Dialogue with Russian department of largest ecological organization
It is very delightful that the article about Greenpeace expedition “Arctic Sunrise” caused responsiveness and interest from visitors – material is still among top most read publications of the site. But the most positive moment is reply of Greanpeace to my questions. Behalf of the organization the head of the energy department of Greenpeace Russia Vladimir Chuprov have written me. You can find the next of the letter below. After it I laid out his vision of the situation and asked more questions. . I hope the dialogue will continue.
Thank you for your question and your support of Greenpeace. Questions are still exist anyway and of course we will answer them (we that the issues caused by the desire to truly understand them, and not a sign of rudeness and prejudice against its opponent, as it may seem while reading your article: after all "spit" on someone - it is not very nice neither literally nor figuratively.
A key question you ask is why it is not Norway with its oil and gas records but Russia is in the spotlight of Greenpeace?
In our position we are not against countries or people, it is contrary to the spirit of our organization, which has the support of millions of people around the world. Your voice has been and hopefully will remain one of those millions.
Greenpeace opposed and opposes the specific technologies and governments who support these technologies.
In our climate program we support the phase-out of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil in favor of low-carbon technologies.
We do not make any exemptions for any companies or countries.
Should we look stung in question, who is to blame more and less, if all of us and the future generations are facing looming climate catastrophe? However, the first signs of it already being voiced in the media, and you and me are not on Mars.
Realizing that in Russia the subject of climate change is treated mostly skeptical (though sentiments vary even among scientists), however, I may say again, no one will win, and we can get out of the situation only being together starting with the transition to a low carbon economics.
And for our country it is also a question of economic survival. We are facing, if you wish, a strategic choice - to remain in the oil dependency (and the Arctic shelf is a recipe for fixing the current situation in which more than 50% of the federal budget is the oil and gas revenues), or switch to a new model of the economics, more competitive (more efficient) independent of speculative oil prices.
The list of companies and governments, which we oppose and stand on the issue of climate change:
- U.S. Government
- Stat Oil
- Government of Canada, Russia, Japan
I deliberately put the U.S. government, Exxon and Shell in the top of the list. The U.S. government, Shell and Exxon on the number of records in its anti-ecological activities are ahead not only Stat Oil or the Norwegian government, but Russian companies and the Russian government accordingly. The criteria for selection of Greenpeace purposes are certainly not length of the pipeline but the influence that a specific government or company has at the whole situation in the world.
Concerning Stat Oil. This company is at the center of attention of Greenpeace and not only Greenpeace. In Norway there were and there are coalitions against a number of oil and gas projects in Norway: Snow White, Goliat, against mining near Lofoten Islands.
The choice which Greenpeace made against the company Cairn, Shell and Gazprom in 2011-2012, is strictly related to the fact that these companies are the most advanced in the development of the Arctic shelf. Do not let it have you the patriotic feelings that Prirazlomnaya - the world's first commercial platform for oil in the Arctic shelf. We should think very good how to overcome the situation in which policies led Gazprom. Believe me, this platform for Gazprom is a headache and loss.
A similar situation with Stockman. Have you ever wondered why with such a strong political commitment on the part of Russian President Vladimir Putin this project has not yet received the benefits, without which it just will not happen? If the project is profitable if the president believes the company, then why the project is frosen? Moreover, on the verge of bankruptcy? Why do the authors of the project associate the profitability of the project with low environmental standards?
As for the fishing and shipping. Greenpeace is not against fishing in the Arctic shelf. We stand for a moratorium on commercial fishing, where it traditionally did not exist because of the ice and in the waters outside the 200-mile zones. Let us think: if the traditional fishing on waters leads to the depletion of fish stocks, it is not worth it to think about how to make this fishery sustainable. The opening of a new water area will cause that fish stocks have nowhere to be refurbished.
Concerning shipping - I will be grateful for the link, from which it would follow that because of the requirements of Greenpeace Russia will lose Northern Marineway way. Frankly I do not understand how this conclusion is reached.
But introducing strict rules of navigation, requirements for vessels - is what is needed and what Greenpeace supports. This is, if you want, something that will eliminate the tragedy like the one that occurred with the platform Kola.
That is what I absolutely agree with you – that Norway was drawn in the Arctic race.
Then you can evaluate who how looked at whom and guess about the next steps the State Department and other enemies.
But believe me, sometimes you should not give in someone's provocations. The whole history of Arctic oil and gas is a big political game.
If real development will begin, then it will be not earlier than 2030 (this follows from the program of MNRE shelf development, Norway officials say the same things). In this case, it is likely that the peak of global oil production reached in 2010. Next question is to take the last drop of oil on the Arctic shelf at any price or to think how to replace it.
To think that the whole world is waiting with hope when the Arctic will be open and the oil age will last for several decades is naive.
Even at inflated estimates of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic oil will suffice only for 3 years to provide the world with the current oil consumption. The choice will be made for non-oil, not its production at any cost. By the way this matter already sounds in the words of Prime Minister Medvedev that every 50-70 years the world is experiencing an energy revolution, and who knows who will need our hydrocarbons in the future. This is a fundamental point. We are creating jobs in the Arctic, to keep production at current levels at any cost or still start thinking on how rationally use it and gradually replace it? For example. Prirazlomnaya will give at the peak (2025) about 7 million tons of oil. The entire Arctic shelf is 13.5 million tons of oil a year (seems also in 2025.) Potential for energy savings (from acc. Government program) - about 60 million tons of oil per year by 2020.
But why Arctic oil gets benefits and support, and energy efficiency projects do not receive it? And who are the "we" who need the most expensive and long solution of the oil problem?
Just today we were approached by another producer of additive which reduces fuel consumption by 10% (on a national scale it saves about 10 million tons of liquid fuel only for transport) The same story we hear from engineers and companies who cannot advance their low-carbon technologies. Везде футболят, так как экономия снижает уровень откатов. Refuses are everywhere, because the economy reduces kickbacks.
So who needs the most expensive projects, especially in the Arctic, where even it is impossible to check what is going on there?
About the UN General Assembly. Is it possible to close half of Norwegian platforms with the UN resolution? I answer “no”. The UN has some other problems and format. But if using the UN to set up a system of incentives will be not fossil but low-carbon energetics, believe me, the world will come to that gradually not only Norway, but the rest of the platforms will be closed.
Let us think and act not like how we are forced to think and act by transnational corporations and related governments. While experience has shown that the policy of big money too often leads to the freezing of new technologies, as well as to wars and conflicts. Particularly in the oil industry. Arctic, unfortunately, it is a hostage of this policy.
The facts and figures given can be found in our report "Hydrocarbon projects in the Arctic shelf: Investment Risks"
With best regards and commitment to dialogue
Head of the Energy Division
Continue the dialogue or an e-mail Greenpeace!
Of course, there is no a normal person in the world who intentionally wants to destroy the Arctic nature, Mexico or Persian Gulf. And the very idea of environmental battle bribes and even in case of aggressive environmental actions finds supporters. But everyone has his own opinion, and when the environmental issues affect the life and well-being of the whole country, we cannot stay away.
Let us talk about the forms and methods of achievement of the environmental objectives. Let us understand what exactly the international organization Greenpeace implements in the Arctic?
Judging by what we see in the press, programme 'Save the Arctic " is not more than the usual media campaign, but the campaign of such a magnitude that the number of publications about the inspections yet nonfunctioning Prirazlomnaya exceed materials about the landing of the American rover. But the outcome of this event - the nonfunctioning Prirazlomnaya oil contamination was not found.
Quote from the blog of Greenpeace
“Today is the end of our expedition in the Pechora Sea, the Bay of the Barents Sea. We went around the world's first offshore ice-resistant platform and made sure that the oil giant is not working yet. "
Another interesting point: "On the way back we met with seismic vessels that are engaged in research of oil near the "Prirazlomnaya", on the South-Russian license area of "Rosneft". According to the company, the ships are working with all possible precautions not to damage living here in the summer walrus and beluga whales by the powerful sound of airguns"
The question arises, did the environmental organizations really not know that not work Prirazlomnaya doen not work? Or Gazprom company announced the start of production of oil? How much money did NGO Greenpeace spend for such a report to be presented, and how many people donated money, hoping that they will be well spent with profit. But there is no any information about the results of such checks to working for decades Norwegian drilling. I learned Norwegian Greenpeace site – there is no such information. But there is an article about how it was found out that on nonfunctional Prirazlomnaya plan for response to oil spills expired, and that it can affect the ecological situation in the Arctic. But herewith there is no information about the liquidation plans for platforms Norway! Did the environmental organization Greenpeace explore them? According to Vladimir Chuprov, in Norway there is a coalition that involved the oil question, but why did the Norwegian sites have articles about Russian problems, but on the Russian sites there is no information about problems in Norway?
Let us deal with the economics
As you remember, in the previous article I wrote about the plans of Norway to develop new fields Interestingly, the Norwegians also invest in non-profit projects and country with forty years of experience consciously drives itself into an unprofitable project? And a forecast of the analytical company "Rystad Energy", pointing to the fact that Norway is waiting for a new rise of the oil industry in 2020, should be ignored too?
Greenpeace highly mixes politics and business, but is it worth it? Indeed, according to the arguments of Greenpeace, the oil extraction projects in northern latitudes are unprofitable. Why is the largest Arctic states are developing plans for the development of the Arctic If it is not profitable, it turns out, they are all fools?
In response of Greenpeace there was a very good idea that we should encourage not fossil but low-carbon energy, which is quite reasonable. But counter question arises. Look: environmentalists seeking a ban on oil and, therefore, allow the possibility of collapse of social programs, reduce salaries and pensions due to the fact that for countries who are leaders in the production of hydrocarbons it is important way for a replenishment. We realize that this will never happen, because that demand creates supply and not vice versa, and must fight just with it.
Who is the main consumer of oil?
Leading position in the top ten of oil consuming countries is taken by the United States, which is not surprising, taking into account the level of provision of Americans by private cars. The top ten world's consumers also includes Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, India, France.
In my opinion that is where environmental organization Greenpeace should work, towards support of new technologies that reduce the consumption of oil in the world. And then not only me, but for millions of people around the world will be able to agree that it was a true champion of the environment And what do we see now? The letter by Chuprov has such words: "... we were approached by another producer additive that reduces fuel consumption by 10% ...". The question arises, if it was another manufacturer, how many there were before - dozens, maybe hundreds? Vladimir continues: " Refuses are everywhere." Vladimir, looks like you also refuses, throwing off responsibility of support of such manufactures on others, excusing for kickbacks and corruption. It is no secret that Greenpeace in Russia received 64.34 million in 2011!
Who is interested, a report on the expenditure of funds of Greenpeace is available on the portal of the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation: To do this you enter the company name in the "Name of NGOs" and set the date you are interested in my case it was from 2012 to 2012.
This is a huge amount of money that can be spent on aid in the implementation of high-tech projects, of which you have spent 42 million on salaries And after that we talk about the fight against oil development in the Arctic? Here I would like to repeat the question, how much cost the expedition «Arctic Sunrise»?
I do not want to blame anyone in this situation by no means, but the truth is that the result of the expedition to Prizalomnaya was obvious. Only because of the beautiful "packing" many people did not see the main thing: this is just holding a PR campaign, which will take over the minds of people the first place among the fighters for the environment but it will not bring closer to solving the problem of development of Arctic latitudes.
I hope that the dialogue will continue!
P.S. Information about the publication habitually I am sending to Greenpeace addresses...
- Школа завтрашнего дня
- 54% жителей Мурманской области готовы подработать
- "Мне нравится!"
- «Со свиным-то рылом да в калачный ряд»
- Арктические амбиции встанут россиянам в копеечку