American media outlets like CNN and Fox News routinely cover Putin’s closest advisors, like Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but journalists often overlook one of his closest allies, United Russia party member and Mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin. He ascended to the post in the midst of corruption allegations and low approval ratings of his predecessor, Yury Luzkhov. To some, the sharp transition was a relief, while others continued to question Sobyanin’s ability to tackle the problems facing a city of over 12 million residents. Now nearing the end of his second five-year term, Sobyanin has roused thousands of Muscovites with his proposed mass renovation plan that would demolish swaths of Stalinist-era apartment buildings. In this regard, Sobyanin closely identifies with Gorbachev’s vision of a post-Soviet democratic Russia. However, Sobyanin’s implementation and subliminal agendas sharply differ from those of the last Soviet president. What’s more, the success of this project will have a direct impact on both Sobyanin’s and Putin’s bid for reelection in 2018. As Putin’s close political ally, Sobyanin must secure the loyalty of city residents for United Russia. He will soon find out that this is not an easy task.

Perestroika in the 1980s and 90s

The word “perestroika” in Russian translates to “restructuring or rebuilding,” but many Russians today know it as the period between 1986 and 1991 when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev unveiled a plan to modernize a stagnant and primitive Soviet Union. In response to the public’s longing for the same social freedoms as the West, Gorbachev democratized the Communist Party. These drastic changes created a rift in the party, which had long been firmly set against capitalist ideas like individualism. In 1991, a group of orthodox party members staged a coup that failed to oust Gorbachev but further escalated tensions within the government.

The short five-year transition period from staunch communism to a partial democracy was difficult for the majority of the populace. While the agricultural sector underwent privatization, store shelves remained empty and food could only be purchased with ration cards. Newspaper stands no longer contained the predictable, filtered news of the Communist Party. Now Soviet citizens had the chance to familiarize themselves with foreign ideas and formerly taboo topics, some of which directly opposed and even upended their worldview. For example, the new and free press under Gorbachev began to document criminal acts within the Soviet Union which previously “would have conflicted with the media’s propaganda function of depicting Soviet society as safer and more crime-free than the capitalist world. ” Although the populace was forced to cope with the uncomfortable democratization of their environment, Gorbachev’s reforms replaced a broken Soviet system with a more democratic government.

Scaling Down
Putin’s agenda does not include political and economic reforms as drastic as those enacted by Gorbachev. In fact, his regime has abandoned Gorbachev’s democratic vision of Russia and facilitated the resurgence of a corrupt and power-hungry bureaucracy. Although a one-party system no longer officially exists, Putin’s United Russia party, which holds the majority of seats in the Duma, the Russian parliament, is the only party with any real authority in legislative matters. To satisfy Western demands for democracy, Russia continues to elect its presidents, cabinet members, and parliamentarians, but even these so called “elections” are not as fair and free as they are purported to be.

Many scholars and politicians alike had high hopes for Putin’s ability to democratize the oligarch-infested government that Yeltsin had left behind. Drastic bureaucratic reforms certainly occurred; notably, he created seven federal districts to centralize power and dismissed many of Russia’s chronically corrupt civil servants. However, Putin quickly filled these vacancies with his KGB cronies, who continued to embezzle and steal just as actively as their predecessors. Today, Putin’s bureaucratic armada is so stained by corruption that only a complete regime change could wipe it out.

However, Sobyanin has not completely abandoned Gorbachev’s democratic pipedream. Elected for his promises to make Moscow a more comfortable city to live in, in 2013, Sobyanin followed through by initiating an expensive and tedious reconstruction project of Moscow’s busiest streets and public spaces. His vision is to “transform a 12 million-person post-Soviet megacity into a sleek environment to rival European capitals.” The driving inspiration of this project is the Western-style “new urbanism,” which focuses on open public spaces that “enhance community connections and alternative transportation modes while de-emphasizing the automobile.” Just as Gorbachev sought to reinvent the political and social climate, separating Russia’s Soviet past from its democratic future, Sobyanin is seeking to redefine a city stained with Cold War-era prejudices and dated philosophies by transforming it aesthetically. However, his implementation of these agendas is problematic. Open squares and walkable streets in Europe were designed to encourage and allow people to congregate, protest and voice their opinions in a common, open space. The irony of Sobyanin’s project is his concern for only the appearance of democracy rather than its real application in urban life. But as it is, aesthetic democracy has been a common theme ever since Putin took control of Yeltin’s crippled administration.

Sobyanin, as a close ally of Putin and United Russia party member, is tapping into the standard Kremlin narrative as he continues to mask his autocratic agenda with claims of “democratization of city streets and squares” and “abandonment of Russia’s dated, Soviet past.” Sobyanin’s vision for democracy could not deviate more from that of Gorbachev.

No Vote, No Problem
Moscow architect Eugene Asse stated that “the idea that you can create democratic-looking spaces without actual democracy in them is worrisome,” and this is exactly the flaw with Sobyanin’s plan. When he was reelected in 2013, the din of drills and bulldozers enveloped the entire city. The first points of renovation were the city’s historic boulevards and wide pedestrian walkways. Large portions of the city were blocked off and public transportation in these areas was either rerouted or cancelled, all without any approval from city residents. In his attempt to emulate the “new urbanism” of European cities, Sobyanin completely circumvented the need for approval from the populace. Herein lies the answer to the suspiciously fast pace of the project. While wanting to modernize the city, abandon repressive Soviet relics, and give public spaces back to the people, Sobyanin is only contradicting himself by not disclosing such matters to his electorate.

Though Sobyanin’s methods are disappointing, they are not surprising. With United Russia holding 343 out of the 450 seats in the Duma, it will prove increasingly difficult to introduce truly democratic initiatives within the city. Gorbachev’s vision of a socially democratic Russia has not been realized under Putin’s autocracy. Kathy Lally of The Washington Post noted that unlike the country’s European neighbors, Russia’s “elections are not fair, courts are not independent, political opposition is not tolerated and the reformers are widely blamed for what has gone wrong”. In this climate, any attempts at democratizing the country’s capital, let alone the country, will be futile.

Destroying the Past, Angering the Present

Within the last few months, Mayor Sobyanin unveiled a plan to demolish Soviet-era homes of more than 1.6 million Muscovites. Some of these apartment blocks were built in hurry under Khrushchev’s leadership, while others stood the test of time under Stalin’s firm regime. Originally Sobyanin embarked on this project to boost his own ratings as well as those of the United Russia party for the next city elections in 2018. However, the backlash has been overwhelming. In May, thousands of protestors and property owners took to the streets to protest Sobyanin’s “renovation plans.” City officials have been accused of “allying with construction magnates to ride roughshod over citizens’ property rights enshrined in the Russian constitution.” Although Sobyanin has promised to relocate residents into homes of equal value and size, his words have been met with great skepticism. Although the original motives to separate Russia’s Soviet past are commendable, the execution is poor. This may be the final straw for many Muscovites as they decide the fate of their city in 2018.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

Self-Sufficiency in the Modern World      

Today’s world does not easily lend itself to self-sufficiency. Take, for instance, the United States, a country that is agriculturally independent, but relies on Saudi Arabia for its oil. Liberalist theorists assert that economic interdependence is the road to peace, as countries mutually benefit, taking advantage of plentiful resources and exchanging them for goods they need. Upon hearing the word “self-sufficiency,” most would point fingers at either Cuba or North Korea – both of which are economically isolated with only some reliance on foreign imports. However, few would think of Russia as self-sufficient. From oil to wheat, and from timber to automobiles, Russia has mastered the art of producing enough goods to equip a population of 144 million people. Yet in response to sanctions and unfavorable political sentiments in the Western world, Russia is starting to master the art of self-sufficiency in other areas –particularly its pharmaceutical industry.

In the Soviet era, Russia mainly traded with other communist countries, but produced the bulk of their goods, including medicines, domestically. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, did Russia begin to rely on Western medicines, as the West was far more advanced both economically and technologically. Investor and Vice President at Investo, Balaji Viswanathan stated that “except for medicines, none of the other [imports]are too critical to stall an economy. This is why the erstwhile USSR was able to sustain that long alienating the world markets (foreign trade contributed to less than 4% of Soviet’s GDP)”.

However, the one industry that has long relied on foreign imports is now rapidly being propped up by the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade. On March 11, 2011 then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced the Pharma-2020 plan, “a radical strategy to develop the country’s pharmaceutical industry and diversify the country’s economy through the creation of new jobs and reduction of Russia’s dependency on imports”. It is not a coincidence that the imposition of sanctions by Western countries on Russia has corresponded with the country’s sudden transition to domestic goods.

The Origins of the Sanction War

The consequential sanctions were first imposed with the deadly Ukraine crisis, which first escalated as a result of former President Victor Yanukovich’s decision to take a $15 billion loan from Russia to “move his country toward a planned ‘Eurasion Union’, with Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia” instead of having Ukraine join the European Union. Ignoring President Putin’s claims that his country had not mobilized troops to fight against pro-Ukrainian forces in east Ukraine, the Russian military had secured a strong and deadly presence in the Donbass region. While Ukraine was dealing with a weak government and internal turmoil, Russian forces seized the Crimean peninsula, boosting pro-Russian fervor among citizens and asserting their might over Ukraine.

Shortly after this slew of events, Western leaders imposed sanctions in two series. The first targeted members of Putin’s inner circle like President of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, and first deputy chief of the Kremlin staff, Vyacheslav Volodin, as well as senior officials and military leaders. The second series of sanctions, also known as “sectoral sanctions”, hit Russia the hardest, because they prevented financial institutions from lending any money to Russia. Journalist Frances Coppola of Forbes magazine stated that “by imposing sanctions on entities within the financial services and energy sectors, [the]Treasury has increased the cost of economic isolation for key Russian firms that value their access to medium- and long-term U.S. sources of financing”.

In response to these sanctions, Russia imposed import bans of their own in August 2014. Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev stated that all “beef, pork, fish, fruit, vegetables and dairy products from the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia and Norway” would be banned. As a result of this “economic isolation,” Russia scrambled to prop up its domestic production in hopes of becoming self-sufficient. The latest industry to be hit by severe import cuts was the pharmaceutical industry, with 80 percent of Russia’s medication being imported from foreign countries. As a result, Prime Minister Medvedev stated that “domestic produce must account for 90 percent of Russian drugstore stocks by 2018”.

Although the Russian government wants to maintain its assertiveness before the West in light of damaging sanctions, such assertion is ultimately hurting its own citizens more severely than Western economies. With regards to bans on imported drugs, those that will be most affected will be Russians with “orphan diseases” or rare illnesses. These patients rely on highly effective medicines that can only be found outside of Russia’s borders and that “can never be certified in Russia because the procedure requires extensive human testing here — which is impossible because there are simply not enough patients”.

Pharma 2020: A Comprehensive Overview

Since its announcement in 2011, the Pharma 2020 plan has not garnered much media attention. Nonetheless, it is one of Putin’s most ambitious plans. While Pharma 2020 will render Russia almost entirely self-sufficient in the pharmaceutical industry, it will also make Russia technologically competitive with the West.

What exactly does this program entail? It essentially consists of three phases, each targeting a specific aspect of the domestic pharmaceutical industry: improved health care for the Russian people, “improved training of doctors”, and improved “international competitiveness of the domestic pharmaceutical industry” by “encouraging the development and production of innovative medications”. The budget for this plan is 188 billion rubles, “80 percent of which is to be invested toward research and the development of new products”. Many large pharmaceutical companies have already begun building facilities around Russia, while others have partnered with Russian companies in joint ventures.

On paper, Pharma 2020 appears to be a much-needed boost to the Russian economy and pace of innovation. However, before Putin coaxes foreign investors and companies back, there must be a dramatic shift in the political climate with the West. Once tensions are eased, Russia may begin making preparations to become an export-oriented hub of innovation.

A Muscovite’s Perspective

One of the people that has experienced the effect of these sanctions first-hand is my grandmother, and lifelong Moscow resident, Raisa Shumilina. In a brief, 30-minute sit-down interview, she shared her thoughts on the import bans, the situation in Crimea, and how these changes have affected her.

As a handicapped pensioner, her medicines are all paid for by the government. She noticed the changes in produce and medicines in 2014, the year that the sanctions were imposed. Ever since then, she has received “50% imported and 50% domestically produced medicines,” compared to the 100 percent foreign-made medicines she used to receive. When questioned about her feelings towards domestically produced medicines, she stated, “I don’t trust their quality. . .maybe I’m wrong, but at this very moment, I’m skeptical.” She admitted that the new medicines had no noticeable effects on her health, but felt it was safer to rely on foreign medicines. If she has the option to, she pays out of pocket just to be able to own or have imported medicines.

Revitalizing a Struggling Economy

Despite the economic uncertainty and political turmoil that Russia has experienced over the last few years, President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has sky-rocketed to an impressive 89 percent. Igor Yurgens, the chief economist at the Institute of Contemporary Development said, “The consensus of 80 percent of Russians is that we have to reply, that we will fight.” It is not a surprise that so many Russians support their current leader and his United Russia party.  With the annexation of Crimea and now with the sudden boost in domestic production of goods, nationalistic fervor is more widespread than ever before, and the “we-will-tough-it-out” sentiments that much of the Russian public has expressed are not without reason. If the Russian government continues to invest in local industries and promote the domestic production of commodities, the Russian economy will eventually stabilize. As inflation rates return to healthy levels, unemployment rates decrease, and living standards improve, hopefully the Russian people will finally be able to enjoy the financial and social stability that they have longed for.

Nevertheless, Russia still has a lot more catching up to do to match the West’s pace of innovation and economic growth. An ambitious, but unrealistic goal, Putin’s Pharma 2020 plan should be postponed to a later date, as it will take many years before Russia fully restore relations with the West and begins to enjoy an adequately stable economy. Although the economy is at a much more stable place than it was in the winter of 2014, it still has a long way to go. With the ruble’s unhealthy dependence on oil prices and the lack of foreign investment, the country will not be able to financially support and promote domestic industries. The abundance of oil means Russia will not abandon the resource so easily, but the lack of foreign investments is a problem that Russian policymakers can solve. Controversial policy moves like the annexation of Crimea and the backing of the Assad regime make Russia a powder keg of instability. To revive the flow of capital, Putin needs to address his critics’ concerns and cooperate with the West, the source of many potential funds. If Putin continues to destabilize his country’s economy with an aggressive foreign policy, Pharma 2020 will never receive enough money to become a reality.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

“The decision of the American people must be interpreted as the victory of freedom, the freedom of a sovereign people”, Marine Le Pen tweeted just hours after president-elect Donald Trump locked down the 270 electoral votes that set him on his way to the Oval Office. Although Le Pen on average receives only around 300 retweets compared to Trump’s 3,000, her active presence on social media communicates her wish to follow in the footsteps of the business mogul. In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election that sent shockwaves around the world, many populist leaders in Europe voiced their support for the President-elect. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front party and a popular spokeswoman of the far-right movement in Europe, took it one step further by not only praising Trump’s words and actions, but also mimicking them. If Le Pen proceeds to sweep the French presidential election this year, the US-French alliance will be stronger than ever, as Trump and Le Pen take their vows and metaphorically sign off on a four-year contract of mutual understanding and compatibility.

Modern Populism in Europe

The global financial crisis of 2008 was the trigger that set populist politics in Europe into motion. Right-wing parties had always existed in Europe, but never gained much momentum. Some regarded them as “taboo” and associated with “neo-Nazism”. However, as unemployment rates skyrocketed and countries faced severe economic slowdowns and piling national debts, many in Europe lost faith in left-wing politics. The increase in globalization created antipathies among the people who felt they were being cheated at their own game. Suddenly, Austria’s Freedom Party and France’s National Front party became serious candidates on the election ballot. The final spark that lit the fuse of populism in Europe was the refugee crisis that caused over a million migrants to pour into countries still recovering from their own crises. Newspaper headlines and twitter feeds were flooded with charged, nationalist rhetoric, stirring up anger and resentment in the public.

The most recent election cycle in the United States has directly mirrored Europe’s era of populism. Back in 2010, anti-Islamic sentiments were running high throughout the continent. Some women werefined for wearing a niqab, while a Danish newspaper ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad through a series of hateful cartoons. President Trump channeled the same hatred towards the Muslim community when on January 27^th  he signed an executive order banning refugees and “nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days by executive order.” Additionally, one of the running slogans of Austria’s Freedom Party was the simple phrase “Austria First”. This certainly echoes Trump’s tweet on July 19^th, 2016 when he wrote “Such a great honor to be the Republican Nominee for President of the United States. I will work hard and never let you down! AMERICA FIRST.” These and other similarities demonstrate America and Europe’s hand-in-hand progression into the dangerous territory of self-absorbed, hateful politics. France has taken the vitriolic allegiance one step further.

France and America: Conjoined Twins    

Apart from incessant tweets, many aspects of Marine Le Pen’s political platform directly epitomize those of Trump’s. Just as Trump has called for automotive factories (specifically Ford) to be moved to the US from Mexico, Le Pen announced an identical plan “to repatriate production of French motor vehicles and other industrial goods”. This high-level protectionism has been a hallmark of populist politics in the past years. Political leaders like Le Pen believe that homemade production of national goods is a form of “economic patriotism” which will ultimately create new jobs and lessen international competition. Although protecting jobs in one’s own country is advantageous, it should not come at the expense of turning away foreign immigrants while placing high tariffs on imported goods. Because international markets are so entangled with each other in today’s global economy, many fail to perceive how severely another country’s market collapse could affect the American economy. If Trump severs important economic ties with either Mexico or China, the US will suffer the consequences. As reporter James Poulos from The Week states, “If you think immigration, wage stagnation, and drug crime are problems in the U.S. now, consider the consequences if China’s tanking economy takes down Mexico’s, too”. To this, the populists would respond with calls to secure their country’s borders.

Although building walls and strengthening border security does not fix the root cause of illegal immigration, right-wing leaders like Le Pen and Trump continue to live in their own delusion.  Le Pen and Trump have uttered almost identical messages on this issue. Both politicians have engaged in slanderous name-calling of the immigrants crossing over their countries’ borders, and both have accepted strong borders as the solution to fight illegal immigration. Shortly after Trump called for building a wall along America’s southern border, Le Pen echoed his words in a statement: “it is essential that France gets back control of its national borders once and for all. Without borders, neither defense nor security is possible”.

Trump and Le Pen’s hatred does not only extend to refugees, but also to the elitist establishment. During his campaign, Trump constantly reiterated the fact that he is an outsider, a man who can change the political climate in Washington D.C., and a man who can give the power back to the people. Much of this establishment happens to be Jewish, suddenly shifting Trump’s rhetoric from being anti-establishment to vaguely anti-Semitic. Although Trump may not be explicitly anti-Semitic considering he has a (recently converted) Jewish daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren, many of his right-wing supporters certainly are. Le Pen and the National Front party have adopted virtually the same stance toward the “Jewish establishment” as Trump. Capitalizing on Francois Hollande’s low approval ratings, terrorist incidents, and a weak euro, Le Pen has fueled a wide hatred towards the establishment in France and the European Union. Catherine Heron, a Paris-based corporate communications manager shared that “people feel that the government and politicians in general are not up to their task anymore.” It is perfectly justified to be dissatisfied with one’s own government if one’s nation remains economically stagnant, is plagued by terrorist attacks, and is overcome with a general sense of insecurity. However, the National Front party’s roots traditionally lie in anti-Semitic and xenophobic rhetoric. Jean-Marie Le Pen, the father of Marine Le Pen and former head of the National Front Party, was recently accused of “inciting hatred for anti-Semitic statements”.

Although the two politicians feel they are moving their countries forward by securing jobs for their people and rekindling patriotism, their resistance to globalization and modernization will ultimately redact advancements made by their countries in the past few decades. In October  2015, Marine Le Pen said in a statement “Only the [National Front party] plans to give back to France those essential weapons [such as control of its national budget and borders]to help it fight in a globalized world and achieve innovation and re-industrialization.” Despite the fact that all nations require secure borders to ensure their sovereignty, demonizing and forcing the expulsion of immigrants is completely contrary to building up a strong economy and ensuring job security. Some opponents of immigration claim that it negatively impacts the economy as an increase in the “labor supply reduces wages as workers compete in an increasingly crowded economy”. This logic has been consistently rejected by economists who point to the fact that native-born citizens and immigrants compete for different jobs requiring different skill-sets. If these two groups compete for the same job, businesses usually respond by expanding their enterprise, thereby creating more job opportunities rather than less. A study by the National Bureau for Economic Research actually shows that immigration “reduces the share of offshored jobs”, thereby encouraging job creation in the United States. It is because of immigrants that jobs are being created on native soil in the first place.

Implications of a Flawed Logic

Trump’s election to the presidency came as a shock to the nation, but the executive orders signed within his first week in office were no less shocking. It has become incredibly concerning that more and more populist leaders in Europe like Marine Le Pen have become Trump policy parrots. Trump has set off a fuse among his own people that has been sparked by his upsetting and discriminatory policies. Major American cities are already experiencing the birth of a citizen-led revolution through their protests.

Le Pen as President would not only normalize discriminatory policies within France, but could send the nation back to a pre-Napoleon era of popular uprisings and violent insurrections. In light of presidential competitor François Fillon’s fraud and corruption scandal, Le Pen has a much better chance of securing the presidential office. This scenario strongly echoes the Hillary Clinton’s email scandal that may have cost her the election, allowing Donald Trump to secure crucial votes in swing states. If Le Pen really does win this election, the world should expect a stronger, more radical alliance between the US and France.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

Renewable energy and Scandinavia have become practically synonymous. Beginning in the 1970s, after the Arab Oil Crisis of the 1970s sent shockwaves around the global economy, the northern countries of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland began to relieve their unsustainable dependence on crude oil and petroleum in exchange for more effective and reliable ways of heating their homes and fueling their cars. Windmills have rapidly replaced oil rigs and biofuel is being substituted for oil.  Copenhagen is the bicycle capital of the world with 50% of residents commuting by bike. In Norway, the best-selling car is the emissions-free Tesla Model S. Stockholm, the financial and cultural hub of Sweden, is known for its burgeoning green economy and green initiatives that have been incorporated into the day-to-day affairs of the city.

The United States does not trail too far behind Scandinavia in the number of wind farms and solar panels. The country has invested in renewable energy since the 1930s, with 11 percent of the country’s total energy being produced through renewable energy in 2015. The US Energy Information Administration reported that “the consumption of biofuels and nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, mainly because of state and federal government mandates and incentives for renewable energy”.  There is no question as to whether or not this sector is growing in the US. However, the extent to which political leaders want the country to leave the fossil fuel industry behind is largely debatable. President Barack Obama’s attempts to curb the growth of nonrenewables have been stalled by Republicans in Congress who believe they can bolster American national security. While some new technologies allow for cleaner and more efficient energy, others allow companies to access deep and hard to reach oil reserves which further contribute to the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. In many ways, the situation in Scandinavia mirrors that of the US and provides solutions to future (hopefully avoidable) energy crises.

Background of Scandinavian Energy        

Many will be quick to label Scandinavia as the land of high taxes, staunch socialists, and zealous eco-maniacs. However, critics overlook the oil crisis of the 1970s that was exacerbated by the region’s roots in unsustainable resource extraction and heavy dependence on fossil fuels. Before the Arab oil embargo of 1973, the Scandinavian countries heavily relied on oil which was, and still is plentiful in the North Sea. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Observatory of Economic Complexity reported that in 2014, “the top exports of Norway [were]Crude Petroleum ($45.1B), Petroleum Gas ($43.6B), Refined Petroleum ($6.56B)”. Consequently, the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo hit global oil consumers hard, including the US and Scandinavia. The Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) severely cut their oil production and completely halted the export of oil to targeted nations. Northern Europe attempted to mitigate the repercussions of the embargo by disassociating itself “from US foreign policy in the Middle East, in order to avoid being targeted by the boycott”, but ultimately suffered from the same high oil prices as the rest.

Scandinavia Foresees a Green Future

The crisis was a wake-up call for Scandinavia, and it prompted a progressive shift towards renewable resources. The pivot to green energy was a massive undertaking. Øystein Olsen, the governor of Norway’s central bank said in a speech, “The shift to an oil-driven economy with a high wage capacity has been a comfortable journey. The journey forward, where the oil service industry must downscale and other trade-exposed industries must grow, will be more challenging”. Moving away from fossil fuels undoubtedly comes with bumps in the road, but the Scandinavian countries have restructured and readapted to the drastic changes, meaning other nations can do so too.

Sweden’s government has allocated billions of kronor towards green infrastructure such as “solar panels and wind turbines, as well as cleaner public transport and a smarter energy grid and energy storage system”, more energy-efficient residential buildings, as well as environmentally-focused research. Additionally, with the introduction of a carbon tax in the 1990s, greenhouse gas emissions have dropped significantly as people and businesses search for ways to reduce their carbon footprints. Harnessing its most plentiful resources, wood and water, Sweden has successfully distanced itself from the fossil fuel industry. Now “wood fuels supply about 90 percent of the city’s heating and cooling energy” and hydropower has become a dependable energy source due to Sweden’s abundance of lakes and rivers.

In the past, Denmark depended on oil for over 90 percent of its energy. Today, it has drastically reduced that number by replacing cars with bikes and building wind farms near populous cities. Some of the most impactful measures have been centralized power plants, strict building codes and car-free Sundays (a phenomenon put in place during the oil embargo), which have all shaped the culture and people of Denmark. Today the country has more bikes than people, and around 400 km of cycle paths. Most importantly, as Denmark’s economy grows and expands its total energy consumption remains at the same levels as 1973, despite the increase in population.

Norway, although socially progressive and environmentally conscious, differs from all other Scandinavian nations with regards to its fossil fuel dependence. The country’s chief resource was and still is crude oil. Although the country still holds huge fossil fuel reserves, Norwegians have adopted a highly sustainable lifestyle with a minimal carbon footprint. Electric vehicles (EVs) are all the craze as they are quite cheap (due to the lack of an import tax). Additionally, the government places incentives for consumers to purchase EVs with free parking in public parks, ability to use the bus lane, and plentiful recharge stations around the country. Aside from the transportation sector that is dominated by electric vehicles, Norway’s electricity for both commercial and residential use comes from hydropower. These measures seem to communicate Norway’s desire to move away from fossil fuels by investing in an ever-growing, relatively stable sector – renewable energy. However, the biggest stumbling block for most observers of Norway’s economy is the fact that its largest export is oil. It seems rather hypocritical that a country wants to do away with fossil fuels at home, but encourage its dependence and proliferation abroad. Nevertheless, societal independence (if not economic) from fossil fuels is better than none at all. A progressive abandonment of nonrenewables will ultimately allow politicians to worry less about the consequences of a future oil crisis, and ordinary citizens can rest assured that the future of their children and grandchildren will be secure as the region combats the causes and effects of climate change.

Can America Follow Scandinavia’s Lead?

There is reason to believe that Scandinavia may be able to do away with fossil fuels by the mid-21^st century, considering the many steps their governments have taken to slowly move away from a highly unstable resource. If the elimination of fossil fuels were feasible anywhere, it would be Scandinavia. This can be attributed to the Nordic Model, a “unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits”. The high trust that citizens place in their government as well as the economic opportunity and equality that results from the implementation of such a model allows for a complete elimination of the fossil fuel industry. Scandinavian political systems are not only known for being trustworthy, but also transparent. As The Economist reports, “Governments are forced to operate in the harsh light of day: Sweden gives everyone access to official records. Politicians are vilified if they get off their bicycles and into official limousines.” This level of scrutiny certainly exists in the US, but it comes from a general public distrust in political proceedings. For many American people, C-SPAN certainly provides some insight as to how Congress operates, however a good number of the deals, bargains, and decisions are made behind closed doors.

Because of the nature of our government and its relationship to the people, it would be difficult to rid the United States of fossil fuels by 2050. Current politicians and lawmakers are far too intertwined with the fossil fuel industry both politically and financially to invest in renewables so easily. Under a Trump administration, the US may become even more dependent on fossil fuels than before if the government encourages fracking and reopens coal plants and oil rigs. It may take generations for the US to get to the place where Scandinavia is now.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.