The two-day climate summit, which ended in Glasgow, has become the most unusual international event in recent years, leaving behind an unusual aftertaste.
There is a persistent feeling that nothing like this in communication between states and representatives of civil society has existed for a long time and, perhaps, will not exist in the foreseeable future.
Tired of the contactless online format of meetings and negotiations, which has been pretty boring for two years of the pandemic, clearly yearning for personal live communication, heads of state and government, opinion leaders, heads of non-governmental organizations, experts, journalists have formed a whole world army of fighters for nature conservation.
In the first days of November, this 25,000-strong ecological landing from almost 200 countries landed in the land of Scottish whiskey, Robert Burns and James Bond, whom, by the way, was separately mentioned when opening the climate summit in Glasgow, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In warning of the threat of an ecological apocalypse looming over the world, metaphor-loving Boris Johnson compared the efforts of world leaders to combat climate change with Bond's efforts to save the world.
In general, the world unexpectedly discovered that, it turns out, there is one more single theme that can not split it, but unite it. This theme is love for mother nature, which is arranged according to the same universal laws, regardless of where you live.
Whether we are talking about a country of the collective West, hatching new insidious plans to contain China and Russia, or about a country of a not entirely collective East, immersed in its squabbles and squabbles, the fact remains: carbon dioxide is the same everywhere. We have one for all of you. Its critical mass, gradually destroying the ozone layer and causing global warming, is our common global asset, an asset with a huge minus sign, which we continue to increase. At the same time, both in the leading liberal democracies and in the “strongholds of authoritarianism” on the other side of the barricades, in order to increase production, pipes must smoke the sky, emitting more CO2 today than forests can absorb. Traditional energy sources are thermal power plants,those that produce it by burning fossil fuels remain cheap, but environmentally dirty. While environmentally friendly green energy is pie in the sky. In the meantime, there is a coal tit in hand.
And we urgently need to do something about this.
If today we all do not wake up and begin to move by leaps and bounds towards the carbon neutrality of the world economy, when a balance is reached between the emitted carbon dioxide and the oxygen produced by the green lungs of the planet, then nature will take revenge on us all.
Yes, he will take revenge so that it will not seem a little.
Then we will lose the opportunity to continue to take revenge and stick in the wheels of each other, as we do today, waging wars of sanctions and hybrid wars.
Because all of us one day will either be washed away, or flooded, or covered with hurricanes and tornadoes, or flooded with avalanches, or burned by a merciless hot sky without a drop of rain.
Fighting with each other will then be irrelevant.
You will have to fight to simply survive, if you fail to build your ark of the XXI century in time.
World leaders began a big conversation about the climate just before their trip to Glasgow at the summit of the Group of Twenty (G20), which took place on October 30-31 in Rome.
The meeting in the Italian capital was the first attempt to approach this topic.
Environmental issues, decarbonization and the impact of industrial production on the climate have allowed the G20 to form a truly limitless "green agenda", within which you can now discuss anything from duties on steel to arms sales and tourism.
The participants in the meeting in Rome agreed to contain global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius and thus confirmed their loyalty to the provisions of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
The very agreement that the ardent fighter with the environmental agenda, the ex-President of the United States Donald Trump, tried to bury, who believed that all this movement around the climate was bullshit and a new global scam of the 21st century.
A secret conspiracy of "green lobbyists" and the ravings of crazy eco-activists hanging out under the feet of serious people and preventing them from doing big business.
The final G20 communique announced the readiness of countries at the national level to move to carbon neutrality "by the middle of the century."
True, judging by the statements made in the leading economies of the world, the exact dates for achieving carbon neutrality still differ.
The EU calls 2050, Russia and China talk about 2060, and India prefers not to name a date at all, realizing that in its conditions the transition to green energy is something of a fantasy.
In addition, attention is drawn to the G20's promise to plant one trillion trees, this time following the behest of the forefather of modern ecologists Leo Tolstoy, who saw part of man's earthly mission in "planting a tree."
True, who will plant this trillion trees and count them remains unclear, as well as whether it will be possible to bring down world nature in time with the help of modern antipyretic drugs, its elevated temperature.
Meanwhile, the climate summit in Glasgow, where part of the world leaders moved from the Italian capital, which has become a continuation of the environmental discussion begun in Rome, aroused controversial feelings.
On the one hand, the theme of the struggle to save nature has caused a powerful surge of genuine enthusiasm, which has long been absent in many international forums, which take place in half-empty halls and bring boredom and sleep.
“We have to act before the hydrological cycle is completely disrupted.
Now that we know what the problem is, and after we have done everything we could to test the world against destruction, we simply have to talk about the decisions and actions that we should start taking today, "- broadcast in Glasgow Prince of Wales Charles.
On the other hand, what we saw these days in Glasgow became something like an ecological Eurovision song contest, where everyone had to sing their own song, perform their own solo number - and certainly do it better than others.
In a certain sense, it was a fair of ecological vanity, when it is difficult to resist the temptation to fall into manilovism or PR under the guise of a struggle to save Mother Nature.
It was not easy for everyone who watched this from the outside to separate the ecological flies from the environmentally friendly cutlets.
In Glasgow, everyone sang about their own.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates discussed Mission Innovation, a global environmental initiative to accelerate clean energy innovation.
Ecuadorian President Guillermo Lasso promised to expand the protected area around the Galapagos Islands, expressing the hope that the country will be written off part of its debt under this project.
“We expect this to be the largest debt-for-environment swap,” he said.
Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Askar Mamin announced his country's readiness to unite the efforts of Central Asia in promoting the agenda for sustainable development of the environment - to turn Kazakhstan into a regional ecological hub.
But US President Joe Biden pointed to "serious problems with the climate" in Russia, which, according to him, are being hushed up.
At a press conference in Glasgow, Joe Biden, who had never seen the tundra, said that the tundra was burning in Russia.
The American president was not interested in talking about what is still burning in the world, where and why it is burning.
“There is a race of ambition in Glasgow.
Somewhere they are justified, somewhere they are too high.
Many of Russia's foreign partners admit that they are taking on ambitious climate commitments with no roadmap, no scientific evidence, and unjustified hopes for new technologies.
It is impossible to act this way, because the current energy crisis was provoked in the same way, ”Ruslan Edelgeriev, the special envoy of the Russian president for climate, said in an interview with TASS, and it is difficult to disagree with this observation.
In general, speaking of the completed climate summit, one cannot say that this was not a conversation in an eyebrow, but in an eye.
It turned out not in an eyebrow, but in Glasgow.
Well, let it be so.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.