate that a third of the country’s wastewater gets dumped into the Volga basin, and much of that water is poorly filtered.

“In recent years, industrial activity has been on the rise in Russia, and that’s very dangerous because the wastewater-cleaning facilities at industrial plants date back to Soviet times,” said Galina Chernogayeva, a scientist at the Institute for Global Climate and Ecology, which studies water pollution in Russia. “They need modernization.”

Legacy of ruin

Historically, Russia has never been a good guardian of its environment.

During the Cold War, large-scale radiation discharges at weapons manufacturing facilities in central Russia and Siberia were hushed up for years by Soviet authorities. Cancer rates have risen dramatically in villages along the Techa River in the Ural Mountains, not far from a plutonium plant that for decades secretly dumped more than 20 billion gallons of radioactive waste into the river. Along the Barents Sea and the country’s eastern Pacific coast, submarines containing nuclear fuel rust in ports, awaiting dismantling.

Under former President Vladimir Putin, the country rebounded on the back of booming oil prices but failed to steer any of that newfound wealth toward safeguarding the environment. Now, authorities say, Russia cannot afford to ignore the health of its waterways much longer.

Putin’s handpicked successor, President Dmitry Medvedev, said that if the country continues to neglect its environment, “in 10, 20 or 30 years we may find ourselves in a situation when part of the country’s territory will be unfit for living.”

“Environmental protection,” Medvedev told law students in St. Petersburg in June, “is a question of national security.”

Some of Russia’s most iconic bodies of water are also its most endangered. For 40 years, a paper mill in east Siberia has been dumping chlorine and other contaminants into Lake Baikal, the world’s largest and deepest freshwater lake. Siberia’s Ob and Amur Rivers are also heavily polluted, scientists say.

Filth and hope

But it’s the Volga that may be the country’s most abused waterway.

Europe’s longest river, the 2,300-mile Volga begins in the Valdai Hills north of Moscow and meanders through the dense birch woodlands of central Russia before emptying into the Caspian Sea. During the Soviet era, the country’s military-industrial complex freely polluted the Volga for decades while it rushed to meet Moscow’s production quotas. In the name of industrialization, the river was dammed in places, creating large reservoirs that slowed water flow and allowed pollutants to accumulate.

The Volga can still be saved, environmentalists say, but time is running out. A pollution study released by Chernogayeva’s institute last year found that most of the water in the Volga basin could be characterized either as “contaminated” or “dirty,” a designation based on an analysis of the type and severity of pollution found in samples.

At the river’s delta near the city of Astrakhan, pollution from nearby factories and farms is causing algae blooms that rob fish stocks and the region’s wetland wildlife of oxygen, “dramatically affecting the ecosystem of the river there,” said Valentina Bryzgalo, chief researcher at the Hydrochemical Institute in Rostov-on-Don.

‘The refinery is so old’

Tributaries that feed into the Volga aggravate the river’s plight. The city of Chapayevsk on the Chapayevka River, a Volga tributary, is so polluted with dioxins and other contaminants that the mayor has proposed shutting down the city and resettling its 70,000 inhabitants.

In Saratov, a refinery has been polluting the Volga since it began operation in 1920, said Shopen, who heads the Saratov branch of Green Patrol, a Russian environmentalist group. Collection ponds just 50 yards from the river bank are coal-black with oil contamination.

“The problem is that the refinery is so old, and its condition is far from perfect,” Shopen says. “So some of the oil just seeps into the ground or collects in these ponds, and groundwater underneath carries the oil into the river.”

At a refinery outfall that empties into the river, the water is black and viscous. A small plastic barrier installed by the refinery’s owner, TNK-BP, helps contain the oil-contaminated water, but during spring rains, it overflows and streams toward the river, Shopen says. TNK-BP placed the boom there three weeks ago at Green Patrol’s urging; before, only a swatch of fabric was used to contain the oil.

Locals say the segment of the Volga that flows past Saratov used to teem with fish. Today, says Viktor Matarkulov, a 58-year-old railway worker, “there’s very little fish, and the fish we catch smells of oil. If we go on abusing the Volga like this, there won’t be any fish left at all.”

On a recent cloudless afternoon, Alexei Nefyodov, 17, and Dmitry Lesin, 15, did backflips off of a pile of old tires stacked in the water. When they were done, they said they would do what they always do—head home and shower off the film of oil.

“All of the oil here worries us,” shrugged Nefyodov as he toweled himself off. “But we’ve got no other place to swim.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia: Carbon King

The Moscow News reports:

Selling mortgages to people who can’t pay them back turned out to be a bad way of doing business in the long run. But inflated credit rates are nothing compared to the droughts, plagues, floods, forest fires and general death and destruction which may be the long-term effects of companies churning out carbon emissions with no thought to their long-term impact on the environment. This lack of foresight could lead to the most wide-ranging market failure ever according to Lord Nicholas Stern, author of an influential economic report on global warming, who will be speaking at this year’s Forum. And while Russia’s emissions are lower than Kyoto treaty targets, Russia remains one of the least energy efficient economies in the world. Worse still there is evidence that Russia is bearing the brunt of global climate change.

Stern’s review provides an apocalyptic account of the dangers of global warming; asserting that governments and businesses must act now to combat climate change or face devastating economic consequences. The report predicts that a rise of five degrees Celsius in the average global temperature could result in a loss of up to 10 percent of global output while the extreme weather patterns associated with such a rise could cost up to 1 percent of GDP.

This rise could happen within the next few decades according to a recent assessment made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which predicts a warming of about 0.2°C per decade for next two decades. Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years since records began in 1850.

There is evidence that Russia is already suffering from the changing global climate; the annual number of natural disasters, such as floods and forest fires, in the country has doubled since the mid 1990s leading to an annual loss of between 2 and 4 percent of GDP.

In 2004 the Russian government formally recognized the growing problem of climate change by signing up to the Kyoto treaty, which aims to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries to 5.2 percent below what they were in 1990. Russia’s current emission levels are well below the quota set for the country under the treaty. However this apparent success disguises the fact that Russia remains the third biggest air in the world polluter after China and the U.S.

The main reason why Russia has been able to keep to emissions targets is because the collapse of the economy in the 1990s led to a massive decline in industry and therefore carbon emissions and the country is only beginning to catch up:

“Russia has 27 percent less emissions than it had in 1990s,” Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy department of Greenpeace, told The Mos­cow News.

“But it is predicted to produce 2.4 billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2025 which means that Russia will not decrease its emissions but just use the quota it received after the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Swamped with natural oil and gas resources, it is understandable why energy efficiency has not been high on the agenda for Russia. But as the country’s domestic fuel consumption steadily increases in step with the rise in GDP, action will need to be taken in the Russian energy sector in order to meet both its domestic needs and its export obligations.

Director Jeroen Ketting, director of Lighthouse Energy Investments, a group which carries out energy efficiency, heat and power generation projects in Russia, told The Moscow News:

“Russia uses three to four times more energy per produced dollar of GDP than other industrialized countries, and industrial production and thus energy consumption is increasing. But 50 percent of industrial equipment installed is old and inefficient and the energy infrastructure is deteriorating. Moreover, Russia has a lot of gas and oil reserves but its capacity to produce and to transport oil and gas are limited. With increasing domestic and international demand and with existing export commitments Russia’s energy household is stretched to its very limits.”

There is a worry that Russia will try to fill this energy shortfall in the same way that China has; by increasing the use of coal in the energy mix. This would come as a blow to environmentalists as burning coal seriously affects both the climate and human health. Just one 150-megawatt coal-fired power plant produces more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year; the amount that 300,000 cars would produce. The large quantities of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that these plants produce have also been shown to cause respiratory problems and even premature death.

Russia is currently planning to triple the share of coal in the energy mix so that the amount of coal burnt will grow to between 150 million and 290 million tons of coal per year by 2020. This switch to coal to meet domestic energy demands is expected to boost the Russian economy by 30 percent but could lead to serious problems for the Russian population:

“The new coal-fired power plants will be constructed near consumers, near big cities, and some scientists are forecasting a dramatic growth in extra mortality rates. There is currently no real strategy for avoiding the growth of sulfuric and nitrous pollutants that will be emitted from these plants,” said Chuprov.

However, as Europe has demonstrated, there is a way for economic growth to go hand in hand with a decline in greenhouse emissions if significant energy saving policies are introduced. CO2 emissions in Central Europe fell by over 43 percent in relation to GDP between 1990 and 2002 through implementing such measures, according to figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The Russian government has calculated that the country could save up to 40 percent of its current annual energy consumption through improved efficiency.

Converting to energy efficient technology can be costly but fortunately Russia can receive financial help to cover these costs under the Kyoto agreement. This allows countries to lower the costs of meeting their own emissions targets by investing in greenhouse gas reductions in other countries where reductions are cheaper through Joint Implementation (J.I.) projects.

Russia has the largest potential for generating carbon credits through of all Kyoto signatories, according to IFC international, a company which provides energy consulting to governments.

“In principle the potential for J.I. projects in Russia is huge,” explained Morten Prehn, Director of Core Car­bon Group which currently leads the supply of Russian emission reductions to the international market.

“We support the type of investments that have good long-term benefits for Russia and we are also willing to take a risk in providing the capital for implementing some of these projects,” said Prehn.

Several J.I. projects are already successfully underway in Russia including a project supported by the Russian Carbon Fund (an investment company backed by Merrill Lynch & Co.) to cut greenhouse-gas emissions at a plant owned by Russia’s biggest producer of phosphate fertilizer. But according to the Stern report one percent of GDP needs to be invested annually in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change and so far Russia is still a long way from reaching this figure:

“Formally the government recognizes the need for enhancing energy efficiency but in practice very little effective action is undertaken,” Ketting said.

“Also among big business the need for energy efficiency is not sufficiently recognized. In a country where money is easily made selling off national assets on the cheap the understanding that a ruble saved is a ruble earned is still far away.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Stories of True Russian Patriots: Fighting for the Environment

UTNE Blogs reports:

Civil society in Russia has withered since its post-perestroika heyday. Controls on nongovernmental organizations have tightened, independent media have disappeared, and bureaucratic corruption persists. These conditions, along with the Soviet legacy of an industry-first, environment-be-damned development approach, make Russian environmental protection and restoration daunting. Russian biologist Marina Rikhvanova is undeterred.

Rikhvanova was one of six winners of the prestigious 2008 Goldman Environmental Prize announced Monday, recognized for her grassroots activism protecting Siberia’s Lake Baikal. Baikal, the world’s oldest and deepest freshwater lake, is home to 1,700 unique plant and animal species. In Soviet times, a pulp mill damaged the lake’s ecosystem by pumping pollution into its water. In 1996, UNESCO noted concern about the lake’s pollution when it declared Baikal a World Heritage Site.

Rikhvanova works with her organization, Baikal Environmental Wave, to protect the lake and its environs through letter-writing, marches, protests, and collaboration with international volunteers. Her most visible victory was the culmination of a four-year campaign against an oil pipeline that would have come within a half-mile of Lake Baikal. She and volunteers gathered more than 20,000 signatures to oppose the proposed pipeline route. In 2006, Rikhvanova led thousands of Russians into the streets of the city of Irkutsk to protest. Soon after, President Vladimir Putin ordered the pipeline to be rerouted. Rikhvanova’s recent efforts have focused on opposing nuclear enrichment and power plants that would threaten Baikal.

Utne.com talked with Rikhvanova about her work and winning the Goldman Prize.

How will the Goldman Prize help your work?

This award will help most importantly my office, my organization, and the environmental movement in the Baikal region to help protect the lake. But even more importantly, this award raises the visibility of our work, and people [in the government] will listen to us more now that I have won this award.

How do you think President-elect Dmitry Medvedev will treat environmental issues?

We’ll see what happens. But I can say that Medvedev in a recent speech did talk about environmental concerns and that they are worth addressing. Unfortunately, often words are not the same as actions.

You’ve talked about the need to improve the parks and preserves surrounding Lake Baikal. How can they be improved?

Unfortunately, the status of these protected areas is pretty weak today in Russia. There isn’t the legal system and the regulations needed to ensure their strength and longevity. Unfortunately, people who have their own self-interest and material gain in mind often achieve the post of directors of these protected areas and exploit the resources of these protected areas to their own gain rather than putting their first priority as protecting the land and the lake.

Who are your strongest supporters among the Russian public?

Everyone supports us from the smallest to the oldest. But if we’re talking about numbers, our greatest numbers of participants come from youth and the elderly because they have free time they can give to the work. The elderly are thinking already about the kind of world they’re leaving their descendants, their children, and grandchildren. And the youth are very active and very creative.

Control of nongovernmentnal organizations has tightened in Russia in recent years, and there’s suspicion of organizations with foreign ties. What is the role of international participants in your organization?

The suspicions are there and the attitude in the government is strange right now, but it doesn’t matter. International participation in our work is still very important.

We have amazing international volunteers. Sometimes our volunteers even come up with their own projects. For example, there’s a woman who’s working with us through the Tahoe-Baikal Institute and she came up with the idea of doing a summer school for children. The kids spent two summers at the school and had a great time. These were underprivileged kids who otherwise would not have had an opportunity to go to Lake Baikal. They were very happy.

Is tourism to the Baikal area helpful or harmful?

It helps and harms at the same time. On the one hand, tourism is a source of income for local residents. On the other hand, it’s sort of a wild, uncontrolled, unregulated development. And we need to be setting aside areas that are exempt from development.

Last year we started a competition to find the best places to develop tourism and to promote those places specifically to contain the tourism. One interesting result is that we’re seeing some people who used to work in some of the protected areas, the preserves and the reserves, as well as some former foresters, go into the tourism business. They’re able to practice different methods to, for example, attract wild birds to their territory and other species to make it a more attractive place for tourists.

I’ve been really pleasantly surprised by interest from business, and overall my impression is that the tourism industry and many people involved want to ensure sustainable tourism. Of course I can’t say that everyone is like that, but there are people like that.

What were the most effective forms of activism for your organization?

To be diverse in one’s actions. Because people get sick of the same format of action, and the mass media are not going to pay attention if we do the same kind of meetings and actions week after week. Therefore, we try to conduct lots of different kinds of events. Not long ago we organized a walk across Lake Baikal. We did a concert on April Fool’s Day.

What is the biggest environmental threat in Russia today?

The biggest problem in Russia today is the convergence of business and government. Business works hand in hand with the federal government to exploit natural resources. And they act without fear of punishment.

Another question has to do with pollution, essentially the remains of industrial development in Soviet times. Also, there’s just no economic incentive for businesses to promote energy efficiency and to promote greener practices and to minimize waste produced.

Another problem is there’s no independent legal system in Russia. We really need an independent court system. Then we could actually force people to answer for their actions that destroy the environment.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia’s Dirty Joke

Transitions Online reports that the Russian “government’s approach to Baltic pollution has environmentalists and other nations wringing their hands.” The Russian people are silent and craven, as usual.

Fishing in water so polluted that it comes in several colors does not much worry Alexander. He has a favorite spot, on the Vyborgskaya embankment not far from his home in northern St. Petersburg. For him it’s the perfect escape from a job where he scrapes out a living sorting fruits and vegetables in a warehouse. He reckons the industrial waste and pollutants than end up in the Neva River can’t be all that dangerous.

“If the fish were poisonous, I would’ve died a long time ago,” he said.

Every day in St. Petersburg, 3 million tons of waste water flow into the Neva, which cuts through the city. Two-thirds of it is untreated, according to Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg branch of Greenpeace.

He concedes that most city residents, like Alexander, either don’t care or don’t know about the state of the water. But he warns that the river contains dyes, oils, and a variety of chemicals, illegally pumped in from industrial plants.

“Even if the water looks clean, with no obvious oily patches, don’t trust your eyes. They just don’t give you the whole picture,” he said. “The Neva is fast-flowing, so if you throw something into it at night it’ll be far away by morning.”

OLD CITY AND THE SEA

Perhaps, even, somewhere in the Baltic Sea. St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, is the biggest single polluter of the sea, one of the most contaminated in the world, according to ecologists. And many tons of untreated sewage flow straight into the Baltic from the Neva.

According to St. Petersburg City Hall’s annual report for 2007, 40 percent of the sewage and industrial waste originating in the city – the highest level in the past 15 years – went directly into the Neva and the Gulf of Finland, owing to a shortage of waste treatment facilities. And that figure does not include illegal discharges.

Only three years ago city authorities said just 25 percent of untreated waste was being pumped into the river.

“The likeliest reason behind growing volumes of industrial waste is corruption,” Artamonov said. “Since 2000, the amount of unauthorized industrial discharge has grown despite the fact that this is illegal and could lead to the temporary suspension of all operations by the company responsible, until they stop or install a proper filtration system.”

And, he suggests, fines for illegal discharges are having little or no impact on the problem.

“The companies prefer to pay fines of anything between 20,000 and 40,000 rubles ($850 to $1,700) rather than install much more expensive filtration systems,” said Vera Izmailova, spokeswoman for Vodokanal, the St. Petersburg government’s water-treatment monopoly. “Fines need to be increased drastically and economic sanctions must be used against companies that breach environmental standards.”

In January, Vodokanal was fined 40,000 rubles by the local branch of State Environmental Protection Watch, a regulatory body, after it discovered illegal discharges of uncertain origins in the Okhta River. The agency was called in after Vodokanal had been unable to pinpoint the source of the discharges.

But the watchdog body is regarded by environmental campaigners as virtually toothless. The head of its St Petersburg branch, Sergei Yermolov, said his office has only four inspectors and no legal right to initiate an inspection.

“An inspection can only be prompted by an official report about a discharge. We’re not allowed to just show up at a factory and demand that they install a filtration system,” Yermolov said.

Fish from the River Neva are regularly sold by private vendors in city markets or in the streets. However Alexei Kiselyov, head of Greenpeace’s toxicology program, said its activists have regularly found seriously contaminated fish in the river. He argues that if such fish were detected in European Union countries, they would be condemned as unfit for human consumption.

Greenpeace sends specimens to its own laboratories in Exeter, England, for testing. Kiselyov said those tests have uncovered high concentrations of poisons such arsenic, lead, and copper.

For several years, local environmentalists have asked the St. Petersburg governor, Valentina Matviyenko, to go with them on one of their water patrols, but they say she has yet to accept such an invitation.

Matviyenko has never publicly conceded that the scale of the problem is as great as the environmentalists claim. Indeed, her speeches on the subject since she took the office in 2004 have been optimistic.

“St. Petersburg strives to reach European standards in all spheres of life, and with regard to ecology we are very close to our goal,” Matviyenko told reporters in 2007 during the inauguration of an industrial waste incinerator. “We perceive the Baltic Sea as a territory of friendship, and the city will do everything possible to make its waters clean.”

But environmental groups have long criticized the St. Petersburg government for failing to build more water treatment facilities or an additional sewage collector and for not putting enough pressure on industrial companies to install filtration systems.

Nationwide, ecology does not appear to be a priority, either. Soon after President Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the Russian government closed the Environment Ministry and transferred its responsibilities to the new Natural Resources Ministry, which is also in charge of exploiting the country’s natural resources.

Ecologists from countries around the Baltic Sea express frustration at what they see as the lack of measures in Russia to safeguard the environment.

St. Petersburg’s City Hall’s program for environmental safety in 2008-2012, which classified the Neva as “moderately polluted,” contains no budget for a new water treatment facility.
Greenpeace says its research suggests concentrations of copper in the city’s main waterway are 73 times, and manganese 26 times, the levels considered safe by the Russian government.

“Public awareness about environmental issues remains low, and the officials downplay levels of contaminants in waterways,” said Olga Tsepilova, a member of environmental faction with the liberal party Yabloko.

Some environmentalists admit their current strategies may have failed. They say a truly international effort is required to rescue the Baltic Sea, which plagued by toxic algae that grow uncontrollably on organic nutrient cocktails. Many species in the sea’s ecosystem face extinction because of the high contamination. The concentration of dioxin in the sea’s herring in the coastal areas is so high that pregnant women in Sweden are advised not to eat it.

“Many ecologists say they feel like they have come to the end of the road, and all existing tools have been used,” says Lars Kristofferson, secretary general of the Swedish branch of the World Wildlife Fund. “We need to develop a new strategy and look for new tools, otherwise all our efforts will have been wasted.”

In 2004, all the countries with Baltic coasts except Russia signed a petition to the International Maritime Organization to grant the Baltic Sea the official status of “particularly sensitive sea area,” or PSSA, to aid them in joining forces to tackle environmental threats in the region. That designation was granted in April 2004. But despite continued requests, Russia still has not applied for PSSA status for its waters.

Russia’s reluctance to sign the petition appears to stem from official fears that regulation will hamper economic development.

The Leningrad district’s new oil terminals, increasing oil traffic, and frequent oil spills further pollute the almost enclosed waters of the Baltic Sea. The amount of oil transported through the Baltic has doubled since 1997 and is expected to increase to up to 160 million metric tons per year in 2010. Greenpeace says substandard shipping practices have significantly increased the risks of severe oil accidents. Since 1980 each year on average has seen one major accident.

“Oil traffic has been increasing enormously in the Gulf of Finland,” said Anita Makinen, an environmentalist with the Finnish branch of the WWF. “The Russians are enlarging their existing oil terminals and building new ones.”

Not only has the number of tankers grown but their size has also increased, she added. “At the same time, cruises between Helsinki and Stockholm have increased tremendously, and this route is crossing the main routes of vessels transporting hazardous substances.”

Meanwhile, the U.N. Environment Program warns that pollution by hazardous substances like pesticides, heavy metals and industrial waste is threatening the sea and its habitats. “Furthermore, being crisscrossed by some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, the Baltic remains under permanent threat from maritime pollution incidents,” the UNEP warns.

Russia is the only country on the Baltic Sea coast that is not a member of the European Union, which makes a difference in the country’s approach to its environmental responsibilities.

“The EU countries share the same legislation, and naturally, they are all accountable to it,” Kristofferson said. “With regard to Russia, we don’t really have a lever of influence, apart from appealing to the government’s good will. After all, every country should be interested in having a healthy environment for its citizens. We recognize that the Russian economy is very dependent on oil, but we are extremely concerned.”

Speaking at a March forum in Helsinki on the state of the Baltic Sea, Finnish President Tarja Halonen stressed that most of the environmental problems in the sea cannot be resolved without Russia’s involvement. “Political commitment at the highest level is essential to ensure the future of the sea,” Halonen said.

So far, such entreaties have not worked. A tougher approach, such as sanctions, is also likely to fail, according to Yevgeny Nadorshin, a senior economic analyst with the Trust Investment Bank in Moscow.

“Western Europe’s increasing dependence on Russian gas and oil would make any such move to force Russia to play ball on the Baltic fraught with danger,” said. “Although Russia itself is dependent on Western European investment and technology, the country is strong enough to avoid compromising decisions. Besides, many experts in Russia take those critical voices from the Baltic states with a pinch of salt. All that is likely to be seen as a campaign fuelled by the envy of Russia’s brilliant economic prospects in the Baltics that does not have much to do with the environment.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia’s Dirty Joke

Transitions Online reports that the Russian “government’s approach to Baltic pollution has environmentalists and other nations wringing their hands.” The Russian people are silent and craven, as usual.

Fishing in water so polluted that it comes in several colors does not much worry Alexander. He has a favorite spot, on the Vyborgskaya embankment not far from his home in northern St. Petersburg. For him it’s the perfect escape from a job where he scrapes out a living sorting fruits and vegetables in a warehouse. He reckons the industrial waste and pollutants than end up in the Neva River can’t be all that dangerous.

“If the fish were poisonous, I would’ve died a long time ago,” he said.

Every day in St. Petersburg, 3 million tons of waste water flow into the Neva, which cuts through the city. Two-thirds of it is untreated, according to Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg branch of Greenpeace.

He concedes that most city residents, like Alexander, either don’t care or don’t know about the state of the water. But he warns that the river contains dyes, oils, and a variety of chemicals, illegally pumped in from industrial plants.

“Even if the water looks clean, with no obvious oily patches, don’t trust your eyes. They just don’t give you the whole picture,” he said. “The Neva is fast-flowing, so if you throw something into it at night it’ll be far away by morning.”

OLD CITY AND THE SEA

Perhaps, even, somewhere in the Baltic Sea. St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, is the biggest single polluter of the sea, one of the most contaminated in the world, according to ecologists. And many tons of untreated sewage flow straight into the Baltic from the Neva.

According to St. Petersburg City Hall’s annual report for 2007, 40 percent of the sewage and industrial waste originating in the city – the highest level in the past 15 years – went directly into the Neva and the Gulf of Finland, owing to a shortage of waste treatment facilities. And that figure does not include illegal discharges.

Only three years ago city authorities said just 25 percent of untreated waste was being pumped into the river.

“The likeliest reason behind growing volumes of industrial waste is corruption,” Artamonov said. “Since 2000, the amount of unauthorized industrial discharge has grown despite the fact that this is illegal and could lead to the temporary suspension of all operations by the company responsible, until they stop or install a proper filtration system.”

And, he suggests, fines for illegal discharges are having little or no impact on the problem.

“The companies prefer to pay fines of anything between 20,000 and 40,000 rubles ($850 to $1,700) rather than install much more expensive filtration systems,” said Vera Izmailova, spokeswoman for Vodokanal, the St. Petersburg government’s water-treatment monopoly. “Fines need to be increased drastically and economic sanctions must be used against companies that breach environmental standards.”

In January, Vodokanal was fined 40,000 rubles by the local branch of State Environmental Protection Watch, a regulatory body, after it discovered illegal discharges of uncertain origins in the Okhta River. The agency was called in after Vodokanal had been unable to pinpoint the source of the discharges.

But the watchdog body is regarded by environmental campaigners as virtually toothless. The head of its St Petersburg branch, Sergei Yermolov, said his office has only four inspectors and no legal right to initiate an inspection.

“An inspection can only be prompted by an official report about a discharge. We’re not allowed to just show up at a factory and demand that they install a filtration system,” Yermolov said.

Fish from the River Neva are regularly sold by private vendors in city markets or in the streets. However Alexei Kiselyov, head of Greenpeace’s toxicology program, said its activists have regularly found seriously contaminated fish in the river. He argues that if such fish were detected in European Union countries, they would be condemned as unfit for human consumption.

Greenpeace sends specimens to its own laboratories in Exeter, England, for testing. Kiselyov said those tests have uncovered high concentrations of poisons such arsenic, lead, and copper.

For several years, local environmentalists have asked the St. Petersburg governor, Valentina Matviyenko, to go with them on one of their water patrols, but they say she has yet to accept such an invitation.

Matviyenko has never publicly conceded that the scale of the problem is as great as the environmentalists claim. Indeed, her speeches on the subject since she took the office in 2004 have been optimistic.

“St. Petersburg strives to reach European standards in all spheres of life, and with regard to ecology we are very close to our goal,” Matviyenko told reporters in 2007 during the inauguration of an industrial waste incinerator. “We perceive the Baltic Sea as a territory of friendship, and the city will do everything possible to make its waters clean.”

But environmental groups have long criticized the St. Petersburg government for failing to build more water treatment facilities or an additional sewage collector and for not putting enough pressure on industrial companies to install filtration systems.

Nationwide, ecology does not appear to be a priority, either. Soon after President Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the Russian government closed the Environment Ministry and transferred its responsibilities to the new Natural Resources Ministry, which is also in charge of exploiting the country’s natural resources.

Ecologists from countries around the Baltic Sea express frustration at what they see as the lack of measures in Russia to safeguard the environment.

St. Petersburg’s City Hall’s program for environmental safety in 2008-2012, which classified the Neva as “moderately polluted,” contains no budget for a new water treatment facility.
Greenpeace says its research suggests concentrations of copper in the city’s main waterway are 73 times, and manganese 26 times, the levels considered safe by the Russian government.

“Public awareness about environmental issues remains low, and the officials downplay levels of contaminants in waterways,” said Olga Tsepilova, a member of environmental faction with the liberal party Yabloko.

Some environmentalists admit their current strategies may have failed. They say a truly international effort is required to rescue the Baltic Sea, which plagued by toxic algae that grow uncontrollably on organic nutrient cocktails. Many species in the sea’s ecosystem face extinction because of the high contamination. The concentration of dioxin in the sea’s herring in the coastal areas is so high that pregnant women in Sweden are advised not to eat it.

“Many ecologists say they feel like they have come to the end of the road, and all existing tools have been used,” says Lars Kristofferson, secretary general of the Swedish branch of the World Wildlife Fund. “We need to develop a new strategy and look for new tools, otherwise all our efforts will have been wasted.”

In 2004, all the countries with Baltic coasts except Russia signed a petition to the International Maritime Organization to grant the Baltic Sea the official status of “particularly sensitive sea area,” or PSSA, to aid them in joining forces to tackle environmental threats in the region. That designation was granted in April 2004. But despite continued requests, Russia still has not applied for PSSA status for its waters.

Russia’s reluctance to sign the petition appears to stem from official fears that regulation will hamper economic development.

The Leningrad district’s new oil terminals, increasing oil traffic, and frequent oil spills further pollute the almost enclosed waters of the Baltic Sea. The amount of oil transported through the Baltic has doubled since 1997 and is expected to increase to up to 160 million metric tons per year in 2010. Greenpeace says substandard shipping practices have significantly increased the risks of severe oil accidents. Since 1980 each year on average has seen one major accident.

“Oil traffic has been increasing enormously in the Gulf of Finland,” said Anita Makinen, an environmentalist with the Finnish branch of the WWF. “The Russians are enlarging their existing oil terminals and building new ones.”

Not only has the number of tankers grown but their size has also increased, she added. “At the same time, cruises between Helsinki and Stockholm have increased tremendously, and this route is crossing the main routes of vessels transporting hazardous substances.”

Meanwhile, the U.N. Environment Program warns that pollution by hazardous substances like pesticides, heavy metals and industrial waste is threatening the sea and its habitats. “Furthermore, being crisscrossed by some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, the Baltic remains under permanent threat from maritime pollution incidents,” the UNEP warns.

Russia is the only country on the Baltic Sea coast that is not a member of the European Union, which makes a difference in the country’s approach to its environmental responsibilities.

“The EU countries share the same legislation, and naturally, they are all accountable to it,” Kristofferson said. “With regard to Russia, we don’t really have a lever of influence, apart from appealing to the government’s good will. After all, every country should be interested in having a healthy environment for its citizens. We recognize that the Russian economy is very dependent on oil, but we are extremely concerned.”

Speaking at a March forum in Helsinki on the state of the Baltic Sea, Finnish President Tarja Halonen stressed that most of the environmental problems in the sea cannot be resolved without Russia’s involvement. “Political commitment at the highest level is essential to ensure the future of the sea,” Halonen said.

So far, such entreaties have not worked. A tougher approach, such as sanctions, is also likely to fail, according to Yevgeny Nadorshin, a senior economic analyst with the Trust Investment Bank in Moscow.

“Western Europe’s increasing dependence on Russian gas and oil would make any such move to force Russia to play ball on the Baltic fraught with danger,” said. “Although Russia itself is dependent on Western European investment and technology, the country is strong enough to avoid compromising decisions. Besides, many experts in Russia take those critical voices from the Baltic states with a pinch of salt. All that is likely to be seen as a campaign fuelled by the envy of Russia’s brilliant economic prospects in the Baltics that does not have much to do with the environment.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia’s Dirty Joke

Transitions Online reports that the Russian “government’s approach to Baltic pollution has environmentalists and other nations wringing their hands.” The Russian people are silent and craven, as usual.

Fishing in water so polluted that it comes in several colors does not much worry Alexander. He has a favorite spot, on the Vyborgskaya embankment not far from his home in northern St. Petersburg. For him it’s the perfect escape from a job where he scrapes out a living sorting fruits and vegetables in a warehouse. He reckons the industrial waste and pollutants than end up in the Neva River can’t be all that dangerous.

“If the fish were poisonous, I would’ve died a long time ago,” he said.

Every day in St. Petersburg, 3 million tons of waste water flow into the Neva, which cuts through the city. Two-thirds of it is untreated, according to Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg branch of Greenpeace.

He concedes that most city residents, like Alexander, either don’t care or don’t know about the state of the water. But he warns that the river contains dyes, oils, and a variety of chemicals, illegally pumped in from industrial plants.

“Even if the water looks clean, with no obvious oily patches, don’t trust your eyes. They just don’t give you the whole picture,” he said. “The Neva is fast-flowing, so if you throw something into it at night it’ll be far away by morning.”

OLD CITY AND THE SEA

Perhaps, even, somewhere in the Baltic Sea. St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, is the biggest single polluter of the sea, one of the most contaminated in the world, according to ecologists. And many tons of untreated sewage flow straight into the Baltic from the Neva.

According to St. Petersburg City Hall’s annual report for 2007, 40 percent of the sewage and industrial waste originating in the city – the highest level in the past 15 years – went directly into the Neva and the Gulf of Finland, owing to a shortage of waste treatment facilities. And that figure does not include illegal discharges.

Only three years ago city authorities said just 25 percent of untreated waste was being pumped into the river.

“The likeliest reason behind growing volumes of industrial waste is corruption,” Artamonov said. “Since 2000, the amount of unauthorized industrial discharge has grown despite the fact that this is illegal and could lead to the temporary suspension of all operations by the company responsible, until they stop or install a proper filtration system.”

And, he suggests, fines for illegal discharges are having little or no impact on the problem.

“The companies prefer to pay fines of anything between 20,000 and 40,000 rubles ($850 to $1,700) rather than install much more expensive filtration systems,” said Vera Izmailova, spokeswoman for Vodokanal, the St. Petersburg government’s water-treatment monopoly. “Fines need to be increased drastically and economic sanctions must be used against companies that breach environmental standards.”

In January, Vodokanal was fined 40,000 rubles by the local branch of State Environmental Protection Watch, a regulatory body, after it discovered illegal discharges of uncertain origins in the Okhta River. The agency was called in after Vodokanal had been unable to pinpoint the source of the discharges.

But the watchdog body is regarded by environmental campaigners as virtually toothless. The head of its St Petersburg branch, Sergei Yermolov, said his office has only four inspectors and no legal right to initiate an inspection.

“An inspection can only be prompted by an official report about a discharge. We’re not allowed to just show up at a factory and demand that they install a filtration system,” Yermolov said.

Fish from the River Neva are regularly sold by private vendors in city markets or in the streets. However Alexei Kiselyov, head of Greenpeace’s toxicology program, said its activists have regularly found seriously contaminated fish in the river. He argues that if such fish were detected in European Union countries, they would be condemned as unfit for human consumption.

Greenpeace sends specimens to its own laboratories in Exeter, England, for testing. Kiselyov said those tests have uncovered high concentrations of poisons such arsenic, lead, and copper.

For several years, local environmentalists have asked the St. Petersburg governor, Valentina Matviyenko, to go with them on one of their water patrols, but they say she has yet to accept such an invitation.

Matviyenko has never publicly conceded that the scale of the problem is as great as the environmentalists claim. Indeed, her speeches on the subject since she took the office in 2004 have been optimistic.

“St. Petersburg strives to reach European standards in all spheres of life, and with regard to ecology we are very close to our goal,” Matviyenko told reporters in 2007 during the inauguration of an industrial waste incinerator. “We perceive the Baltic Sea as a territory of friendship, and the city will do everything possible to make its waters clean.”

But environmental groups have long criticized the St. Petersburg government for failing to build more water treatment facilities or an additional sewage collector and for not putting enough pressure on industrial companies to install filtration systems.

Nationwide, ecology does not appear to be a priority, either. Soon after President Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the Russian government closed the Environment Ministry and transferred its responsibilities to the new Natural Resources Ministry, which is also in charge of exploiting the country’s natural resources.

Ecologists from countries around the Baltic Sea express frustration at what they see as the lack of measures in Russia to safeguard the environment.

St. Petersburg’s City Hall’s program for environmental safety in 2008-2012, which classified the Neva as “moderately polluted,” contains no budget for a new water treatment facility.
Greenpeace says its research suggests concentrations of copper in the city’s main waterway are 73 times, and manganese 26 times, the levels considered safe by the Russian government.

“Public awareness about environmental issues remains low, and the officials downplay levels of contaminants in waterways,” said Olga Tsepilova, a member of environmental faction with the liberal party Yabloko.

Some environmentalists admit their current strategies may have failed. They say a truly international effort is required to rescue the Baltic Sea, which plagued by toxic algae that grow uncontrollably on organic nutrient cocktails. Many species in the sea’s ecosystem face extinction because of the high contamination. The concentration of dioxin in the sea’s herring in the coastal areas is so high that pregnant women in Sweden are advised not to eat it.

“Many ecologists say they feel like they have come to the end of the road, and all existing tools have been used,” says Lars Kristofferson, secretary general of the Swedish branch of the World Wildlife Fund. “We need to develop a new strategy and look for new tools, otherwise all our efforts will have been wasted.”

In 2004, all the countries with Baltic coasts except Russia signed a petition to the International Maritime Organization to grant the Baltic Sea the official status of “particularly sensitive sea area,” or PSSA, to aid them in joining forces to tackle environmental threats in the region. That designation was granted in April 2004. But despite continued requests, Russia still has not applied for PSSA status for its waters.

Russia’s reluctance to sign the petition appears to stem from official fears that regulation will hamper economic development.

The Leningrad district’s new oil terminals, increasing oil traffic, and frequent oil spills further pollute the almost enclosed waters of the Baltic Sea. The amount of oil transported through the Baltic has doubled since 1997 and is expected to increase to up to 160 million metric tons per year in 2010. Greenpeace says substandard shipping practices have significantly increased the risks of severe oil accidents. Since 1980 each year on average has seen one major accident.

“Oil traffic has been increasing enormously in the Gulf of Finland,” said Anita Makinen, an environmentalist with the Finnish branch of the WWF. “The Russians are enlarging their existing oil terminals and building new ones.”

Not only has the number of tankers grown but their size has also increased, she added. “At the same time, cruises between Helsinki and Stockholm have increased tremendously, and this route is crossing the main routes of vessels transporting hazardous substances.”

Meanwhile, the U.N. Environment Program warns that pollution by hazardous substances like pesticides, heavy metals and industrial waste is threatening the sea and its habitats. “Furthermore, being crisscrossed by some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, the Baltic remains under permanent threat from maritime pollution incidents,” the UNEP warns.

Russia is the only country on the Baltic Sea coast that is not a member of the European Union, which makes a difference in the country’s approach to its environmental responsibilities.

“The EU countries share the same legislation, and naturally, they are all accountable to it,” Kristofferson said. “With regard to Russia, we don’t really have a lever of influence, apart from appealing to the government’s good will. After all, every country should be interested in having a healthy environment for its citizens. We recognize that the Russian economy is very dependent on oil, but we are extremely concerned.”

Speaking at a March forum in Helsinki on the state of the Baltic Sea, Finnish President Tarja Halonen stressed that most of the environmental problems in the sea cannot be resolved without Russia’s involvement. “Political commitment at the highest level is essential to ensure the future of the sea,” Halonen said.

So far, such entreaties have not worked. A tougher approach, such as sanctions, is also likely to fail, according to Yevgeny Nadorshin, a senior economic analyst with the Trust Investment Bank in Moscow.

“Western Europe’s increasing dependence on Russian gas and oil would make any such move to force Russia to play ball on the Baltic fraught with danger,” said. “Although Russia itself is dependent on Western European investment and technology, the country is strong enough to avoid compromising decisions. Besides, many experts in Russia take those critical voices from the Baltic states with a pinch of salt. All that is likely to be seen as a campaign fuelled by the envy of Russia’s brilliant economic prospects in the Baltics that does not have much to do with the environment.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia’s Dirty Joke

Transitions Online reports that the Russian “government’s approach to Baltic pollution has environmentalists and other nations wringing their hands.” The Russian people are silent and craven, as usual.

Fishing in water so polluted that it comes in several colors does not much worry Alexander. He has a favorite spot, on the Vyborgskaya embankment not far from his home in northern St. Petersburg. For him it’s the perfect escape from a job where he scrapes out a living sorting fruits and vegetables in a warehouse. He reckons the industrial waste and pollutants than end up in the Neva River can’t be all that dangerous.

“If the fish were poisonous, I would’ve died a long time ago,” he said.

Every day in St. Petersburg, 3 million tons of waste water flow into the Neva, which cuts through the city. Two-thirds of it is untreated, according to Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg branch of Greenpeace.

He concedes that most city residents, like Alexander, either don’t care or don’t know about the state of the water. But he warns that the river contains dyes, oils, and a variety of chemicals, illegally pumped in from industrial plants.

“Even if the water looks clean, with no obvious oily patches, don’t trust your eyes. They just don’t give you the whole picture,” he said. “The Neva is fast-flowing, so if you throw something into it at night it’ll be far away by morning.”

OLD CITY AND THE SEA

Perhaps, even, somewhere in the Baltic Sea. St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, is the biggest single polluter of the sea, one of the most contaminated in the world, according to ecologists. And many tons of untreated sewage flow straight into the Baltic from the Neva.

According to St. Petersburg City Hall’s annual report for 2007, 40 percent of the sewage and industrial waste originating in the city – the highest level in the past 15 years – went directly into the Neva and the Gulf of Finland, owing to a shortage of waste treatment facilities. And that figure does not include illegal discharges.

Only three years ago city authorities said just 25 percent of untreated waste was being pumped into the river.

“The likeliest reason behind growing volumes of industrial waste is corruption,” Artamonov said. “Since 2000, the amount of unauthorized industrial discharge has grown despite the fact that this is illegal and could lead to the temporary suspension of all operations by the company responsible, until they stop or install a proper filtration system.”

And, he suggests, fines for illegal discharges are having little or no impact on the problem.

“The companies prefer to pay fines of anything between 20,000 and 40,000 rubles ($850 to $1,700) rather than install much more expensive filtration systems,” said Vera Izmailova, spokeswoman for Vodokanal, the St. Petersburg government’s water-treatment monopoly. “Fines need to be increased drastically and economic sanctions must be used against companies that breach environmental standards.”

In January, Vodokanal was fined 40,000 rubles by the local branch of State Environmental Protection Watch, a regulatory body, after it discovered illegal discharges of uncertain origins in the Okhta River. The agency was called in after Vodokanal had been unable to pinpoint the source of the discharges.

But the watchdog body is regarded by environmental campaigners as virtually toothless. The head of its St Petersburg branch, Sergei Yermolov, said his office has only four inspectors and no legal right to initiate an inspection.

“An inspection can only be prompted by an official report about a discharge. We’re not allowed to just show up at a factory and demand that they install a filtration system,” Yermolov said.

Fish from the River Neva are regularly sold by private vendors in city markets or in the streets. However Alexei Kiselyov, head of Greenpeace’s toxicology program, said its activists have regularly found seriously contaminated fish in the river. He argues that if such fish were detected in European Union countries, they would be condemned as unfit for human consumption.

Greenpeace sends specimens to its own laboratories in Exeter, England, for testing. Kiselyov said those tests have uncovered high concentrations of poisons such arsenic, lead, and copper.

For several years, local environmentalists have asked the St. Petersburg governor, Valentina Matviyenko, to go with them on one of their water patrols, but they say she has yet to accept such an invitation.

Matviyenko has never publicly conceded that the scale of the problem is as great as the environmentalists claim. Indeed, her speeches on the subject since she took the office in 2004 have been optimistic.

“St. Petersburg strives to reach European standards in all spheres of life, and with regard to ecology we are very close to our goal,” Matviyenko told reporters in 2007 during the inauguration of an industrial waste incinerator. “We perceive the Baltic Sea as a territory of friendship, and the city will do everything possible to make its waters clean.”

But environmental groups have long criticized the St. Petersburg government for failing to build more water treatment facilities or an additional sewage collector and for not putting enough pressure on industrial companies to install filtration systems.

Nationwide, ecology does not appear to be a priority, either. Soon after President Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the Russian government closed the Environment Ministry and transferred its responsibilities to the new Natural Resources Ministry, which is also in charge of exploiting the country’s natural resources.

Ecologists from countries around the Baltic Sea express frustration at what they see as the lack of measures in Russia to safeguard the environment.

St. Petersburg’s City Hall’s program for environmental safety in 2008-2012, which classified the Neva as “moderately polluted,” contains no budget for a new water treatment facility.
Greenpeace says its research suggests concentrations of copper in the city’s main waterway are 73 times, and manganese 26 times, the levels considered safe by the Russian government.

“Public awareness about environmental issues remains low, and the officials downplay levels of contaminants in waterways,” said Olga Tsepilova, a member of environmental faction with the liberal party Yabloko.

Some environmentalists admit their current strategies may have failed. They say a truly international effort is required to rescue the Baltic Sea, which plagued by toxic algae that grow uncontrollably on organic nutrient cocktails. Many species in the sea’s ecosystem face extinction because of the high contamination. The concentration of dioxin in the sea’s herring in the coastal areas is so high that pregnant women in Sweden are advised not to eat it.

“Many ecologists say they feel like they have come to the end of the road, and all existing tools have been used,” says Lars Kristofferson, secretary general of the Swedish branch of the World Wildlife Fund. “We need to develop a new strategy and look for new tools, otherwise all our efforts will have been wasted.”

In 2004, all the countries with Baltic coasts except Russia signed a petition to the International Maritime Organization to grant the Baltic Sea the official status of “particularly sensitive sea area,” or PSSA, to aid them in joining forces to tackle environmental threats in the region. That designation was granted in April 2004. But despite continued requests, Russia still has not applied for PSSA status for its waters.

Russia’s reluctance to sign the petition appears to stem from official fears that regulation will hamper economic development.

The Leningrad district’s new oil terminals, increasing oil traffic, and frequent oil spills further pollute the almost enclosed waters of the Baltic Sea. The amount of oil transported through the Baltic has doubled since 1997 and is expected to increase to up to 160 million metric tons per year in 2010. Greenpeace says substandard shipping practices have significantly increased the risks of severe oil accidents. Since 1980 each year on average has seen one major accident.

“Oil traffic has been increasing enormously in the Gulf of Finland,” said Anita Makinen, an environmentalist with the Finnish branch of the WWF. “The Russians are enlarging their existing oil terminals and building new ones.”

Not only has the number of tankers grown but their size has also increased, she added. “At the same time, cruises between Helsinki and Stockholm have increased tremendously, and this route is crossing the main routes of vessels transporting hazardous substances.”

Meanwhile, the U.N. Environment Program warns that pollution by hazardous substances like pesticides, heavy metals and industrial waste is threatening the sea and its habitats. “Furthermore, being crisscrossed by some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, the Baltic remains under permanent threat from maritime pollution incidents,” the UNEP warns.

Russia is the only country on the Baltic Sea coast that is not a member of the European Union, which makes a difference in the country’s approach to its environmental responsibilities.

“The EU countries share the same legislation, and naturally, they are all accountable to it,” Kristofferson said. “With regard to Russia, we don’t really have a lever of influence, apart from appealing to the government’s good will. After all, every country should be interested in having a healthy environment for its citizens. We recognize that the Russian economy is very dependent on oil, but we are extremely concerned.”

Speaking at a March forum in Helsinki on the state of the Baltic Sea, Finnish President Tarja Halonen stressed that most of the environmental problems in the sea cannot be resolved without Russia’s involvement. “Political commitment at the highest level is essential to ensure the future of the sea,” Halonen said.

So far, such entreaties have not worked. A tougher approach, such as sanctions, is also likely to fail, according to Yevgeny Nadorshin, a senior economic analyst with the Trust Investment Bank in Moscow.

“Western Europe’s increasing dependence on Russian gas and oil would make any such move to force Russia to play ball on the Baltic fraught with danger,” said. “Although Russia itself is dependent on Western European investment and technology, the country is strong enough to avoid compromising decisions. Besides, many experts in Russia take those critical voices from the Baltic states with a pinch of salt. All that is likely to be seen as a campaign fuelled by the envy of Russia’s brilliant economic prospects in the Baltics that does not have much to do with the environment.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia’s Dirty Joke

Transitions Online reports that the Russian “government’s approach to Baltic pollution has environmentalists and other nations wringing their hands.” The Russian people are silent and craven, as usual.

Fishing in water so polluted that it comes in several colors does not much worry Alexander. He has a favorite spot, on the Vyborgskaya embankment not far from his home in northern St. Petersburg. For him it’s the perfect escape from a job where he scrapes out a living sorting fruits and vegetables in a warehouse. He reckons the industrial waste and pollutants than end up in the Neva River can’t be all that dangerous.

“If the fish were poisonous, I would’ve died a long time ago,” he said.

Every day in St. Petersburg, 3 million tons of waste water flow into the Neva, which cuts through the city. Two-thirds of it is untreated, according to Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg branch of Greenpeace.

He concedes that most city residents, like Alexander, either don’t care or don’t know about the state of the water. But he warns that the river contains dyes, oils, and a variety of chemicals, illegally pumped in from industrial plants.

“Even if the water looks clean, with no obvious oily patches, don’t trust your eyes. They just don’t give you the whole picture,” he said. “The Neva is fast-flowing, so if you throw something into it at night it’ll be far away by morning.”

OLD CITY AND THE SEA

Perhaps, even, somewhere in the Baltic Sea. St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, is the biggest single polluter of the sea, one of the most contaminated in the world, according to ecologists. And many tons of untreated sewage flow straight into the Baltic from the Neva.

According to St. Petersburg City Hall’s annual report for 2007, 40 percent of the sewage and industrial waste originating in the city – the highest level in the past 15 years – went directly into the Neva and the Gulf of Finland, owing to a shortage of waste treatment facilities. And that figure does not include illegal discharges.

Only three years ago city authorities said just 25 percent of untreated waste was being pumped into the river.

“The likeliest reason behind growing volumes of industrial waste is corruption,” Artamonov said. “Since 2000, the amount of unauthorized industrial discharge has grown despite the fact that this is illegal and could lead to the temporary suspension of all operations by the company responsible, until they stop or install a proper filtration system.”

And, he suggests, fines for illegal discharges are having little or no impact on the problem.

“The companies prefer to pay fines of anything between 20,000 and 40,000 rubles ($850 to $1,700) rather than install much more expensive filtration systems,” said Vera Izmailova, spokeswoman for Vodokanal, the St. Petersburg government’s water-treatment monopoly. “Fines need to be increased drastically and economic sanctions must be used against companies that breach environmental standards.”

In January, Vodokanal was fined 40,000 rubles by the local branch of State Environmental Protection Watch, a regulatory body, after it discovered illegal discharges of uncertain origins in the Okhta River. The agency was called in after Vodokanal had been unable to pinpoint the source of the discharges.

But the watchdog body is regarded by environmental campaigners as virtually toothless. The head of its St Petersburg branch, Sergei Yermolov, said his office has only four inspectors and no legal right to initiate an inspection.

“An inspection can only be prompted by an official report about a discharge. We’re not allowed to just show up at a factory and demand that they install a filtration system,” Yermolov said.

Fish from the River Neva are regularly sold by private vendors in city markets or in the streets. However Alexei Kiselyov, head of Greenpeace’s toxicology program, said its activists have regularly found seriously contaminated fish in the river. He argues that if such fish were detected in European Union countries, they would be condemned as unfit for human consumption.

Greenpeace sends specimens to its own laboratories in Exeter, England, for testing. Kiselyov said those tests have uncovered high concentrations of poisons such arsenic, lead, and copper.

For several years, local environmentalists have asked the St. Petersburg governor, Valentina Matviyenko, to go with them on one of their water patrols, but they say she has yet to accept such an invitation.

Matviyenko has never publicly conceded that the scale of the problem is as great as the environmentalists claim. Indeed, her speeches on the subject since she took the office in 2004 have been optimistic.

“St. Petersburg strives to reach European standards in all spheres of life, and with regard to ecology we are very close to our goal,” Matviyenko told reporters in 2007 during the inauguration of an industrial waste incinerator. “We perceive the Baltic Sea as a territory of friendship, and the city will do everything possible to make its waters clean.”

But environmental groups have long criticized the St. Petersburg government for failing to build more water treatment facilities or an additional sewage collector and for not putting enough pressure on industrial companies to install filtration systems.

Nationwide, ecology does not appear to be a priority, either. Soon after President Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, the Russian government closed the Environment Ministry and transferred its responsibilities to the new Natural Resources Ministry, which is also in charge of exploiting the country’s natural resources.

Ecologists from countries around the Baltic Sea express frustration at what they see as the lack of measures in Russia to safeguard the environment.

St. Petersburg’s City Hall’s program for environmental safety in 2008-2012, which classified the Neva as “moderately polluted,” contains no budget for a new water treatment facility.
Greenpeace says its research suggests concentrations of copper in the city’s main waterway are 73 times, and manganese 26 times, the levels considered safe by the Russian government.

“Public awareness about environmental issues remains low, and the officials downplay levels of contaminants in waterways,” said Olga Tsepilova, a member of environmental faction with the liberal party Yabloko.

Some environmentalists admit their current strategies may have failed. They say a truly international effort is required to rescue the Baltic Sea, which plagued by toxic algae that grow uncontrollably on organic nutrient cocktails. Many species in the sea’s ecosystem face extinction because of the high contamination. The concentration of dioxin in the sea’s herring in the coastal areas is so high that pregnant women in Sweden are advised not to eat it.

“Many ecologists say they feel like they have come to the end of the road, and all existing tools have been used,” says Lars Kristofferson, secretary general of the Swedish branch of the World Wildlife Fund. “We need to develop a new strategy and look for new tools, otherwise all our efforts will have been wasted.”

In 2004, all the countries with Baltic coasts except Russia signed a petition to the International Maritime Organization to grant the Baltic Sea the official status of “particularly sensitive sea area,” or PSSA, to aid them in joining forces to tackle environmental threats in the region. That designation was granted in April 2004. But despite continued requests, Russia still has not applied for PSSA status for its waters.

Russia’s reluctance to sign the petition appears to stem from official fears that regulation will hamper economic development.

The Leningrad district’s new oil terminals, increasing oil traffic, and frequent oil spills further pollute the almost enclosed waters of the Baltic Sea. The amount of oil transported through the Baltic has doubled since 1997 and is expected to increase to up to 160 million metric tons per year in 2010. Greenpeace says substandard shipping practices have significantly increased the risks of severe oil accidents. Since 1980 each year on average has seen one major accident.

“Oil traffic has been increasing enormously in the Gulf of Finland,” said Anita Makinen, an environmentalist with the Finnish branch of the WWF. “The Russians are enlarging their existing oil terminals and building new ones.”

Not only has the number of tankers grown but their size has also increased, she added. “At the same time, cruises between Helsinki and Stockholm have increased tremendously, and this route is crossing the main routes of vessels transporting hazardous substances.”

Meanwhile, the U.N. Environment Program warns that pollution by hazardous substances like pesticides, heavy metals and industrial waste is threatening the sea and its habitats. “Furthermore, being crisscrossed by some of the busiest shipping routes in the world, the Baltic remains under permanent threat from maritime pollution incidents,” the UNEP warns.

Russia is the only country on the Baltic Sea coast that is not a member of the European Union, which makes a difference in the country’s approach to its environmental responsibilities.

“The EU countries share the same legislation, and naturally, they are all accountable to it,” Kristofferson said. “With regard to Russia, we don’t really have a lever of influence, apart from appealing to the government’s good will. After all, every country should be interested in having a healthy environment for its citizens. We recognize that the Russian economy is very dependent on oil, but we are extremely concerned.”

Speaking at a March forum in Helsinki on the state of the Baltic Sea, Finnish President Tarja Halonen stressed that most of the environmental problems in the sea cannot be resolved without Russia’s involvement. “Political commitment at the highest level is essential to ensure the future of the sea,” Halonen said.

So far, such entreaties have not worked. A tougher approach, such as sanctions, is also likely to fail, according to Yevgeny Nadorshin, a senior economic analyst with the Trust Investment Bank in Moscow.

“Western Europe’s increasing dependence on Russian gas and oil would make any such move to force Russia to play ball on the Baltic fraught with danger,” said. “Although Russia itself is dependent on Western European investment and technology, the country is strong enough to avoid compromising decisions. Besides, many experts in Russia take those critical voices from the Baltic states with a pinch of salt. All that is likely to be seen as a campaign fuelled by the envy of Russia’s brilliant economic prospects in the Baltics that does not have much to do with the environment.”

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Putin’s Russia Leads the World . . . in Toxic Waste Dumps

Reuters reports that Russia continues to dominate the vast majority of the world . . . in generating toxic pollution and poisoning its population:

Four of the world’s 10 most polluted places are in Russia (Dzerzhinsk, Norilsk) and two former Soviet republics (Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Chernobyl, Ukraine), an independent environmental group said in a report released on Wednesday. Encompassing seven countries, the top 10 sites may cause some 12 million people to suffer health problems ranging from asthma and other respiratory ailments to birth defects and premature death, the New York-based Blacksmith Institute said. “These places are sapping the strength of the populations around them, and it’s not rocket science to fix them,” Richard Fuller, the nonprofit group’s founder and director told reporters on a conference call. He said simple engineering projects could make many of the places safe, but that funds, political will, and technical ability were often lacking. Concern about polluted places is growing as the world’s population swells and people in developing countries like China and India buy more cars and electronics — habits that had been limited mainly to rich countries like the United States. The polluted sites in Russia and the former Soviet republics include Dzerzhinsk, Russia, which until the end of the Cold War was one of the country’s major chemical weapons centers, and Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred in 1986, Blacksmith said its second annual report.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Putin’s Russia Leads the World . . . in Toxic Waste Dumps

Reuters reports that Russia continues to dominate the vast majority of the world . . . in generating toxic pollution and poisoning its population:

Four of the world’s 10 most polluted places are in Russia (Dzerzhinsk, Norilsk) and two former Soviet republics (Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Chernobyl, Ukraine), an independent environmental group said in a report released on Wednesday. Encompassing seven countries, the top 10 sites may cause some 12 million people to suffer health problems ranging from asthma and other respiratory ailments to birth defects and premature death, the New York-based Blacksmith Institute said. “These places are sapping the strength of the populations around them, and it’s not rocket science to fix them,” Richard Fuller, the nonprofit group’s founder and director told reporters on a conference call. He said simple engineering projects could make many of the places safe, but that funds, political will, and technical ability were often lacking. Concern about polluted places is growing as the world’s population swells and people in developing countries like China and India buy more cars and electronics — habits that had been limited mainly to rich countries like the United States. The polluted sites in Russia and the former Soviet republics include Dzerzhinsk, Russia, which until the end of the Cold War was one of the country’s major chemical weapons centers, and Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred in 1986, Blacksmith said its second annual report.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Putin’s Russia Leads the World . . . in Toxic Waste Dumps

Reuters reports that Russia continues to dominate the vast majority of the world . . . in generating toxic pollution and poisoning its population:

Four of the world’s 10 most polluted places are in Russia (Dzerzhinsk, Norilsk) and two former Soviet republics (Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Chernobyl, Ukraine), an independent environmental group said in a report released on Wednesday. Encompassing seven countries, the top 10 sites may cause some 12 million people to suffer health problems ranging from asthma and other respiratory ailments to birth defects and premature death, the New York-based Blacksmith Institute said. “These places are sapping the strength of the populations around them, and it’s not rocket science to fix them,” Richard Fuller, the nonprofit group’s founder and director told reporters on a conference call. He said simple engineering projects could make many of the places safe, but that funds, political will, and technical ability were often lacking. Concern about polluted places is growing as the world’s population swells and people in developing countries like China and India buy more cars and electronics — habits that had been limited mainly to rich countries like the United States. The polluted sites in Russia and the former Soviet republics include Dzerzhinsk, Russia, which until the end of the Cold War was one of the country’s major chemical weapons centers, and Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred in 1986, Blacksmith said its second annual report.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Putin’s Russia Leads the World . . . in Toxic Waste Dumps

Reuters reports that Russia continues to dominate the vast majority of the world . . . in generating toxic pollution and poisoning its population:

Four of the world’s 10 most polluted places are in Russia (Dzerzhinsk, Norilsk) and two former Soviet republics (Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Chernobyl, Ukraine), an independent environmental group said in a report released on Wednesday. Encompassing seven countries, the top 10 sites may cause some 12 million people to suffer health problems ranging from asthma and other respiratory ailments to birth defects and premature death, the New York-based Blacksmith Institute said. “These places are sapping the strength of the populations around them, and it’s not rocket science to fix them,” Richard Fuller, the nonprofit group’s founder and director told reporters on a conference call. He said simple engineering projects could make many of the places safe, but that funds, political will, and technical ability were often lacking. Concern about polluted places is growing as the world’s population swells and people in developing countries like China and India buy more cars and electronics — habits that had been limited mainly to rich countries like the United States. The polluted sites in Russia and the former Soviet republics include Dzerzhinsk, Russia, which until the end of the Cold War was one of the country’s major chemical weapons centers, and Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred in 1986, Blacksmith said its second annual report.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Putin’s Russia Leads the World . . . in Toxic Waste Dumps

Reuters reports that Russia continues to dominate the vast majority of the world . . . in generating toxic pollution and poisoning its population:

Four of the world’s 10 most polluted places are in Russia (Dzerzhinsk, Norilsk) and two former Soviet republics (Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Chernobyl, Ukraine), an independent environmental group said in a report released on Wednesday. Encompassing seven countries, the top 10 sites may cause some 12 million people to suffer health problems ranging from asthma and other respiratory ailments to birth defects and premature death, the New York-based Blacksmith Institute said. “These places are sapping the strength of the populations around them, and it’s not rocket science to fix them,” Richard Fuller, the nonprofit group’s founder and director told reporters on a conference call. He said simple engineering projects could make many of the places safe, but that funds, political will, and technical ability were often lacking. Concern about polluted places is growing as the world’s population swells and people in developing countries like China and India buy more cars and electronics — habits that had been limited mainly to rich countries like the United States. The polluted sites in Russia and the former Soviet republics include Dzerzhinsk, Russia, which until the end of the Cold War was one of the country’s major chemical weapons centers, and Chernobyl, Ukraine, where the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred in 1986, Blacksmith said its second annual report.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Unhappy Russia . . . and unhappy us, when their smog cloud starts drifting

The New Economics Foundation has just released its “Happy Planet Index” for 2006, measuring the extent to which the nations of the world are poisoning our environment. Russia ranks 172 out of 178 countries surveyed. Only six countries in the entire world are more harmful to the environment than Russia. Cough, cough. Just wait until the giant cloud of toxic smog hovering over Russia starts drifting, and the fetid cesspool-like waterways start flowing, towards us. Oil isn’t Russia’s only weapon, after all.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !