The Soviet Union and Global Environmental Change

Modifying the Biosphere and Conceptualizing Society-Nature Interaction

Jonathan D. Oldfield

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9780367745882
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000393347
• Topic: Ciencias físicas
• Subtopic: Ciencia medioambiental

This book argues that the Soviet Union was a highly influential actor in furthering understandings of society-nature interaction on the international stage and played a key role in helping to shape, conceptualize and assess the relationship between humankind and the Earth system. It considers how humankind's capacity to affect physical and biological systems at a global scale was acknowledged and studied by Soviet scientists, discusses how the interaction between Soviet and Western scientists stimulated the development of new technologies and insights, which simultaneously facilitated a more profound understanding of the Earth's physical and biological systems, and explores how Soviet scientists drew upon pre-revolutionary intellectual traditions in order to make sense of society-nature interaction and did so in collaboration with a range of international initiatives. Overall, the book provides a deep analysis of how Soviet scientists conceptualized society-nature interaction and influenced the understanding of global physical and biological systems. Furthermore, it is argued that this intellectual legacy remains of importance today with respect to the activities of Russian science and contemporary global environmental challenges.

1
Introduction

Global environmental change and the Soviet Union

Attempts to make sense of humankind's growing ability to influence the Earth system have proliferated during the last few decades, shaped by powerful ideas and concepts such as Earth System Science, Gaia, and the Anthropocene. The urgency surrounding this issue is heightened by the climate emergency and animated by broader social and political uncertainties at local, regional, and global levels. An awareness of our collective ability to shape and undermine the physical and biological systems on which we depend is not new. Furthermore, it is now widely acknowledged that there has been a step change in our collective ability to effect fundamental environmental change at a global scale during recent decades, allied to a growing ability to assess and predict the environmental consequences of humankind's activities. At its heart, this book is an exploration of an episode related to this qualitative shift in the relationship between humankind and the Earth system, which has received limited focused attention in the English-language literature. The Soviet Union was a dominant presence for much of the twentieth century. Its passing left a significant and well-documented mark on global geopolitics and the wider environment. At the same time, its rivalry with the United States provided a backdrop to the development of powerful new technologies, which raised the likelihood of global annihilation while also facilitating a more profound understanding of the Earth's physical and biological systems. Soviet scientists drew, in part at least, upon long-standing pre-revolutionary intellectual traditions in order to make sense of society-nature interaction and change over time. Furthermore, they collaborated with a range of international scientific initiatives concerned with understanding global environmental systems, often taking leading roles in shaping the ensuing discussion and debate.

The Soviet Union and its largest successor state, the Russian Federation, thus represent interesting case studies for furthering insight into the changing nature of humankind's relationship with the wider environment and its possible futures, and for a number of reasons. First, the Soviet Union's ability to influence the socio-environmental contours of the mid- to late-twentieth century was significant as well as wide-ranging. Critical reviews of this period engage with the Soviet Union to a greater or lesser extent, and understandably dwell on the Soviet experience as one characterized by a legacy of environmental damage, framed by major disasters such as Chernobyl, and underpinned by a highly centralized industrial model of development. This general view is supported and evidenced by early specialist contributions to the debate (e.g. Feshbach and Friendly, 1992; Peterson, 1993; Pryde, 1991; Saiko, 2001; Ziegler, 1990). This was certainly a significant dimension of its activities. However, such narratives tend to skirt around the multitude of ways in which the Soviet Union interacted with the natural environment at the regional and global level, extending beyond the activities of a simple aggressor. Aspects of the country's varied relationship with the natural environment are examined in detail within the subsequent chapters. Second, and linked to this, Soviet science was not ignorant of the environmental damage the socialist mode of development was causing, nor was it alone in its apparent failure to address the noted environmental excesses to any meaningful extent. This apparent inability to respond radically or effectively to the environmental excesses of modern society finds broader expression in the discourse framing the current discussion related to the Anthropocene concept, of which more below. Third, the evident lack of any consequential response to the country's developing environmental dilemma by the Soviet state did not stop its scientists from reflecting deeply on the character of the changing relationship between society and the natural environment. Aspects of this response relevant to contemporary understandings of global environmental change will be discussed in more detail later in the book. Fourth, the Soviet Union was heavily involved in the developing international engagement with emerging environmental issues evident at the global level, and this ranged from active participation in major scientific endeavours such as the International Geophysical Year (IGY) (1957-1958) to identifiable agendas around ecologizing production and assessing the possible consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Finally, the Russian Federation remains an important player with respect to global environmental processes and their conceptualization. While the post-1991 period resulted in enormous societal shifts within the country, elements of Soviet science and related intellectual legacies continue to influence contemporary debate related to society-nature interaction, and a firmer grasp of this Soviet legacy can assist in helping to interpret current and future environmental trajectories within the country. As noted, these trajectories have significance for global trends.

In view of the points highlighted earlier, the central aim of the book is to explore the significance of the Soviet experience and its scientific traditions with respect to current understanding of nature-society interaction at the global level. This acknowledges in part the Soviet Union's tendency to occupy a somewhat peripheral position within related discussions. Such peripherally is reinforced by the fact that the country holds an uneasy position within Western economic and political imaginations more generally. During the Cold War period, the Soviet Union and other socialist states were relegated to the Second World, and framings of post-socialist Russia hover somewhere within the interstices of the dominant North-South division as highlighted by its half-hearted association with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). In considering the particularities of the Soviet Union and its relationship with the wider environment, a number of questions become evident: How should we understand the Soviet Union's role

Map 1.1 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Source: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/soviet_union_admin_1984.pdf. Drawn by Chantal Jackson, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham

in the marked socio-environmental shifts that occurred during the course of the twentieth century captured by notions such as the Great Acceleration¹? How did Soviet scientists conceptualize society-nature interaction? And, how was Soviet society's influence on physical and biological systems interpreted, monitored, and assessed by its own scientists? Furthermore, to what extent did Soviet science become involved in global efforts to further understanding of global physical systems? Such questions formed the starting point for the book, and key aspects are explored in more detail within subsequent chapters.

Understanding the changing relationship between humanking and the wider environment

Together with anthropogenic climate change, the concept of the Anthropocene has emerged to frame much of the contemporary academic discussion around human-nature interaction (e.g. Lewis and Maslin, 2018; Steffen et al., 2007). At its core, the concept places emphasis on humankind's growing capacity to influence the Earth's physical and biological systems; an emphasis that embodies the notion of humankind as an emerging geological force. This draws attention to the ability of cumulative human actions to operate at vast spatial and temporal scales with respect to the Earth's biophysical systems. Furthermore, the concept tends to reflect a growing sense of foreboding and uncertainty with respect to the future of humankind.

At a general level, most of us can appreciate the notion of the sprawling mass of humanity posing a substantive threat to the integrity of the Earth's biophysical systems, even if the specifics allude us. Western environmental discourse has long pondered the fate of humankind in the face of population growth pollution emissions, and capitalist expansion. The threshold level for such issues has been raised consistently due to a combination of technological shifts and changing perceptions concerning the capacity of the Earth's systems to respond to societal pressures. Together, these have been important factors helping to reduce the perceived urgency of the broader socio-enviromnental issue. Indeed, a healthy minority has sustained a deep-rooted scepticism toward the apocalyptic brand of enviromnentalism evident in the West since the 1960s. At the same time, others suggest that, as we move through the twenty-first century, we are collectively, and rapidly, approaching a point of no-return, one that is characterized by 'tipping points,' positive feedbacks, planetary boundaries, and truly catastrophic futures for human society (e.g. van der Hel et al., 2018; Lenton et al., 2019; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2011). Associated debates ruminate on the need for immediate and far-reaching political action, the potential for technological fixes, and the tensions between the perceived need for global level management and the rights of individual states and peoples to develop as they see fit. This constellation of concerns is amplified by the complexities of the Earth's biophysical systems, and the associated difficulty in determining how such systems will interact with human society over the medium to long term. The enthusiastic engagement with the Anthropocene concept relates, at least partially, to its ability to both capture and articulate the enormity and extent of our collective influence on the Earth's biophysical systems. The concept helps to reinforce the need for us to take responsibility for our actions, dovetailing with the intra- and inter-generational exhortations of the sustainable development agenda. It also captures the mood of the times very effectively, with the threats associated with anthropogenic climate change providing a clear indication of the negative impact of our dominant role, the possibility of dire consequences in the case of limited action, and the need for a critical and measured understanding of the current situation. At the same time, the declensionist argument at the heart of much of the work linked to the Anthropocene provides commentators such as Donna Haraway (2016a, pp. 3-4) with the impetus to posit a more present, engaged, and messy response to the current situation one that, as she eloquently suggests, 'stays with the trouble,' in order to pursue, perceive, and realize new relationships and coalitions to address emergent issues.

A range of scholarly responses has emerged from the broader Anthropocene debate, and these can be grouped into three broad areas of discussion. First, there are those individuals (primarily scientists) who perceive the looming threats and are intent on establishing the necessary framework for understanding the Earth's biophysical systems and humanity's interaction with them in order to determine a positive response; the so-called anthropocenologists according to Bonneuil and Fressoz (2015, pp. 48-49). There is a further initiative within this group linked to efforts to determine the exact point in time when this new geological epoch came into being (Zalasiewicz et al., 2010, 2011). As efforts are made to establish the distinct 'stratigraphic signatures' peculiar to the newly posited Anthropocene epoch, various starting points have been mooted. For example, as Waters et al. note:

Proposals for marking the start of the Anthropocene include an 'early Anthropocene' beginning with the spread of agriculture and deforestation; the Columbian Exchange of Old World and New World species; the Industrial Revolution at ~1800 CE; and the mid-20th century 'Great Acceleration' of population growth and industrialization.

(Waters et al., 2016, p. 137)

Lewis and Maslin (2015, p. 176) underline how the second half of the twentieth century was characterized by a marked upturn in the influence of humankind on the Earth system, and they pay particular attention to the clear spike in radioactive elements such as Carbon-14 within the biosphere that became evident post-World War II. And, this period of history continues to attract considerable attention in related discussion. Lewis and Maslin also draw attention to the much earlier date of 1610, coinciding with the so-called Orbis spike, which represented

a short-lived but pronounced dip in atmospheric carbon dioxide captured in an Antarctic ice-core, reaching its lowest level in this year. . . . [I]t marks when the Columbian Exchange can be seen in geological sediments. Much of the drop occurred because Europeans carried smallpox and other diseases to the Americas for the first time, leading to the deaths of more than 50 million people over a few decades. The collapse of these societies led to farmland returning to forest over such an extensive area that the growing trees sucked enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to temporarily cool the planet.

(Lewis and Maslin, 2018, p. 13)

A second area of scholarly focus embraces those who accept the broad notion and logic of the Anthropocene concept and reflect on what this existential shift in society-environment relations means for different sections of society (e.g. Malone, 2018), or else the way in which society might function in the coming years (e.g. Pattberg and Zelli, 2016). Third, there is a more overtly critical literature which is less willing to accept the notion of the Anthropocene at face value and, while acknowledging its importance, seeks to interrogate the value and meaning of the concept more thoroughly (e.g. Haraway, 2016a; Malm and Hornborg, 2014; Yusoff, 2013).

There has also been discussion concerning the intellectual origins of the Anthropocene concept, as well as linked areas of thinking, and this has tended to highlight the work of individuals such as George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a narrative that gained considerable momentum following the intervention by Crutzen and Stoermer in 2000 (see Hamilton and Grinevald, 2015, p. 60; Crutzen, 2002). The Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945) also looms large in this broader narrative due to his advancement of the influential biosphere concept (Guillaume, 2014; Rispoli, 2020). While the search for the intellectual roots of the Anthropocene concept forms an area of interest for many scholars, Hamilton and Grinevald (2015) make a case for discerning the Anthropocene as a relatively recent phenomenon propelled forward by the findings of Earth System Science from the 1980s onward. Their approach pivots on a perceived necessity to dwell on the 'suddenness, severity, duration and irreversibility of the Anthropocene' in order to ensure the necessary urgent human response, which they argue is undermined with a search for intellectual precursors (Hamilton and Grinevald, 2015, pp. 66-67). There is much of value in this approach and it encourages, at the very least, a cautious appraisal of the promises embedded in earlier understandings of society-nature interaction and the role of humankind. In response, Lowenthal (2016, p. 55) asserts the importance of acknowledging these intellectual precursors, in his case with specific reference to the ideas of George Perkins Marsh, and notes that:

Tracing pre-modern roots of greed and rapine does not weaken the charge that modern technology gravely exacerbates the ensuing damage. Remedying mismanagement of nature is not hindered by realizing that awareness of its 'suddenness, severity, duration and irreversibility' dawned not 50 but 150 years ago.

A historical perspective is advanced as part of the broader thesis of Bonneuil and Fressoz, who suggest that in view of the fact that many societies have a long history of acknowledging the society-nature dilemma, it raises the question as to why we have collectively continued to pollute and degrade our environment in spite of overwhelming evidence that such activity is deleterious for the health and wellbeing of current as well as future populations (Bonneuil and Fressoz, 2015, pp. 76-77). This general critique around the evident contradiction between 'knowing' and 'acting' is echoed in more focused work concerning the Soviet environmental legacy. For example, drawing from her work on the 1986 nuclear accident in Soviet Ukraine, the historian Kate Brown asks 'Why, after Chernobyl, do societies carry on much as they did before Chernobyl?' (Brown, 2019, p. 3). For Bonneuil and Fressoz (2015, p. 79, italics in original), 'we must understand how we entered the Anthropocene despite very consistent warnings, knowledge and opposition, and forge a new and more credible narrative of what has happened to us.' They argue that without such rigorous analysis, it becomes relatively easy to posit the need for a dominant scientific elite within a sea of societal ignorance, armed with the necessary know-how and sophisticated technology to discern the inner workings of the Earth's biophysical systems, and offering up an array of prognoses and moderating tactics. The implication is that this would be an impoverished state of affairs that excludes the insight and creativity of the many different layers of any given society (Bonneuil and Fressoz, 2015, pp. 79-82).

This book is not so concerned with the specifics of the Anthropoc...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface and acknowledgements
• Note on transliteration and place names
• List of illustrations
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction: global environmental change and the Soviet Union
• 2 Shaping human-nature interaction: Soviet Union and the Great Acceleration
• 3 Understanding the natural environment and the growing influence of humankind on the Earth system
• 4 Measuring and assessing the natural environment
• 5 Russia and society-nature interaction in the 21st Century
• 6 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index