The link you've provided is an example of primitive and one-sided picture of Russia painted by some Western media, that does not even show any signs of fact-checking (interviewing few people from opposition and not asking for comments from Ministry of Environment - is that the way media work in USA or UK?). Please, note that I'm not a Putin's fan and never voted for him or his cronies. I'm writing this comment to help, because you were fed with BS and here's the advice: do not trust even well-known and respected media, when they are writing about "the rest of the world". They simply don't care to write the truth, because they will not be caught and sued.
That wikipedia article actually says just the opposite. According to it the hydro power was almost all built in the Soviet era, the wind is small agricultural units also built long ago with no large, modern installations, and there is virtually no solar power.
So what? Germany moved from 6% to 30% of renewable energy in 15 years, because they had policy and they invested. Russia started 10 years later. Every section of that article mentions investment projects in that kind of renewable energy that became possible only in recent years for economical reasons. And the investments in solar are not limited just to building of plants - government wants to build a manufacturing industry for them, which to me is the clear sign of interest and commitment.
No, the article, talks about government intentions and plants that are being built, but almost nothing has been completed, and so at present there is virtually no solar energy in Russia, and virtually no new wind energy.
The problem here is that what the article talks about are government plans in an authoritarian regime, and as we all know from the history of Russia and many other authoritarian nations, it is quite common for such plans to never be actually carried out.
You know, you yourself said you don't like Putin, but you seem to trust the stories his tightly-controlled media put out on what Russia is doing about the environment and renewable energy. It seems to me that is rather contradictory.
I agree that plans tend to change, but there exist completed projects and there exists legislation in this field (it's almost impossible at this moment to pass a law that is disapproved by regime, so if anything exists it means there's very strong support of it). It's not that I trust state media, but it's always possible to verify what they've reported. Here are couple stories:
1. Energy efficiency: state corporation Rusnano (investment fund for supporting high tech manufacturing and research in nanotechnology and related fields) invested in manufacturing of LED lighting http://en.rusnano.com/portfolio/companies/optogan
Meanwhile, Ministry of Energy gradually implements ban for manufacturing of 60W and higher light bulbs (100W already banned) and prohibition of use of such bulbs in state and municipal offices.
@ivan_gammel, I would like to ask you some questions.
To start, I said we don't see links here at HN about renewable energy in Russia because nothing is going on. You replied that lots is, and the reason we don't see stories is because the US and UK media is biased against Russia.
But HN also publishes many links on renewable energy from scientific and technology industry sources. Are you saying that they are likewise biased?
And how did that come about, like did the Obama administration send out a letter ordering all of them to never publish any such stories, and they all agreed? and none of the writers every published a complaint about this on the internet, even anonymously?
And how did the government get them to agree, did it tell them if they didn't go along, they would get a bullet in the head from a CIA agent?
And is this ban just for the US, or is it world wide? And when the many experts who are well aware these innumerable Russian renewable energy projects you claim exist complained, what did the editors say? "I'm sorry, but I can't comment on that issue?" And how did the government keep these experts from complaining online, like on their blogs? Did they threaten them too?
For those who would like to counter outrageous comments like ivan_gammel's, note what I am doing, namely working out in some detail the practicalities of what would be needed for the claim to be true. It usually then becomes clear it makes no sense.
Now for the questions, ivan_gammel.
First, when you made your claim, did you first work out the practicalities to see if it made any sense?
Second, now that I have done that, do you see how it sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory?
Finally, do you now agree that the claim doesn't make sense, and that the real reason we see no links at HN about Russian renewable energy projects is there aren't any, or at least very few? or do you still claim there are lots of these projects, and we don't see them here because of media bias?
Oh, and one more thing. The US media claims Putin is pretty awful, and you agree. So how did it come out they got it right on that, but get it all wrong on Russian renewable energy projects?
Cool story, but I've never been talking about any conspiracy. If something does not appear in media or HN, it does not mean it's not happening. It's just not too sexy to discuss, because there's no way how the imperfect and definitely not exemplary environmental policy of a fading piece of former empire can be interesting to anyone. And its too complicated to explain to readers, why this shadow of grey does matter - it's much easier to paint black and white picture with bad Putin and good "Tolstoevsky". It's hardly normal to write an article criticizing someone without asking for his comment. With your link it's exactly what's happened. It's clearly a bias, but I don't believe in conspiracies and my only explanation is that the topic is uninteresting and journalist is too lazy to get his job properly done. And, unfortunately, this is happening quite often on such dull topics, where media do not do proper fact-checking and align the available information either to black or to white. I don't blame them - readers don't care, but if you care, you have not to rely on single article with a political statement and opinions of few people from opposition.
By the way, for some reason you have chosen about "renewable energy projects", but I've not been mentioning them alone (yes, they exist, but not as big as in many other places in the world and HN is not an industrial news bulletin to mention them). Environmentally friendly industrial policy consists not only of them and energy sector is not the only source of emissions.
"Tolstovesky"?? Never heard of that word, and Google is no help. Perhaps you could explain what it means.
You claim the media is uninterested in energy policy in Russia, but the scientific and technological media is very interested in such things, and HN is read mainly by techno-geeks who are also, and so we have lots and lots of links to articles from such sources.That includes global surveys that include Russia, and tech innovations from countries all over the world. And these stories includes complex nuances and try to be objective. So if anything was actually happening in Russia, you would see it here. But you don't and if this is not due to a conspiracy, then you need to come up with another explanation, and you can't.
As to why I am focusing on renewable energy, it is because you yourself linked to a wikipedia article on that very topic that, as I explain below, says very clearly that very little is going on in that area in Russia.
As to asking for replies, I ask that partly to make sure I have understood you properly.
"Tolstoevsky" is the new project of Russian artist Dmitry Vrubel, who now lives in Berlin (and created the most famous his work "My God, Help Me to Survive This Deadly Love" on Berlin Wall), based on surnames of Russian writers Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I've used this word just as a metaphor of slices of Russian culture known and popular on the West - the White part of picture of Russia, that usually consists of bad rulers and good people.
Regarding the media, the lack of news in English is surprising a bit, because I see here and there that something indeed is going on and can confirm it by examples of projects I'm aware of (and likely there are more that I'm not). I can see the simplification bias in general media, which can be explained by lack of interest to post-Soviet Russia (and I've seen publications explaining this with reduced financing of research of Russia in USA - one of the reasons why events in Ukraine were a big surprise for US government). As for scientific and technological media, one of the reasons can be the obscurity of Russian science and inexperience of the government in PR. I cannot find any traces of Buribay solar plant launch in non-Russian or-non solar energy media - how exactly could that happen? I can suggest only that such events and their coverage is not sexy enough for HN/Wired/whatever to be remembered or even discussed. And this project is not small, behind it are very strong businesses like Renova and Rusnano. Can you offer any other explanation beyond "nothing is happening"?
Ok, I now see that there are some positive things going on in Russia, but that is because the last day you finally started posting some links that actually proved it.
I tend to believe negative views of Russia because its government is, overall, so awful, so it would seem to me unlikely it would be doing anything positive in that area. And there is also the matter of the Putin direct quotes on global climate change.
Which leads me to ask you, what is the media in Russia, which says what Putin tells it to say, saying about global climate change nowadays?
Media landscape in Russia is as complicated as everywhere, so I usually try to reconstruct the full picture from publications in business media - Kommersant (neutral, oldest quasi-independent media holding), Vedomosti (originally started by Financial Times, but sold to Russian investors, has light opposition flavor), Expert (in last 5 or 6 years got strong pro-Putin bias, but because of target audience is not filled with propaganda). All TV and radio stations in Russia do not worth any attention because of their strong bias. I also try to verify the interesting publication by reading official press releases and local newspapers (when some new project is completed, it may not receive major federal coverage, but it will be a notable event for locals or professional media). I do read state media sometimes, because they do not publish 100% lie (and even opinions quite often make sense), but I usually double-check their facts. It's not normal way to read news today, but I've been working as architect of media sentiment analysis software for some very high-profile customers (not Russian) in 2000s and have some analytical habits since that time.
Interesting answer, but I see I should have been more specific in my question. I want to know what the TV and radio stations are saying about global climate change. That is because they are puppets of the Putin government, and so I assume that whatever they are saying about GCC is what the Putin government believes, or at least wants the public to believe.
It's hard to find examples for electronic media, but here's the biggest mainstream tabloid with strong pro-Putin position, explaining why climate change is not a myth, how it damages Russian nature and economy and how Russia can benefit (sic!) from joining global efforts on preventing it:
http://www.kp.ru/daily/26521.5/3537467/
That's good to know, so it seems the government is getting serious about climate change.
That said, your information in other comments says the government has been doing some things in this area, but so far it seems to be only 5% or 10% of what the US and China are doing, much less what is needed to avoid catastrophe. Maybe Putin's government is now getting more serious and will step things up.
Ok, that lead to a further question I would like to ask you. To start, it seems to me that there are three main possibilities for Russia and renewable energy. One is that it will charge ahead at a rapid pace, the second is that it will move ahead but slowly, and the third is that it will halt new production and installations entirely.
From what I understand (which may be mistaken), the odds of the first are very low, like 1%, the third are maybe 20%, and so the most likely is the second.
You know a lot more about what is going on in Russia than I do, Ivan, so let me ask you, do you agree with my assessment, or is yours different, and if so, what are your reasons?
The link you've provided is an example of primitive and one-sided picture of Russia painted by some Western media, that does not even show any signs of fact-checking (interviewing few people from opposition and not asking for comments from Ministry of Environment - is that the way media work in USA or UK?). Please, note that I'm not a Putin's fan and never voted for him or his cronies. I'm writing this comment to help, because you were fed with BS and here's the advice: do not trust even well-known and respected media, when they are writing about "the rest of the world". They simply don't care to write the truth, because they will not be caught and sued.