Lake
Baikal is the deepest and clearest lake on Earth, surrounded by natural
forests. Like nature everywhere, Baikal’s environment is under increasing
pressure. While ecologically conscious Americans are fighting the
Fix our Forests Act, Brazilians hope to
stop the “Devastation Bill”, Indonesians are
desperate about the MIFEE project (the largest-scale
deforestation project currently planned by any state on Earth), people in
our country also face their own ecological struggles.
A
couple of years ago, a law was proposed that would open Baikal’s forests
to sanitary clearcutting. Sanitary clearcutting (сплошные санитарные
рубки) means the complete removal of all trees in a designated area,
officially justified as a measure to prevent the spread of pests, disease,
or wildfires. Unlike selective sanitary logging, which targets only
damaged or infected trees, sanitary clearcutting removes entire forest
stands, including healthy trees. In practice, this approach has often been
used as a pretext for large-scale illegal logging disguised as forest
health management, especially in ecologically sensitive or protected
areas.
In
the Russian ecological narrative, clearcutting has become a synonym for
allowing forests to be completely destroyed or annihilated. According to
current law, clearcuts are prohibited (although we know that
selective sanitary thinning can also pose significant
risks).
Recently,
during a lecture one of us gave for Bio4Climate’s course “Water and Climate”, a question was asked
about whether Russia can be looked up to in terms of protecting their
forests. In another recent interview, we encountered the opinion that
Russian forests are relatively safe. These are signals that information
about ecological awareness in Russia is quite scarce. Meanwhile, we have
our own ups and downs. Even though strategically we have been losing the
fight for nature, as all other nations have in recent years, there are
some local positive developments that give hope that a major ethical
shift, a phase transition in how people view nature, cannot be entirely
ruled out.
We
are not ecological activists, since our main work is scientific research.
However, we are strongly motivated to provide scientific support to those
who work to protect nature (and this work does involve a lot of hardship). Today we will share with you two
open letters: one from a Russian academician in favor of the law, and
another signed by five academicians opposing the law. This will give you
an idea of the debates currently taking place and how people feel about
nature. In the concluding section, a brief analysis is provided of the
scientific debate between these differing views, framed from the
perspective of the biotic regulation concept.
Open
letter supporting clearcutting in Baikal Forests
This
letter was published in a newspaper under the title
“Cut
or Not to Cut”: The Russian Academy of Sciences Supports Buryatia’s
Position on Forest Logging
The
emphasis is ours.
On
June 23 of this year, a meeting was held at the Presidium of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, chaired by RAS President Academician Gennady
Krasnikov and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Alexander
Kozlov, to discuss one of the most pressing issues for the residents of
Buryatia — the draft law on logging in the Central Ecological Zone of
the Baikal Natural Territory.
As
always, there were speeches proposing to postpone the adoption of the
law and to conduct new studies. However, in the end, the position of the
representatives of Buryatia was supported — a position presenting
arguments in favor of endorsing their version of the draft law.
-
The
actions of the residents of the Baikal region are guided by the
Constitution of the Russian Federation, which states: “The individual
and his rights and freedoms are the highest value. The recognition,
observance, and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and
citizen shall be the obligation of the state” (Article 2).
Furthermore, Article 9 adds: “Land and other natural resources shall
be used and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis of life
and activity of the peoples living on the corresponding
territory.”
-
However,
the most important circumstance related to such environmental
restrictions is that the ban on construction, fishing, firewood
harvesting, non-timber forest use, and more has led to a sharp
population decline in the coastal areas of Lake Baikal, an increase in
mortality, and a decrease in birth rates. In the 25 years since the
adoption of the Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal,” the population
of the four coastal districts of Buryatia has decreased by 25%. In the
city of Severobaikalsk alone, while the number of young people has
dropped, the number of pensioners has tripled. Trees can regrow — but
the people who have moved to Moscow will not return. As a result, to
meet the demands of the growing tourist flow, it is already necessary
to bring in migrant workers — just like in Moscow.
-
Land-use
restrictions on property rights have also led to political grievances
among the local population. During the 2020 vote on amendments to the
Russian Constitution, the residents of Olkhonsky District — who had
been stripped of land rights and live within the Central Ecological
Zone of Lake Baikal — were the only population in all of Russia to
vote against adopting the Constitution.
-
In
nature, a forest must either rot or burn. There is no third option,
and only rational forest management can preserve the forest's
productivity. Moreover, it seems our opponents haven’t even
read the Russian Forest Code, where Article 23.5, Paragraph 3, states:
“Clearcutting shall be recognized as felling in which forests are
harvested with the retention of certain trees and shrubs for forest
regeneration, followed by artificial reforestation
measures.”
And
Paragraph 4 of the same article clearly states: “Clearcutting is only
permitted on the condition that reforestation measures are planned and
subsequently implemented on the specified forest plots.” In
simple terms: if there is no clearcutting, no one will restore the
forest.
-
Some
opponents point to potential conflicts with international
environmental organizations. Unlike certain State Duma deputies, I do
not have foreign bank accounts, children, or wives abroad. Therefore,
I fully agree with Alexander III, who said, “If the West criticizes
us, it means we’re doing everything right.”
-
Meanwhile,
this artificial conflict between the interests of the local population
and the desire of the “greens” to “protect” Lake Baikal — even from
its own residents, tourists, and entrepreneurs fulfilling the
President’s directive to develop the tourism industry — can be easily
resolved. It is enough to introduce the following amendment to Article
11 of the Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal,” titled “Specifics of
the use, protection, safeguarding, and reproduction of forests in the
Central Ecological Zone”:
“In the Central Ecological
Zone of the Baikal Natural Territory, only logging aimed at the
maintenance and development of transport and social infrastructure, as
well as for meeting the essential needs of the local population, shall
be permitted.”
All
such facilities are listed in the draft law — and, I hope, no one
opposes them.
Thus,
all objections raised by the numerous “defenders” of Baikal are rendered
moot. It is also worth noting that the draft law explicitly lists all
specific locations and volumes of selective logging, which are many
times smaller than the annual natural loss of forest due to wildfires
and pest outbreaks. Unfortunately, this fact is consistently ignored by
all opponents of the bill, who continue to speak of non-existent
clearcuts.
It
should also be noted that the conclusion issued by the Public Chamber of
the Russian Federation is filled with suspicion toward local residents,
whose activities are allegedly aimed at large-scale clearcutting and
other unlawful actions. Moreover, the document contains not a single
word about protecting the rights and interests of the people living
along the shores of Lake Baikal — as if they simply do not exist. Even
the law itself is titled “On the Protection of Lake Baikal.” But the
real question is: from whom is Baikal being
protected? From the local population? From tourists? From members of the
State Duma?
It
is worth mentioning that Public Chamber representative E.A. Sharoykina
offered an apology and stated that she had no intention of restricting
the local population’s right to a dignified life.
It
was also noted that any such poorly designed legal restrictions on local
economic activity reduce the investment potential for tourism
development on Lake Baikal — a priority destination in Russia’s “Five
Seas and Lake Baikal” tourism project approved by the President.
Let
me emphasize once again: many of our problems in Russia stem from people
not doing their own jobs professionally. For some reason, no one asks me
how to save the Volga or Lake Ladoga. And yet, even those with no
background in ecology seem to “know” what should be done on Baikal.
In
the end, we must not act “holier than the Pope” or assume that people
living on the lake’s shores are somehow “enemies of Baikal” and that its
salvation depends on orders from Moscow or Murmansk.
Meanwhile,
this year the government adopted a resolution allowing the lake’s water
level to be altered by more than two meters to suit the energy sector.
This is an even bigger “ecological bomb” for Baikal. In Mongolia, a
hydropower project is underway on Baikal’s main tributary. Recent
amendments to Russia’s Water Code now hold landowners legally
responsible for flooding and shoreline erosion! Under this law, the
Baikal Nature Reserve is already being prosecuted for shoreline erosion
near its visitor center.
One
gets the impression that the government and parliament of Russia are not
listening to the people who actually live on Baikal’s shores — and
instead are representing some unknown interests while artificially
escalating the environmental situation. If this continues, local
residents might have no choice but to appeal to the Constitutional Court
of the Russian Federation, citing violations of their rights under
Articles 2 and 9 of the Constitution. I sincerely hope it does not come
to blocking the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Ultimately,
drawing from the experience of planned economy days, I propose holding a
joint regional conference on the shores of Baikal, involving local party
leaders and industry representatives, to discuss all aspects of Baikal’s
challenges — prioritizing the voices of people who actually live by the
lake.
After
all, during the Soviet era, Baikal’s environmental problems were
effectively addressed and people lived in comfort. Since then, dozens of
industrial facilities in the Baikal basin have closed, agriculture has
collapsed, the Baikal pulp and paper plant was shut down, industrial
logging ceased, and pollution has drastically decreased. Yet some people
— seemingly in search of self-promotion or research grants — keep
shouting “Baikal is dying!” and calling for the resettlement of local
communities. We’ve heard that slogan “No person – no problem” somewhere
before.
In
conclusion, I support the Russian Academy of Sciences’ position
recognizing the situation and calling for accelerated parliamentary
hearings. It must also be stressed that:
-
legislation
should not regulate technical forestry procedures;
-
most
objections to the draft law arise from opponents misreading the
Russian Forest Code, which actually addresses all the concerns raised
by “green” activists.
As
a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a senator, and a local
resident who understands this issue better than anyone, I state with
full responsibility: stop interfering in our lives — we will preserve
our home, Baikal, ourselves. And President Vladimir Putin has already
supported the appeal from the Head of Buryatia, Alexei Tsydenov, calling
to put an end to the debate and pass the proposed law. After all,
ecology is not a science of prohibitions — it is a science of home and
how to take care of it.
In
closing, RAS President G.Y. Krasnikov and Minister of Natural Resources
and Ecology A.A. Kozlov agreed that logging must be permitted to support
both forest and human life along Baikal’s shores. Hopefully, this
authoritative opinion of the Russian Academy of Sciences will put an end
to the long-standing “to cut or not to cut” debate — in favor of the
constitutional rights of the local population, who will now build roads,
flood protection systems, improve their homes, defend themselves against
wildfires, and live up to Russian standards — or perhaps even
better.
Arnold
Tulokhonov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Member of
the Federation Council (2013–2017)
Open
letter opposing clearcutting in Baikal Forests
To
the Chairman of the State Duma
of the Federal
Assembly
of the Russian Federation
V.V.
Volodin
Copies
to:
Chairman of the State Duma
Committee
on Ecology, Natural
Resources,
and Environmental
Protection
D.N. Kobylkin
First
Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee
on Ecology,
Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection
V.A.
Fetisov
Chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Protection of Lake Baikal
of
the State Duma Committee on Ecology, Natural
Resources,
and Environmental
Protection
N.R. Buduev
On
the Risks of Draft Law No. 387575-8 for the Preservation of Lake
Baikal’s Unique Ecosystem
Dear
Vyacheslav Viktorovich,
We
are compelled once again to address you with growing concern over the
fate of Lake Baikal and the Baikal Natural Territory—unique sites of
Russia’s national heritage.
Currently
under consideration by the State Duma is Draft Law No. 387575-8,
proposing amendments to Article 25-1 of the Federal Law "On the
Protection of Lake Baikal" and Article 11 of the Federal Law "On
Environmental Expert Review." The draft law was adopted in its first
reading on July 11, 2023, and has caused significant public outcry.
In
the time since, numerous scientific and expert forums have voiced
concern and presented well-founded arguments regarding this draft law
and its environmentally harmful orientation, which poses real ecological
risks and threats to Lake Baikal.
It
is particularly important to note that the preparation of amendments to
the draft law for the second reading has, for the most part, proceeded
behind closed doors, disregarding the substantiated positions of the
scientific and expert community, including those of the country’s
leading research institutions.
In
this regard, on June 23, 2025, a meeting was held at the Presidium of
the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) under the chairmanship of RAS
President G.Ya. Krasnikov, with the participation of the Minister of
Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, A.A.
Kozlov, along with a number of leading scientists—experts in forestry
and ecology. The meeting focused on discussing the aforementioned
amendments, particularly the critically important provision of the draft
law that would permit sanitary clearcutting in the
Central Ecological Zone of the Baikal Natural Territory (hereinafter,
CEZ BNT). It must be emphasized that the current Federal Law “On the
Protection of Lake Baikal” prohibits such clearcutting in the CEZ BNT,
and the version of the amendments adopted in the first reading does not
repeal this ban.
The
final protocol of the aforementioned RAS Presidium meeting has not yet
been signed and is still under revision. It is all the more surprising,
then, that the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, without waiting
for the official position of the Academy, hastily submitted the existing
draft amendments to the Government Commission on Legislative Activity.
On July 7, this Commission reviewed the amendments to Draft Federal Law
No. 387575-8 prepared by the Ministry. There is reason to believe that
these amendments will soon be considered by the relevant State Duma
Committee on Ecology, Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection,
and then brought to the second and third readings.
The
proposed amendments, which would legalize sanitary clearcutting in the
Central Ecological Zone of the Baikal Natural Territory (CEZ BNT), are
of greatest concern to the scientific community and the broader
public.
The
justification for lifting the ban on sanitary clearcutting raises
serious doubts. Under current forest legislation, in areas where timber
harvesting is prohibited, it is still permitted to do the ecological
cleanup of non-merchantable wood (known as уборка неликвидной древесины,
УНД [when dead wood, e.g., after a windfall, is piled up to be
naturally decomposed on the spot — AM]). The fundamental
difference between УНД and sanitary clearcutting of dead stands is that
with УНД, the wood must remain on-site, whereas sanitary clearcutting
allows the timber to be removed and sold commercially.
There
are serious grounds to believe that lifting the ban on sanitary
clearcutting in forests of exceptional importance for the preservation
of Lake Baikal's ecosystem will encourage the destruction of healthy
forest stands—for example, by deliberate arson—so that the area can
later be declared dead and the timber commercially exploited.
It is no secret that in recent years, sanitary
logging—including in the Baikal region—has gained a reputation as the
perfect cover for illegal logging activities (https://epp.genproc.gov.ru/web/gprf/search?article=58085382;
https://forestcomplex.ru/rf-protection/rubki-v-zakaznikah-kak-sanitarnye-meropriyatiya-unichtozhajut-ohranyaemye-lesa/).
Logging
operations (including artificial reforestation) in
mountainous terrain using heavy machinery also lead to a sharp increase
in soil erosion. The more sanitary clearcutting is carried out near Lake
Baikal, the more clay, sand, and nutrient-rich materials will be washed
into the lake and its tributaries, harming aquatic biological
resources.
Another
potential consequence of sanitary clearcutting is a significant increase
in fire risk in the forests of the CEZ BNT. Such operations would
require building more roads, which would increase accessibility to these
areas—and, accordingly, the likelihood of fires caused by careless human
activity (as the vast majority of wildfires are caused by
people).
A
distinctive feature of the Baikal Natural Territory is its sharply
continental climate, combined with strong, specific wind patterns—partly
caused by Lake Baikal itself. Under these conditions, the development
and spread of forest fires largely depend on how quickly and evenly
specific areas dry out and are exposed to wind.
Sanitary
clearcutting creates vast open spaces, which are later replaced by large
areas of young, low-growing forest. These young stands do little to
block wind and dry out quickly under high fire danger conditions. As a
result, the risk of fires spreading over large areas increases
significantly. All else being equal, this leads to more extensive
wildfires and greater resulting damage.
The
issue of whether to lift the ban on clearcutting has been repeatedly
discussed by experts at forums hosted by the Civic Chamber of the
Russian Federation and the Russian Academy of Sciences. The overwhelming
majority of specialists participating in these discussions have firmly
opposed allowing sanitary clearcutting in the Lake Baikal region.
In
addition to legalizing sanitary clearcutting, the proposed draft
amendments raise serious concerns about the potential for clearcutting
to make way for the construction of tourist infrastructure in special
economic zones, which cover more than 4,000 hectares within the CEZ BNT.
There is also concern over the possibility of virtually unrestricted
road construction in the CEZ BNT.
Experts
note that the construction of linear infrastructure—especially
roads—inevitably leads to fragmentation of natural systems and, as a
consequence, their degradation.
It
should also be noted that Lake Baikal is a natural heritage site of
global significance, and Russia’s obligations to preserve it arise from
the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage.
On
July 7, the 47th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee opened.
In the Committee’s draft decision (https://whc.unesco.org/document/221412),
it is stated, among other things, that the Committee once again
expresses concern about the weakening of the legal protection of Baikal
at a time when its ecological condition continues to deteriorate. The
Committee strongly urges the State Party to ensure and stabilize the
legal status of the site to safeguard its outstanding universal value,
to assess the impact of the proposed legislative changes, to provide
relevant information to the World Heritage Centre, and to avoid any
legislative amendments that could lead to adverse
consequences.
It
is important to keep in mind that the highest leadership of our country
regards UNESCO as an important platform for international cooperation.
For example, in the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the
People’s Republic of China on Deepening the Comprehensive Partnership
and Strategic Interaction (May 16, 2024, during President Vladimir V.
Putin’s visit to China), the Parties emphasized the need to further
strengthen UNESCO’s capacity as a universal intergovernmental
humanitarian forum, to promote a respectful and professional dialogue on
this platform aimed at constructive consensus among member states, and
to advance a unifying agenda (http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/6132).
In
light of the above, it appears that the current version of Draft Law No.
387575-8 does not meet the goal of preserving the unique
ecological system of Lake Baikal, the fulfillment of which,
according to the Decree of the President of Russia dated May 7, 2024,
No. 309 “On the National Development Goals of the Russian Federation for
the Period up to 2030 and with a Vision to 2036,” characterizes the
achievement of the national goal “Environmental Well-being.”
We
kindly ask you, Vyacheslav Viktorovich, to prevent the hasty adoption of
Draft Law No. 387575-8 in the form of the current proposed amendments,
including refraining from bringing it to the second reading. We believe
that the final version of the draft law should address the
socio-economic challenges of the region while maintaining an adequate
level of legal protection for the unique Baikal ecosystem.
In
turn, the scientific and expert community stands ready to actively
participate in the further development of this draft law.
Danilov-Danilyan
V. I.
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Earth
Sciences Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences on “Land Water
Resources,”
Chairman of the Scientific-Expert Council of
the All-Russian Society for Nature
Conservation,
Co-chair of the International Public
Organization “Expert Council on Protected
Areas,”
Scientific Director of the Institute of Water
Problems of the Russian Academy of
Sciences,
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences
Dgebuadze
Yu. Yu.
Chairman of the Russian National Committee for the
UNESCO "Man and the Biosphere" Programme,
Head of the
Department of General Ecology and Hydrobiology, Lomonosov Moscow State
University,
Member of the Presidium of the Russian
Academy of Sciences,
Academician of the Russian Academy
of Sciences
Rozhnov
V. V.
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Russian Academy of Sciences on Ecology of Biological Systems,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Chivilev
A. A.
Honored Geographer of the Russian
Federation,
Vice-President of the Russian Geographical
Society,
Chairman of the Permanent Environmental
Commission of the Russian Geographical
Society,
Academician of the Russian Academy of
Sciences
Lukina
N. V.
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Russian Academy of Sciences on Forests,
Director of the
Center for Ecology and Productivity of Forests of the Russian Academy of
Sciences,
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences
25
July 2025
For
the original text, see https://t.me/RusEcology/3181 and discussion by
academician A.R. Khokhlov at https://t.me/khokhlovAR/1034
Biotic
Regulation Comments
Despite
the many perspectives, both international and domestic, that distinguish
the two letters, the core disagreement can be seen as being primarily
scientific. It concerns the nature of forest stability and its
relationship with the environment. In the first letter, forests are seen
as inevitably destined to either rot or burn, and therefore their
productivity must be sustained through human management. It is further
argued that, since restoration is legally required to follow logging, the
absence of logging would mean that no restoration will occur—implying the
forest would remain in a degraded, burned, or decaying state.
Conversely,
the second letter emphasizes that clearcutting will undermine the
resilience of the forest ecosystem and its environment. In particular, it
argues that clearcutting increases vulnerability to large fires—not only
because more roads lead to a higher human risk of fire ignition, but also
because young, even-aged stands that grow on logged areas do not reduce
wind speeds, thereby facilitating the spread of fires. Moreover, these
stands dry out more easily than natural forests. The letter also notes
that mechanized forest restoration on steep slopes will increase soil
erosion and contribute to pollution of Lake Baikal.
Ecosystem’s
ability to regulate its moisture status declines with increasing human
harvest — Fig. 5 from Xiao et al.
2023 https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1211/2023/
The
second letter, therefore, implicitly supports the core idea of the biotic
regulation concept—that undisturbed ecosystems stabilize both themselves
and their environment and broader climate, while their disturbance leads
to environmental and climatic degradation. In fact, at least three of the
academicians who signed the letter are well acquainted with the biotic
regulation concept, having co-authored papers on the topic, publicly
expressed surprise over the “conspiracy of silence” around the concept,
or published our ideas in their journals and spread the narrative.
However,
even the second letter does not mention the broader role that natural
forest ecosystems play in climate stabilization. This is understandable,
as such a discussion would require a higher level of conceptualization and
argumentation that is not easily achievable in an official letter calling
for prompt measures—in this case, to prevent the hasty adoption of the
law. However, strategically, bringing attention to the climate-regulating functions of natural
ecosystems is vital.
What
this discussion reveals is that issues that can be perceived as purely
academic, such as what natural ecosystems might do for climate, and how
that function depends on their “naturalness” versus anthropogenic use,
are, in fact, central to making strategic decisions that will affect
people’s lives and our land for generations to come. Because an old tree
cut down today won’t grow back tomorrow, and its function will, in
practical terms, be lost to us forever.
Stop
cutting and giving away land, or Baikal will rise in anger. —
Gennady Tugulov, 13th-generation
shaman
One
might argue that, in the case of Baikal forests, this concerns a
relatively small area—and that whatever happens here cannot have a global
impact. In other words, even if we preserve the forests around Lake
Baikal, continued widespread logging elsewhere would render their
climate-stabilizing impact insignificant.
However,
Lake Baikal is a powerful symbol of Nature and Purity—a globally
recognized gem in the necklace of the Biosphere. The way we choose to
treat Lake Baikal may therefore carry far-reaching consequences for how
people relate to nature more broadly. A good decision made here can set a
precedent, echoing far beyond the region.
That
is why it is so important to foster thoughtful, respectful, and
science-based discussions about what forests actually do for our climate.
For instance, as key drivers of atmospheric moisture transport, the
natural forests of Siberia and the Russian Far East play a crucial role in
sustaining moist air circulation over China (e.g., van der Ent et al. 2010).
Instead
of continuing to log native forests in Russia while promoting artificial
afforestation in China, why not pursue cooperation between all
the regional powers to preserve natural forests and protect the integrity
of moisture flows? Timber production could then be concentrated
in smaller, intensively managed forest plantations—minimizing ecological
and climatic damage.
Plantations
are said to occupy just 3% of global tree stands yet generate 33% of global timber.
Why not set aside ten times more natural forest for permanent
protection for every new plantation we establish? This way, we
could solve both deforestation once and for all, and timber supply for the
time being—until we learn how to live by exploiting forests less than we
do now. Provided, of course, that the timber industry doesn’t succeed in
lobbying for infinite growth under the banner of making wood the
foundation of a green “circular economy.” Turning the Earth into one vast
timber plantation might seem efficient—for a moment—before it ends in
irreversible collapse.
Intensely
managed forests in Europe are in effect tree plantations, and they are
struggling with all types of disturbances. Figure source:
Scherpenhuijzen et al. 2025. Notably, in
France, Spain and Portugal harvesting is most intense. When reading about
“wildfires” in Spain or Portugal, remember that these affect heavily
exploited, ecologically devastated vegetation deprived of the capacity to
regulate moisture. On the contrary, native forests in Portugal, however
small, could stop even intense fires. We don’t call an
industrial chicken farm an “ecosystem,” so let’s not deceive ourselves by
calling modern, heavily harvested tree stands “forests.”
If
we choose now to stop cutting down multicentennial trees for toilet paper
or “sustainable” packaging (see “Trees might be green—but paper isn’t” by
Rachel Donald), future generations—if able to look back from their
ecologically wiser world—may regard us with gratitude and applaud our
civilizational committment.
PS:
Consideration of the law by the Duma has apparently been postponed.
According to the telegram channel “Ecology of Russia”, the law has
disappeared from the Duma’s timetable.
