Ecological situation in the modern Russian Federation: comparison with other countries as a basis for new ideas for the development of the state

Most of the existing environmental problems have not been resolved yet, and some of them become aggravated. There is awareness that the tools that have been used so far to solve these problems can’t handle them. There is an interest in the analysis of existing environmental problems among social activists. The purpose of this article is to develop new ideas and directions for improving the environmental policy of Russia, based on an analysis of existing problems. In work elements of comparative and systematic approaches and general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction were used. The main environmental problems that exist in Russia are: waste management issues, water pollution, deforestation, skepticism towards alternative and green energy. The study revealed the need to consider new trends in the environmental policy of Russia from the standpoint of political ecology. Among the necessary measures, it is worth noting the following: the introduction of a new ideology that will put in the first place the harmonious relationship between nature and a human; introduction of environmental education; a new system of preparing the specialists, including courses on an environmentally oriented lifestyle; information policy, revealing the essence of existing environmental problems; support for environmental organizations; introduction of a new approach to alternative energy and green technologies.

1. Harper T. (2019), “Ecological gentrification in response to apocalyptic narratives of climate change: The production of an immuno-political fantasy”, International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research, vol. 44, no. 1. pp. 55–71, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2427.12842

2. Huber R.A., Wicki M.L., Bernauer T. (2020), “Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness”, Environmental Politics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 649–673, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000354819

3. Hughes C. (2020), “It’s not easy being green, white, red, and blue: constituency representations versus electoral competition in the Wisconsin green party”, International journal of politics culture and society, pp. 49–63, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10767-020-09365-5

4. Karlsson B. (2015), “Political ecology: anthropological perspectives”, International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, no. 5, pp. 350–355, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.12215-9

5. Pepper D. (1993), Eco-socialism: from deep ecology to social justice, Routledge, Milton Park, UK. 298 p. Prakash A., Bernauer T. (2020), “Survey research in environmental politics: why it is important and what the challenges are”, Environmental politics, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1127–1134, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1789337

6. Roberts J. (2020), Political Ecology, In: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology, Cambridge university, UK, pp. 10–13.

7. Thiault L., Gelcich S., Marshall N., Marshall P., Chlous F., Claudet J. (2019), “Operationalizing vulnerability for social–ecological integration in conservation and natural resource management”, Conservation Letters, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 10–23, http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/conl.12677

8. Tingley D., Tomz M. (2019), “International commitments and domestic opinion: the effect of the Paris Agreement on public support for policies to address climate change”, Environmental politics, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1135–1156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0964 4016.2019.1705056

9. Wells H., Dougill A., Stringer L. (2019), “The importance of long‐term social‐ecological research for the future of restoration ecology”, Restoration Ecology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 929–933, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13000