09 Feb 2021, 18:00


When talking about the environmental situation in the world, you say that humanity will only survive for another 30 years if the Earth’s population does not change its self-centered attitude toward the environment. I cannot imagine such a major change in human consciousness. After all, even today, in the face of a real pandemic with tragic consequences, there are a huge number of COVID dissidents who firmly believe that the pandemic is a hoax and conspiracy, mass vaccination is dangerous, and masks are a health hazard. How can we (humanity) be convinced that the world will inevitably come to an end if our attitude toward the environment doesn’t change?

“We must take a sober and unprejudiced look at the environmental situation and draw the appropriate conclusions. Judge for yourself...

“The highest temperatures in history were recorded at the North Pole between August 21 and September 1, 2019, with an all-time high of +35 degrees Celsius registered on August 27. A total of 470 million tons of ice have melted, and this water has been flooding Europe since October of the same year. In the past five years, the world’s mountain glaciers—in the Alps, Pyrenees, Andes, Himalayas, Cordilleras, Tien Shan, Kunlun, the Caucasus, etc.—have lost 2.2 trillion tonnes of ice. Glacier melt will change the flow of mountain rivers, disrupt the flora and fauna of the regions, and increase the risk of extreme rock falls and mountain floods.

“The world’s ice reserves amount to 30 million cubic kilometers. If global warming trends continue, in 5 years, 1% of this volume, that is, 300,000 cubic kilometers, will melt. By 2030, the level of the world’s oceans will rise by 50-60 cm. The area of England will be reduced by 10% and Mexico will shrink by 8%, while Russia will lose parts of the Leningrad Region and Vladivostok, as well as its territories close to the Arctic. Argentina will also undergo vast territorial losses and the area of Holland will be reduced by 5%.

“According to American scientists, 2020 has been the warmest year in the planet’s history since meteorological observations began, In July, abnormally hot weather was registered in Russia in the Astrakhan, Volgograd, Rostov, Orenburg and Chelyabinsk regions, as well as in the Krasnodar territory, Bashkiria, Kalmykia and the Republic of Altai. German professor Leverman noted that in the Siberian region, an average temperature of more than 7 degrees higher than normal for this time of year continued for six months. This is a new climatic phenomenon. This phenomenon could have severe economic consequences for Russia. Ongoing periods of hot weather lead not only to numerous forest fires, but also to further melting of the permafrost regions of Siberia, which could damage pipelines, roads and buildings.

“On July 20, the temperature in Verkhoyansk, which is beyond the Arctic Circle in a remote part of Siberia, reached a record level of 38 degrees Celsius. This is the highest temperature in the history of observations since 1885. Temperatures rose above 40 degrees Celsius in July in some parts of Russia. In Antarctica, the temperature rose above 20 degrees Celsius for the first time, and on February 9, it reached 20.75°C on Seymour Island. Scientists describe this phenomenon as incredible.

“Abnormally high temperatures were recorded in a number of West European countries even at the beginning of August.

“Due to the high temperatures in France, a red alert was declared in nine regions of the country. On August 8, the air warmed up to a record +38°C in Paris, although usually the temperature is no higher than 24°C on this day. Daily temperature records were also broken in many other European cities on the same day.

“In Germany, the thermometer showed +33°C in Hamburg (whereby the normal temperature is +22.2°C). Abnormally high temperatures of +34°C were registered in Amsterdam (normal +20°C) and +36°C in Maastricht (normal +23°C).

“In London, the temperature reached +33°C, exceeding the norm for this day by 10°C. And in the city of Granada (Spain), a record +41°C was registered (the norm for this day being +35°C).

“On August 16, one of the hottest temperatures ever recorded on the planet was reached in the U.S. Thermometers in Death Valley National Park in California showed 55°C.

“A record number of fire hazards, over 10 thousand, appeared in the forests of the Amazon in early August. In 2020, the number of fires increased by almost 20% compared to the previous summer. Over the past year, more than 9 thousand square kilometers of forests burned in Brazil. This is 500 million trees, or 6 billion cubic meters of forest, which could have produced 52 million tonnes of oxygen a year. According to experts, the forest fires that raged in the north of California this summer were the most devastating in the state’s history.

“Due to the 40-degree heat and drought earlier this year in Australia, fires destroyed half of the vegetation. The local fauna also suffered enormously—more than a billion animals were killed.

“Today we have every reason to assert that an environmental disaster is no longer waiting at the door, but has already stepped across the threshold into our common home, the planet Earth.

“As for the pandemic, it has led to a 15% reduction in humanity’s carbon footprint compared to 2019. The pandemic has shown that changing consumer habits in the short term is possible and quite realistic. However, in a globalized economy, it is impossible to reduce production in one country or a few countries alone; a new environmental policy must be adopted by all countries of the world without exception. Humanity can no longer evolve by exploiting the planet’s resources, degrading the environment, and destroying flora and fauna. The time has come for a systemic global change.

“Some environmentalists today are no longer calling members of our society Homo sapiens, but Homo idioticus. This refers to those who believe that the pandemic is a hoax and conspiracy and, seeing no direct correlation between the human impact on the environment and the emergence of another coronavirus, continue to deny the catastrophic consequences of the anthropogenic influence on the environment.

“The negative environmental situation is indeed having a serious effect on the human body and on the state of its microbiome (if you take just those people whose physical wellbeing is affected by the weather, you can imagine the effect other cataclysms will have on us). The deteriorating climatic conditions are reducing the immune resistance of the human body, which is one of the main reasons viruses are becoming more active.

“A virus is a coded order from the supreme microbiome directed at humanity, which has grown beyond the ability of the natural universe to sustain it. The microbiome’s orders are carried out instantaneously and are fatal to all living creatures. Dinosaurs and many other species were exterminated this way. The worse the environmental situation, the more dangerous the consequences of virus mutation. The attitude people have today toward the environment entirely discredits the harmony established between viruses and humans during the evolution of Homo sapiens as a means of exchanging genetic information to regulate the size of the population and adapt to the external environment to preserve the species. Viruses are the driving force in the microbiome’s genetic composition, and all successful mutations are preserved by evolution. Why have so many viruses recently been aimed at destroying the human body? Is this an expression of dissatisfaction with the human product? Humanity sees fit to exterminate an infinite number of microorganisms with detergents and antibiotics, while the basic human building material is a community of microbes, bacteria, bacteriophages, viruses, fungi and yeasts united in microbiomes. Each of us is a mixture of chemicals, tens of trillions of microbes living in close community! And that is all!”

You are known for your firm belief that the consumer society is the main cause of the impending (God forbid!) environmental disaster...

“Absolutely. What we are seeing is caused by our consumer society, which has been creating an ever increasing greenhouse effect on the planet year after year. In 2019, humanity emitted 37 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Emissions have been rising for three years in a row and have reached record levels. Hence the abnormal heat and fires, melting ice and floods that have become permanent aspects of our lives.

“More than 20,000 tonnes of textiles and more than 10,000 tonnes of leather goods are burned every day, while people today have 900 thousand tonnes of clothes in their closets. In 2019, the volume of electronic waste reached a record 54 million tonnes. According to the UN, one-and-a-half billion tonnes of edible food is thrown out or destroyed worldwide every year. A quarter of this amount could feed all the starving people on the planet. In landfills, this food produces greenhouse gases comparable in volume to those produced by the largest air polluters, the United States and China.

“As of 2018, the global cattle population amounted to 1.5 billion heads, which is 6 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year. Cattle emit methane as a product of their digestion, whereby livestock and meat production account for 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. That is more than the combined emissions from cars, planes and ships. In addition, livestock requires pasture and fodder—forests have to be cut down to provide this farmland, which degrades the soil and fresh water. Never before in world history has humankind consumed so much meat. At the same time, this diet, which is not compatible with human digestion, leads to obesity and various diseases. More than 30% of the inhabitants of the Earth are overweight.

“The consumer ideology is ruining the planet and humanity. More clothes, more food, more feces (4 billion tonnes are produced a year with no recycling technology, what happens to this waste?), more gadgets, cars, garish stage costumes, movies, restaurants, entertainers, sports (sports should be only for health, not for entertainment and commerce), and so on.

“The production, sale and use of fireworks should be banned; we need to look for new ways to celebrate and manifest mass jubilation. People need to experience elation, otherwise they wilt. But fireworks, which evoke this elation, contain many hazardous substances that are detrimental to human health and the entire planet. Contemporary fireworks contain organochloride substances and various salts, which emit aerosols of heavy metal compounds and extremely toxic substances—dioxins—when burned.

“On January 2, 2019, the German newspaper Tagespiegel published data from air quality tests carried out on New Year’s Eve in various German cities. The worst air was in Berlin, where the largest number of fireworks was set off. A total of 853 micrograms of particles per cubic meter of air were found in the capital, which is almost 40 times higher than the norm. Since 270 grams of black powder produces 132 grams of carbon dioxide, we can multiply that ratio (132/270 = 0.4889) by the volume of fireworks to get the annual U.S. emissions produced by fireworks—60,340 tonnes. That is more than is produced by 12,000 vehicles a year, or the annual emissions from 115,000 light bulbs.

“Most fireworks also contain highly toxic substances, such as sulfur, arsenic, manganese, potassium perchlorate, and strontium nitrate. Exposure to arsenic in the womb and in early childhood negatively affects children’s mental development and correlates with higher mortality rates among young people.

“Professional fireworks release much more smoke into the atmosphere than amateur fireworks. However, homemade pyrotechnics pose just as much, if not more of a health hazard because they burn at a lower altitude and their smoke is much easier to inhale. Scientists have determined that the smoke from even a small homemade firework can spread as far as 50 kilometers. Depending on its force, the volume of an explosion by a pyrotechnical device can reach 140-170 decibels (a chainsaw or a rock concert creates a noise level of 110 decibels). According to WHO experts, 140 decibels is the loudness threshold for adults, after which hearing damage is inevitable, 120 decibels is the maximum level for children.

“If by the middle of the 21st century the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaches 1,200-1,300 parts per million and the temperature increases by only another 2.5 degrees, the temperature of the World Ocean will rise to 22 degrees and that of the Arctic Ocean to 10 degrees. These temperature changes will lead to another expulsion of methane—hundreds of billions of tonnes—from the World Ocean, as well as from the melting permafrost zone in the circumpolar areas (Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia). We will be inundated with about a trillion tonnes of methane. There will be a thermal maximum, a planetary fire will start, which already happened in the late Paleocene, killing all life for 100 thousand years. It stands to reason that the Earth’s temperature changes at different times, but today’s consumer society is accelerating these changes, which will cause the planet to perish.”

How can we stop consumerism and make it comply with environmental standards? And what consumption standards can serve to improve the environment?

“A worldwide environmental dictatorship is urgently needed. The world can be saved by introducing new digital civilization standards that will restrict and control every member of society at all levels of consumption (from the amount of food consumed and how many clothes and household items, as well as real estate, etc. is purchased to entertainment and recreation services). The transition to a new level of world consumption and digitalization of the economy can be facilitated with the help of artificial intelligence. However, the main task of AI is to restrict consumption and the use of all kinds of renewable and, in particular, non-renewable natural resources in the production of goods and services in order to maintain the viability of humanity at a reasonable level.

“In my opinion, the optimal solution to the problem of overconsumption would be to create a digital shopper profile that allows each person to make only a certain number of purchases per year, e.g. no one should be allowed to buy more than three pairs of shoes, two pairs of winter boots, three dresses or shirts, three pairs of pants for both sexes and two skirts for women, one jacket, one coat, and two sweaters a year. Each citizen may buy only one car with an engine of no more than 100 horsepower, which should last for 25 years. If someone causes an accident and the car is beyond repair, they will not be allowed to buy a new one. The sale of a wide assortment of jewelry should be banned, all fashion houses closed, and textile production reduced by 80%. Ninety percent of confectionery factories, auto repair shops, bandstands, sporting events, television factories, and all forms of advertising should be eliminated. The terms “star,” “elite person,” “world leader,” etc. should be banished from all languages. Environmentalists around the world will describe these new environmental civilizational consumption standards in more detail in the near future.

“The time has come to toughen penalties for environmental crimes and misinformation in all countries of the world. Countries that do not comply with and/or violate the new digital civilization standards should be subjected to an economic blockade during the first year and to military coercion in subsequent periods if the primary measures prove ineffective. To enforce general discipline, stiffer penalties should be introduced for serious crimes, replacing long-term imprisonment with the death penalty.”

Are you talking about handing out ration cards?

“No, of course not. A digital civilization—or digital economy—is a new step and an inevitable stage in social development. Otherwise, humanity will be brought to its knees. Profile standards will of course imply a certain amount of food and commodity rationing. Each person may buy 400 grams of bread, 300 grams of meat or fish, 30 grams of butter, 500 grams of fruit and vegetables, but not a gram more, per day, and no more than 8 liters of ‘neat alcohol’ a year, and so on. The digital profile must take into account the total amount of food a person consumes, including at restaurants and cafes. For example, if you have already bought 2 kg of meat for the week, the restaurant will replace a steak with fish, or if you have already bought 2 kg of both meat and fish, the restaurant will have to refuse you and offer only a salad.

“Usual dishes and silverware will be replaced with edible crockery and cutlery. They are made from food and are eaten at the end of the meal. This will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by the production of metal utensils, but just as importantly, it will save the water normally used to wash dishes.”

Of course, a faucet turned off on time will reduce water consumption, but this will not eliminate the large-scale shortage of drinking water currently experienced by many countries. It is clear that this and other similar global problems require urgent and radical solutions...

The shrinking amount of drinking water is one of the most urgent problems on Earth today. Humanity consumes the amount of water contained in Lake Geneva every year. This means that in 15-20 years there will be no natural drinking water left on the planet and only desalinated water will be available for consumption, which is not very healthy. Based on that, strict drinking water consumption standards must be introduced of 2 liters per person per day. No more than 12 liters of technical water per day should be used for taking showers, washing, doing laundry, and for other needs.

“Plastic packaging should be banned by law. Recently, scientists have been actively developing materials that are biodegradable and not harmful to nature (for example, based on nano cellulose, pectin, chitin, algae, cane sugar, etc.). Until the new technologies are introduced on a global level, paper and cardboard may be used, although they cannot be called completely environmentally friendly either—their manufacture requires the felling of trees and the consumption of a large amount of water. But this will have to continue as a temporary measure until new environmental solutions are found.

“Some governments and parliaments are actively pursuing environmental initiatives. For example, in 2019 Europe banned the free distribution of plastic bags, and from the beginning of 2021, the EU will completely eliminate disposable plastic items. In particular, disposable plastic dishes, cutlery, straws, and cotton swabs will be banned.

“The European Chemicals Agency has also proposed a ban on the use of micro plastics in the EU beginning in 2021. This will prevent about 500 thousand tons of plastic micro particles from entering the environment for 20 years. These particles are contained in a variety of consumer goods, in particular in many brands of cosmetics, household chemicals and fertilizers. Furthermore, by 2029, Europe plans to collect 90% of used plastic bottles for recycling. This is too late, ladies and gentlemen, it must be sooner. This program must be completed by 2022!

“Nevertheless, on a planetary scale, Europe’s elimination of plastic will reduce the global problem, but not significantly. Nine of the ten countries that cause the greatest pollution of the ocean are located in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, while the tenth is America. So when we discuss environmental problems, we must understand that the new civilizational environmental production and consumption standards cannot apply to only one country or a few countries. The decision to implement them must be made internationally, by all nations of the world.

“We all know that there is a Great Pacific garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean. Approximate estimates of its area vary from 700 thousand to 1.5 million km² (from 0.41% to 0.81% of the total area of the Pacific Ocean). The area of France is 640 km², i.e. the garbage islands in the ocean are more than twice the size of France. There are more than several million tonnes of garbage in these areas. According to researchers, 80% of this waste comes from land-based sources and 20% is thrown from the decks of ships as they sail the high seas. This garbage patch can only be eliminated and the world’s oceans cleaned up if every country in the world participates in the funding by collecting 50 cents from each citizen. Thus, the U.S. is obliged to contribute $164 million to the World Ocean Cleanup Fund, China - $750 million, Russia - $50 million, Germany - $42 million, etc.”

Our conversation calls for a discussion of the energy problem. Oil and coal are becoming more expensive and, of course, are causing enormous damage to the environment. Experts claim that in 30 years, about half of the world’s electricity will be generated by solar and wind power. Wind and solar power generation will outpace traditional power generation as early as 2020.

Do you think solar panels, wind and hydro power plants and bioreactors will becomea full-fledged alternative to traditional energy sources? Or is nuclear power the future?

“Every energy source should be considered first and foremost from the point of view of its environmental friendliness. All hope for clean, carbon-free, safe and almost waste-free energy to meet the needs of every region of the planet, while preserving natural resources, lies in the construction and launching of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactors) and the use of nuclear fusion energy. This task is not easy, but if scientists from all over the world unite their efforts, they should be able to cope with it. So far, fusion energy has only been obtained in the hydrogen bomb.

“The large-scale use of wind power could cause average temperatures to rise in the summer and fall in the winter because wind in the world’s atmosphere is ‘responsible’ for transferring heat from the hot, tropical parts of the globe to the colder, higher latitudes. Disruption of the rate of heat transfer resulting from the rotation of wind turbines will inevitably lead to climatic changes. Furthermore, wind turbines are a source of infrasonic noise, which adversely affects animals, birds, and the human body, so the areas surrounding such stations will become uninhabitable, which again upsets the environmental balance.

“There is a myth that nuclear power plants are absolutely environmentally pure, but this is not true. Indeed, nuclear power plants do not generate greenhouse gases, but they do release unrecoverable radioactive gas emissions—tritium and noble gases. In addition, all the materials, construction, and isotope enrichment of uranium used in establishing nuclear power plants require energy-intensive technologies, and it is important that energy is taken from the grid, where the share of electricity from nuclear generation is only 20%, while the rest is obtained mainly by burning fossil fuels. Therefore, despite a number of existing developments in this field, we do not recommend going with nuclear power plants. Decommissioning and disposal must also be considered, i.e. the burial of radioactive units, which is all very costly.

“Hydrogen power is also considered environmentally friendly, since the combustion of hydrogen produces only water. But the production of hydrogen also requires energy. At the moment, producing hydrogen at nuclear power plants is being studied, taking into account new reactors and minimal waste.

“If we do not achieve the widespread establishment of a new environmental-conscious civilization in 30-35 years, it will be too late to implement the current projects. The planet will go up in flames... Saving the Earth must be vigorously promoted every minute and every hour of every day. Every year, humankind needs increasing amounts of energy. Whereas 10-15 years ago hydrocarbons were largely consumed between October and April, today, and even more so tomorrow, this consumption will increase significantly in the summer months in order to maintain a comfortable climate in homes all year round. Will all the citizens of the world be able to take on this extra financial burden of providing themselves with the energy they need?

“What is more, the climate will not change equally all over the planet at the same time, but from continent to continent, for example.”

So the migration of huge masses of people from the most crisis-ridden countries, and, accordingly, a change in state boundaries, is inevitable?

“Yes. This will happen if, for example, it will be possible to live in Europe, but impossible to live in Asia at daily temperatures above 50 degrees Celsius. Or, vice versa, this temperature rise occurs in the European Union (540 million people) and the European part of the former Soviet Union (90 million people), creating a total of 630 million people who need to relocate. Where will they go? Should we close our borders and leave them to die? There are about 3.3 billion people in Asia. Where will they go? To Europe? But no single army or the armies of a few countries can hold so many displaced people on their borders. What financial and food resources will be required to provide them with a tolerable life? If the land where we can grow and produce food were to shrink by 50-70%, what would people eat? The whole continent will become uninhabitable. Will this result in wars for a piece of bread, a sip of water, and a breath of oxygen? Whereby there will be no hospitals, no medicine, no doctors, no police, no legal regulations, no laws—everything will be destroyed overnight! My words are not the doom mongering of a mentally deranged author, but the reality of the very near future. However, the world has nothing to say! Why? Modern civilization has truly turned from Homo sapiens into Homo idioticus! Modern television and other media devices are the main destroyers of human consciousness. They live very well on the money gained from advertising and incentive bonuses of those in power. Just take the TV presenter in the Chinese tunic, for instance—99% of his air time is taken up with praising the government but shaming Greta Thunberg and all environmentalists! He is a blatant destroyer of the planet’s environment!”

This is not a question for a doctor of economics, but for writer Alexander Potemkin. I am holding a copy of your latest beautifully printed novel Epiphanies of Solitude. This book is printed on paper made from cut wood. This is an age-old technology of book printing. If humanity, for environmental reasons, were to lose the ability to hold and read a book, what would it gain in return?

“In 2018, a total of 419.72 million tonnes of paper and cardboard were manufactured globally. Packaging paper accounted for half and drawing paper for about one third of this amount. Drawing paper includes two main types of paper: printing and writing paper and newsprint. Printing and writing paper is used for magazines, catalogs, books, commercial printing, business forms, office supplies, copying and digital printing. Newsprint paper is used for printing newspapers, flyers, and other printed materials intended for mass distribution. A total of 138.5 million tonnes of drawing paper are manufactured every year. It takes 24 trees to produce one tonne of paper, i.e., to produce the annual volume of drawing paper required, it takes 138.5 million tonnes x 24 = 3,324 billion trees.

“Only up to 60% of all paper consumed worldwide is recycled and only 4% of recycled paper is used for printing and writing. This small percentage is due to the low quality of the paper produced.

“We must limit our use of paper. While print products are still in demand, try to buy books made from recycled paper. Buy less: borrow books from libraries, book swap with friends and acquaintances, participate in bookcrossing. Switch to reading electronically. Entirely forego the use of paper towels, paper handkerchiefs and tissues. Forbid the distribution of paper advertisements—in your mailbox, driveway, and office. Remember, tens of millions of hectares of forests are destroyed for the needs of the printing industry—to print books, newspapers, magazines, manufacturing stationery, office paper and other supplies, as well as advertising materials. Forests are the planet’s lungs, as clichéd as that phrase sounds. In order to preserve them, waste paper collection must be introduced everywhere.”

You predict that three billion people will lose their jobs due to this environmental catastrophe. But what can we do about it? Are there any solutions to this problem, to put it mildly?

“The introduction of new digital civilization standards will affect all industries without exception. A threefold reduction of the global economy, its reformatting, and the elimination of super-profits will lead to a gigantic workforce of about three billion people becoming redundant. Where can they be employed and how can they be supported? A Fund must be created now under the aegis of the UN for developing the know-how by which humanity can evolve from Homo sapiens to Homo cosmicus, aimed at improving current humankind and increasing its resistance to disease and the possibility of extending its potential life expectancy to the theoretical thermodynamic threshold of 150 years. At present the problem of the elementary biological degradation of Homo sapiens is not fully understood either by science or the public. Proof of this is the large-scale decline in the reproductive function, the birth of impaired offspring, the accelerated rate of aging, and chronic epidemics of non-communicable diseases. This provides an opportunity for half of the freed labor force to devote itself entirely to science, allowing humanity to move to a new stage of development. The Fund could be financed by attracting some of the money in private deposits at a minimum rate, the amount of which, according to data of the World banking system, is about 45 trillion USD, as well as using certain image-building mechanisms for saving humanity. While 10% of these private savings will remain in the owners’ accounts, the other 90% will be distributed between the Science Foundation and the Social Support Fund (50% or $22.5 trillion and 40% or $18 trillion).

“The other half of human resources (1.5 billion people) can be employed in the development of subsistence farming, taking into account the restrictions imposed on increasing production on newly allocated land due to the changing climatic agricultural conditions. In order to provide the necessary assets from the Social Support Fund, payments of one-time social benefits will be made in the amount of $12,000 per person. Taking into account the 3-fold reduction in consumption standards, this amount will make it possible to ensure the fund’s existence for 2.5 years. After that, new financially modest resources will arise for living in an environmental civilization and forming Homo cosmicus.

“I realize that calling for a reduction in consumption means calling for a drop in living standards. However, in the not so distant past, during the 1960s, people lived very modestly, but they were happy. We can return to this state if humanity changes its priorities and turns from Homo consumers, a species driven by consumption, to Eco sapiens, an environmentally conscious species. Humanity can no longer evolve by exploiting the planet’s resources, degrading the environment, and destroying the flora and fauna. The time has come for systemic global change.

“I appeal to all citizens of the world: if you are still have the capacity for rational thinking and have not yet drowned in the abyss of destructive consumerism, join the ranks of the World and European environmental fronts and become a member of the Committee of 100. Actively defend your own home—Mother Earth. The call to join is not just to become a formal participant, but to actively advocate on every possible information and scientific platform and discuss and convince your relatives, friends, and acquaintances of the need to save the planet. There is still time to take this vital step. But if each of you does not actively devote yourselves to the New Environmental Code, in 2053 Planet Earth will cease to exist!

“P.S. This interview is available in all languages of the world—from Japan to Argentina.”

Interview conducted by Alexander Tamirov

Potemkin Alexander

Cofounder of the planetary environmental Hamburg Club, Hamburg

Comments: 0
  • Your comment will be the first

Join the project