While emissions of methane across the European Union have decreased over past years, the overall reduction in emissions needs to accelerate to meet 2030 and 2050 EU climate objectives. Increased global efforts to reduce methane emissions would also be needed to mitigate global warming in the short term, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing on trends and drivers of methane emissions published today.
The briefing also includes a methane emissions visualisation tool where users can see country CH4 emissions as reported in their greenhouse gas inventories.
According to the latest available official data, emissions of CH4 is down by 36% in the EU in 2020 compared with 1990 levels, furthering a 30-year downward trend.
The largest reductions in emissions occurred in energy supply, which includes energy industries and fugitive (leaked or uncaptured emissions) (-65%), waste (-37%) and agriculture (-21%).
Overall, reductions in methane emissions have been significant and reflect:
a decrease in agricultural livestock numbers and increased efficiency in the agricultural sector;
lower levels of coal mining and post-mining activities;
improved oil and gas pipeline networks;
less waste disposal on land, and
an increase in recycling, composting, landfill gas recovery, and waste incineration with energy recovery.
The observed emission reductions have contributed not only to climate change mitigation but also to better air quality, because of synergies in the reduction of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.
Still, despite the progress, methane concentrations are increasing rapidly and reductions need to be stepped up across all sectors. Methane is substantially stronger at trapping heat than carbon dioxide (CO2) and also has an average shorter lifetime than CO2.
Reducing CH4 emissions globally is a low hanging fruit for the current generation, using existing practices and technologies. Policies aimed at CH4 emission reductions will deliver faster benefits from the climate mitigation perspective in the short term. Reducing CH4 emissions will also lead to lower ozone formation and local air pollution, which would bring health-related benefits thanks to cleaner air.
Continued reductions in other greenhouse gases (GHG) are also essential to achieving the long-term climate goals. The EEA briefing notes the EU has put in place overarching and sector-specific policies to reduce GHG emissions, including methane emissions representing 12% of total EU emissions in 2020 — half of which are from agriculture.
As countries implement EU and national legislation, GHG emissions will decrease further. However, to help achieve the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate objectives, the EU needs to reduce emissions more rapidly, including via policies and measures aimed at reducing methane emissions.
The EEA briefing also notes several policy options and technologies are available to reduce emissions and improve not only the climate and environment but also energy security. For example, landfill gas recovery from waste or biogas produced from agricultural manure can be used to produce electricity and heat in the energy sector.
Preventing and addressing leaks from oil and natural gas systems remain a challenge and have become urgent especially in wake of the recent leaks due to explosions in the two Nord Stream natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.
International frameworks and initiatives are also key to reducing methane emissions and mitigating climate change globally. Ambitious EU policies alone will not be sufficient to ensure that we do not exceed the 1.5°C global rise in temperature goal, as the EU accounts for 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions and for less than 5% of global CH4 emissions.
While emissions of methane across the European Union have decreased over past years, the overall reduction in emissions needs to accelerate to meet 2030 and 2050 EU climate objectives. Increased global efforts to reduce methane emissions would also be needed to mitigate global warming in the short term, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing on trends and drivers of methane emissions published today.
The briefing also includes a methane emissions visualisation tool where users can see country CH4 emissions as reported in their greenhouse gas inventories.
According to the latest available official data, emissions of CH4 is down by 36% in the EU in 2020 compared with 1990 levels, furthering a 30-year downward trend.
The largest reductions in emissions occurred in energy supply, which includes energy industries and fugitive (leaked or uncaptured emissions) (-65%), waste (-37%) and agriculture (-21%).
Overall, reductions in methane emissions have been significant and reflect:
a decrease in agricultural livestock numbers and increased efficiency in the agricultural sector;
lower levels of coal mining and post-mining activities;
improved oil and gas pipeline networks;
less waste disposal on land, and
an increase in recycling, composting, landfill gas recovery, and waste incineration with energy recovery.
The observed emission reductions have contributed not only to climate change mitigation but also to better air quality, because of synergies in the reduction of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.
Still, despite the progress, methane concentrations are increasing rapidly and reductions need to be stepped up across all sectors. Methane is substantially stronger at trapping heat than carbon dioxide (CO2) and also has an average shorter lifetime than CO2.
Reducing CH4 emissions globally is a low hanging fruit for the current generation, using existing practices and technologies. Policies aimed at CH4 emission reductions will deliver faster benefits from the climate mitigation perspective in the short term. Reducing CH4 emissions will also lead to lower ozone formation and local air pollution, which would bring health-related benefits thanks to cleaner air.
Continued reductions in other greenhouse gases (GHG) are also essential to achieving the long-term climate goals. The EEA briefing notes the EU has put in place overarching and sector-specific policies to reduce GHG emissions, including methane emissions representing 12% of total EU emissions in 2020 — half of which are from agriculture.
As countries implement EU and national legislation, GHG emissions will decrease further. However, to help achieve the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate objectives, the EU needs to reduce emissions more rapidly, including via policies and measures aimed at reducing methane emissions.
The EEA briefing also notes several policy options and technologies are available to reduce emissions and improve not only the climate and environment but also energy security. For example, landfill gas recovery from waste or biogas produced from agricultural manure can be used to produce electricity and heat in the energy sector.
Preventing and addressing leaks from oil and natural gas systems remain a challenge and have become urgent especially in wake of the recent leaks due to explosions in the two Nord Stream natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.
International frameworks and initiatives are also key to reducing methane emissions and mitigating climate change globally. Ambitious EU policies alone will not be sufficient to ensure that we do not exceed the 1.5°C global rise in temperature goal, as the EU accounts for 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions and for less than 5% of global CH4 emissions.
HRWF (28.11.2022) – On 24 November, the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine published the text of draft law No. 8221 banning the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church represented on the territory of Ukraine by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).
The bill outlaws the activity of any religious organizations or institutions, which are part or in any way accountable to the Russian Orthodox Church “in canonical, organizational and other issues,” the European Solidarity Party said on Telegram.
The party said that the bill aimed at preventing threats to the national security of Ukraine and providing order, and described “the liberation of Ukraine from the Russian Orthodox Church as yet another step towards independent Ukraine.”
The authors of draft law No. 8221 “On ensuring the strengthening of national security in the sphere of freedom of conscience and activities of religious organizations” propose a ban on the activities of
the Russian Orthodox Church,
religious organizations (associations) that are directly or as constituent parts of another religious organization (association) included in the structure (are part of) the Russian Orthodox Church,
religious centers (management), who are part of or recognize (declare) in any form subordination in canonical, organizational, and other matters to the Russian Orthodox Church.
It is assumed that all transactions related to the use of property (renting, hiring, leasing, etc.), the validity period of which has not expired, concluded between residents of Ukraine and the relevant foreign religious organization, as well as with legal entities, the owner, participant, shareholder of which it is, they are terminated prematurely.
The peculiarities of the naming of religious organizations are established, in particular, the possibility for a religious organization to use the word “Orthodox” in its name (both full and abbreviated), in the name, only if this religious organization is subordinate in canonical and organizational matters to Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
Alexey Goncharenko, a Ukrainian Verkhovnaya Rada deputy from the European Solidarity Party, has asked Prime Minister Denis Shmygal to deprive the Ukrainian Orthodox Church/ Moscow Patriarchate of the right to rent the Kyiv Lavra of the Caves and the Pochayev Lavra.
If this law is adopted, the famous monasteries Kyiv-Pechersk, Holy Assumption Pochaiv and Sviatohirsk Lavra would become the property of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), founded in 2018 under President Poroshenko and affiliated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The European Environment Agency’s (EEA) assessments have shown that Europe and world face unprecedented environment and climate challenges that require ambitious policy responses, such as the European Green Deal. Published today, EEA Signals 2022 looks at Europe’s commitments for sustainability and energy system from the perspective multiple, interconnected crises.
Europe is recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, faced with a war in Ukraine and committed to ambitious goals of the European Green Deal for protecting the climate, nature and people’s health. ‘EEA Signals 2022 – Staying on course for a sustainable Europe’ provides a snapshot of the Agency’s assessment and data that are linked to this context and making Europe’s energy system more secure and sustainable.
The ‘EEA Signals’ is a based on a series of short articles based on previously published EEA data, information, and expert interviews.
EEA Signals 2022 editorial and articles look at the state of play in the energy sector, moving towards more renewables, saving energy and links with the transport sector. Jorge Cabrita, research manager at Eurofound, discusses the concept of ‘just transition’ and tells about Eurofound’s work towards that goal. Eva Mayerhofer, lead biodiversity and environment specialist at the European Investment Bank, Andreas Barkman, and EEA’s lead expert on sustainable finance, tell about the challenges and opportunities in accelerating Europe’s green transition through sustainable financing.
Building a sustainable energy system for Europe requires time, and the decisions that we take now will define our options for decades to come. This is especially true for expensive energy infrastructure. Given the current circumstances, Europe needs to react quickly but also in the right direction to avoid lock-ins on solutions that are not compatible with what we want to hand over to future generations.
Hans Bruyninckx, EEA Executive Director (See Editorial)
The ‘EEA Signals’ is an annual, easy-to-read web publication, that looks at key issues related to the environment and climate. Recent EEA Signals reports have looked at nature (2021) pollution (2020), soil (2019) and water(2018).
Malaga. Spain. During the investigation period, more than 30 tonnes of cocaine have been seized in various European ports and it is estimated that this macro criminal organisation was behind a third of the total cocaine market in Europe.
6 high-value targets (HVTs) have been arrested simultaneously in Dubai, considered to be the “drug lords” who have been based in the emirate for years.
In Spain, under the name of OPERATION FAUKAS, searches and arrests have been carried out in the provinces of Malaga, Madrid and Barcelona.
The Guardia Civil, within the framework of the international police operation called DESERT LIGHT, coordinated by EUROPOL and in which police agencies from the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Dubai have also participated, has managed to dismantle a super cartel that controlled a large part of the cocaine market in Europe.
This macro criminal organisation had established its base in these countries, coinciding with the location of the most important European ports considered to be the main gateway for the entry of narcotics into the European continent.
From the city-emirate of Dubai, the leaders of this mega-cartel, known as the “Drug Lords” to the participants in this operation, controlled and directed the criminal activities of the different cells, under the conviction of being in a sanctuary where they felt untouchable and which in turn allowed them to maintain a high standard of living.
In the course of the investigation, more than 30 tonnes of cocaine have been seized, with the intention of flooding Europe with this drug, which, according to EUROPOL estimates, could account for a third of the total market, making the cartel a real whale in the world of global drug trafficking.
Between 8 and 19 November, raids or joint actions were carried out simultaneously in several European countries and Dubai with the aim of dismantling the logistical structure, represented by the criminal groups responsible for bringing the drugs into each country, as well as to break up the organisation, in the figure of these “drug lords” based in the emirate.
As a result of these actions, 49 people have been arrested in Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Dubai, 7 of whom are considered High-Value Targets (HVT), according to the EUROPOL agency, with the participation of police agencies from the USA (DEA), the United Kingdom (NCA) and Bulgaria.
#OperationFAUKAS in Spain
As far as Spain is concerned, the Guardia Civil has named this investigation Operation FAUKAS, and it has been carried out by the Central Anti-Drugs Group of the Central Operational Unit (UCO), with simultaneous actions having been carried out in Malaga, Madrid and Barcelona on the 8th of this month. These have resulted in the arrest of 15 people, including 3 HTVs for EUROPOL, 2 of them in Dubai and another in Malaga, all in more than 21 searches of homes and companies related to this criminal organisation.
Operation FAUKAS began with the seizure, by the Guardia Civil, of a container in the Port of Valencia in March 2020, through which they intended to introduce 698 kg of cocaine, without any arrest or responsibility at that time.
This led to an extensive exchange of information, under the auspices of EUROPOL, with numerous police agencies in other countries, which bore fruit in the identification of the persons responsible for the introduction of the container, as well as its “contamination” at source, in Panama.
In this way, during the course of the investigation, it became clear how a criminal organisation had been established in Spain that was introducing containers with cocaine inside through the Ports of Barcelona, Valencia and Algeciras, and which in turn had set up a complex corporate network of real estate investments in the Costa del Sol area with the aim of laundering the profits obtained from drug trafficking.
Roles of the organisation in Spain
It has been possible to identify the leader of this organisation, a British citizen linked to the Costa del Sol who had to leave Spain due to a kidnapping attempt against him, moving to Dubai, from where he continued to direct and coordinate the criminal activities of the organisation while maintaining contacts and drug trafficking business with the rest of the “Drug Lords” based in this city-emirate.
In the same way, the Guardia Civil managed to identify the supplier of the drugs at source, who turned out to be a Panamanian citizen also based in Dubai, who was responsible for bringing the drugs into the Port of Manzanillo (Panama) and who also maintained contacts with the rest of the drug barons in the emirate.
This criminal organisation based in Spain had two clearly differentiated structures, one in charge of extracting the drugs in commercial seaports and the other responsible for money laundering through Real Estate companies.
The first one would be located between the provinces of Barcelona and Malaga, having a direct influence on the Port of Barcelona and being made up of two Bulgarian nationals, one of them considered as HVT for EUROPOL, and three Spanish nationals, one of them being a worker in the port of Barcelona, responsible for the entry and exit of vehicles.
The other part would be made up of people of great trust of the leader of the criminal organisation, located on the Costa del Sol, the nerve centre of their financial activities, from where they would have acquired movable and immovable property and shares worth some 24 million euros, thus integrating them into the legal economic circuit.
During the searches, elements were found that link the suspects to the criminal activity, as well as more than 500,000 € in cash, 3 handguns with ammunition and luxury items including high-end vehicles, some of them with prices close to 300,000 €.
“There will be no safe place for drug lords”.
With this operation, a historic milestone has been reached in the fight against global drug trafficking and the action carried out in Dubai is unprecedented, culminating in the simultaneous arrest of 6 HVTs who were taking refuge in this emirate with the conviction of feeling safe from possible police action.
For months, the Guardia Civil has been working jointly and in coordination with the Dubai Police, within the framework of Operation FAUKAS, holding regular meetings in Spain and Dubai with the main officials of the Dubai authorities. This has strengthened the bond between the two police forces, which has enabled successful police actions to be carried out in recent months.
This international effort by all the agencies involved sends a strong message to criminal organisations that no place will be safe for those who try to evade justice.
FECRIS, entirely funded by the French government, provides important support to its Russian members and the Kremlin in their outrageous propaganda against Ukraine and the West.
On November 11, 82 of the most prominent religious scholars of Ukraine, including the President of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, and many other big names, wrote a letter to the French President Emmanuel Macron about the funding of FECRIS.
FECRIS is an umbrella organization that gathers “anticult” associations all over Europe, including in Russia. It’s far decried for its discriminatory activities against new religions, and has been convicted by several courts in Europe for those. And in fact, it’s entirely funded by the French government.
The point of the letter is to raise awareness of the strong support that FECRIS has provided to its Russian members, and to the Kremlin in their outrageous propaganda against Ukraine and the West. It’s true that by funding this organization which still has members in Russia calling to hate and war against the Ukrainian depicted as “Satanists” and “cult members”, is contradictory with the political and financial support of Ukraine by the current French government. By funding FECRIS, France funds its own enemy, the enemy of Ukraine and the enemy of Europe.
Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine
Vadym Omeltchenko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to France
Etienne de PONCINS, Ambassador of France in Ukraine
Re: Funding of FECRIS association by France
Dear Mr President,
We are a group of Ukrainian scholars and human rights defenders, most of us currently based in Ukraine. We want to start this letter by saying that we deeply appreciate the help that France is providing to our country, in the most difficult situation that we are facing during these terrible times for our people.
Nevertheless, we would like to draw your attention on the following facts. At the Human Dimension Conference organized by the OSCE in Warsaw, on September 28 and 29, France has been publicly asked by NGOs to stop funding FECRIS (European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sects and Cults), a French umbrella organization that gathers “anti-cults” organizations throughout Europe and is mainly funded by France.
What was reproached as regards FECRIS, besides its discriminatory activities against any religious minority that they falsely label as “cults”, was the fact that for years it has supported its Russian branch, whilst that branch is a key and constant actor in the Kremlin’s propaganda against Ukraine, its government and its people.
The French Permanent Representation at OSCE issued a right of reply, and instead of answering on the merits of the criticism, only stated that “FECRIS is an association providing assistance to victims of sectarian aberrations. It is as such that it is supported by the French government, which intends to continue supporting its activities”. We deeply regret that the French representation did not take seriously the facts that were denounced during this conference.
Unfortunately, the support of FECRIS to Russian propaganda against Ukraine is very well documented. It started long time ago. Alexander Dvorkin, Vice President of FECRIS from 2009 to 2021 and currently a board member, has been barred from entering Ukraine since 2014, because he was a very rabid anti-Ukrainian propagandist, spreading on Russian State TV that Ukrainian authorities were a bunch of “cult-followers” controlled by cults and the West. He was one of the first calling the Maidan authorities “Neo-Pagans” and “Nazis”. Since, he made visits to the self-proclaimed “Luhansk People’s Republic” and continued its propaganda against Ukraine there, in addition to Russia.
Alexander Novopashin, an official representative of FECRIS in Russia, is almost every day in Russian medias accusing Ukrainians to be “satanists” to be fought by the Russian troops, and even depicts us as “cannibals”, praising the Russian government for the holy fight they are conducting in our territories. He even justified publicly the Russian invasion in Ukraine with these words: “Any disease must be cured, and, alas, if a person has gangrene, you have to take away its hand, and resort to surgical methods.”
FECRIS association “the Saratov branch of the Center for Religious Studies”, located in Saratov, just after the beginning of the war, published a call to denunciate to them any “provocateur” that would pretend that Russia triggered war, or were advocating for peace, so that they could liaise with Russian law enforcement agencies to take care of them.
These are only few examples amongst dozens which have been documented.
Now, FECRIS took off their website the names of their Russian associations and are pretending that in fact they would support Ukraine. They don’t and those are false pretenses. In fact, per the last documents that they filed to the French authorities, Alexander Dvorkin is still a member of their board of administration. They never distanced themselves from the actions of their Russian members. They never publicly sanctioned Alexander Dvorkin or other Russian members for the evil acts they committed recently and during these last years. To the opposite they supported them whatever they were doing. Now they say on their website that they also have Ukrainian branches as evidence that they would not support the Kremlin propaganda. What they forgot to say, is that they have two associations members of FECRIS in Ukraine, one of them being pro-Russian, and the other one being inactive for a decade while it is well-known for its discriminatory statements against minority religions, and it never publicly distanced itself from the Russian FECRIS.
Additionally, according to reports published by Chinese official sources, as late as July 15, 2022, FECRIS’ treasurer Didier Pachoud and his FECRIS affiliate organization GEMPPI hosted in a conference in Paris Roman Silantyev, one of the Russian anti-cultists who claim that Ukrainian leaders are inspired by “occult and pagan” ideologies, and infiltrate “Satanists” into Russia for purposes of sabotage and terrorism.
That is why we respectfully ask you to make sure that France stops funding such an association which is an enemy of the West and democracy and has worked hand in hand with the Russian authorities against Ukraine. We hope that you will take this letter seriously and will consider its merits. It might look unimportant, but it’s important to realize that Vladimir Putin has now adopted FECRIS theories accusing the West of “Satanism”, and that they are part of his state propaganda apparatus.
Thank you very much for your help on this important matter.
Respectfully,
Anatoly Kolodny
President of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Chief Scientific Officer, Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy, NASU (National Academy of Science of Ukraine)
Lyudmila Filipovych
Vice-president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, professor, head of the Department of Philosophy and History of Religion, Institute of Philosophy, NASU
Alexander Sagan
Vice-President of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Religious Studies of the Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Petro Yarotskyi
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, leading scientist. Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy, NASU
Alla Aristova
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy, NASU
Vita Tytarenko
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy, NASU
Pavlo Pavlenko
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy, NASU
Oleg Buchma
Ph.D., Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Dmytro Bazik
Ph.D., Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Anna Kulagina
Ph.D., Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Gorkusha Oksana
Ph.D., Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Serhii Zdioruk
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, head of department Institute of Strategic Studies under the President of Ukraine
Viktor Yelenskyi
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, head of the scientific department of the Institute of Ethnopolitics of NASU
Oleksandr Utkin
Doctor of History, Prof.
Petro Mazur
Ph.D. Doctor of Medicine, director of the Kremenets Medical School
Leonid Vyhovskyi
Doctor of Philosophy, head of department of philosophy, Khmelnytskyi University of Management and Law, head of the UAR of Khmelnytskyi (Ukrainian Academy of Religious Studies)
Vitaly Dokash
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, head of UAR Chernivtsi.
Eduard Martyniuk
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Assoc. professor, ONU (Odesa National University)
Tetiana Gavrylyuk
Doctor of Philosophy, Academy of Statistics
Vitaliy Matveev
Doctor of Philosophy, head of department, University of Bioresources
Ella Bystrytska
Doctor of Science, professor, head of the department, Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University
Olena Nikitchenko
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor, Odesa Academy
Volodymyr Lubsky
Doctor of Philosophy, prof.
Tatyana Gorbachenko
Doctor of Philosophy, prof.
Ihor Kozlovsky
Ph.D. Doctor of sciences, associate professor of science, Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Lesya Skubko
Member of UARR
Iryna Fenno
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Assoc. prof. of religious studies of KNU (Kiev National University)
Iryna Klimuk
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophical Sciences
Nadia Stokolos
Dr. Doctor of History, Prof.
Olga Gold
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Assoc., Odesa
Mykhailo Murashkin
Dr. Ph.D., prof. Dnipro, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, head of the UAR of the Dnipro Oblast
Evgeny Kononenko
Department of Religious Studies, Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Oksana Vynnychenko
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, USA
Serhiy Prysukhin
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, prof. KPBA (Kyiv Orthodox Theological Academy)
Hanna Tregub
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, journalist
Ageev Vyacheslav
Co-founder of the Workshop for the Academic Study of Religion (WASR)
Alla Kiridon
Doctor of science, professor, director of VUE (the Great Ukrainian Encyclopedia, State institution)
Taras Bednarchyk
Ph.D., associate professor, Vinnytsia Medical University
Ruslana Martych
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, associate professor, KU Grinchenko (Borys Hrinchenko Kyiv University)
Oleksandr Horban
Ph.D., prof. KU Grinchenko (Borys Hrinchenko Kyiv University)
Maria Bardyn
Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Department of Religion, Kyiv Region.
Volodymyr Verbytskyi
Doctor of Philosophy, KNU (Kiev National University)
Alyona Leshchenko
Doctor of Philosophy, prof. Kherson University
George Pankov
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Kharkiv National University
Victoria Lyubashchenko
Prof. UKU (Ukrainian Catholic University)
Dmytro Gorevoy
Director of the Center for Religious Security NGO. Head of projects and programs of the Institute of Religion and Society of the Ukrainian Catholic University.
Yaroslav Yuvsechko
Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor, Khmelnytskyi University
Serhiy Geraskov
Ph.D. philos., Kyiv
Ivan Mozgovyi
Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Sumy
Yury Vilkhovy
Ph.D. History, Associated professor, Poltava Pedagogical University
Olga Dobrodum
Doctor of Philosophy, professor at the University of Bioresources
Said Ismagilov
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, former mufti of the “UMMA” Council
Yury Kovalenko
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Rector of the Open Orthodox University
Roman Nazarenko
Ph.D., UKU (Ukrainian Catholic University)
Oleg Sokolovsky
Doctor of Philosophy, prof., Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University
Oleg Yarosh
Ph.D., NASU, Kyiv
Maxim Doychik
Doctor of Philosophy, head department of philosophy of the Carpathian National University (Ivano-Frankivsk)
Yuriy Boreyko
Doctor of Philosophy, head department Eastern Europe University named after L. Ukrainki (Lutsk)
Olga Borisova
Doctor of History, Professor, Kharkiv Institute of Culture
Alexander Lakhno
Ph.D. history of sciences, vice-rector of the Poltava Pedagogical University
Larisa Vladychenko
Dr. Ph.D., prof., head Department Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers
Serhiy Shumylo
Doctor of History, director of the Athos Heritage Institute
Vadim Sliusar
Doctor in Politics. Prof. Zhytomyr
Vasyl Popovych
Dr. Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Zaporizhzhia
Mykola Kozlovets
Dr. Doctor of Philosophy, prof., Zhytomyr
Nadiya Volik
Doctor of History, associate professor, Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University
Yulia Shabanova
Doctor of Philosophy, Prof. Head of the Department of Philosophy and Pedagogy of the National Mining University “Dniprov Polytechnic”
Pavlo Yamchuk
Doctor of Philosophy, Prof., Uman National University, University of Horticulture
Maxim Vasin
Bachelor of Laws, executive Director of the IRS (Institute of Religious Freedom)
Nadia Rusko
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department of Social Sciences, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas
Andriy Tyshchenko
Doctor of Philosophy, Kharkiv
Volodymyr Popov
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Donetsk University, Vinnytsia
Lyudmila Babenko
Doctor of History, Prof. Poltava Pedagogical University
Oleksandra Kovalenko
Kyiv, Open Orthodox University
Natalya Pavlyk
Institute of Pedagogical Education of NASU
Ruslan Khalikov
Ph.D. in religious studies, member of UARR (Ukrainian Association of Religious Studies), WASR (Workshop for the Academic Study of Religions), publisher.
Vitalii Shchepanskyi
Ph.D. in religious studies, member of WASR.
Anton Leshchynskyi
MA in religious studies, member of WASR.
Ihor Kolesnyk
PhD, assistant professor, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
Uliana Sevastianiv
Ph. D. in religious studies, member of WASR, lecturer of the Stepan Gzhytskyi National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology of Lviv
Oleg Kyselov
Ph.D. in religious studies, member of WASRr and UARR, Senior Researcher, Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, NASU.
Olena Mishalova
Ph.D. in social philosophy and philosophy of history, member of WASR, associate professor, Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University.
Olha Mukha
Ph.D. in philosophy, member of WASR, Head of Educational and Informational Department of Memorial Museum “Territory of Terror”
On November 22 the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria met under the chairmanship of Patriarch Theodore II in the Patriarchal Monastery “St. George” in Old Cairo and discussed the problems in church life arising from the non-canonical entry of the Moscow Patriarchate into the jurisdiction of the Alexandrian Church in Africa.
The Patriarch drew attention to the symbolism of convening this meeting of Holy Synod precisely in this sacred place, where many of his illustrious predecessors who defended the unity and rights of the Patriarchal See of Alexandria are buried.
The Patriarch informed the bishops about everything that has been done this year from January until now in all areas of his pontifical ministry.
Subsequently the Holy Synod considered in detail and in depth the issue of the non-canonical entry of the Russian Church into the spiritual and pastoral jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria on the African continent, carried out and coordinated by Metropolitan Leonid (Gorbachev), called “Patriarchal Exarch for Africa” of the Patriarch of Moscow.
After discussion the Holy Synod proceeded to depose the former Klinsk Metropolitan Leonidas from his episcopal rank due to his canonical violations, including: invading the jurisdiction of the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria, distributing antiminsi, holy ointment, bribing local clerics, including excommunicated ones, creating a church division and factions, ethnophiletism, etc. The Holy of the Church of Alexandria also condemned the “new ecclesiastical and political theories” of the pastoral care of the “Russian world” on all continents on the basis of nationality.
Finally, after the prolonged ignoring and silence by the Moscow Patriarch Kirill of the written protests sent to him by the Patriarch of Alexandria requesting him to withdraw his “exarchical” bodies from Africa, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria decided to stop mentioning the name of the Patriarch of Moscow in its liturgical diptychs for an unspecified time.
Until now, only the Moscow Patriarchate unilaterally decided to stop the mention of all prelates who recognized the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine, while these churches, for their part, continued to mention the Moscow Patriarch during divine services as a sign that they are not the ones who violate the Eucharist unity of the Church. The Patriarchate of Alexandria became the first church to stop the liturgical mention of the Patriarch of Moscow.
He received 81.31 percent of the vote. The President of Kazakhstan, Kassam-Jomart Tokayev, won yesterday’s early presidential elections in the largest country in Central Asia, AFP reported, referring to the preliminary results.
Sixty-nine-year-old Tokaev, who came to power in 2019, won 81.31 percent of the vote, according to preliminary information released today by the Central Election Commission. According to her data, voter turnout reached 69.44%.
As expected, the five rivals of the head of state performed the role of extras – none of them collected more than 3.42%, notes AFP.
A novelty of the election, the “against all” option was the choice of 5.8% of voters.
Rich in natural resources and located at an important trade crossroads, Kazakhstan descended into chaos in January when anti-price demonstrations turned into riots that left 238 dead before being brutally quelled.
The country is still traumatized by this crisis. In a sign that tensions have not subsided, authorities announced last week that they had arrested seven supporters of an exiled opposition figure on charges of inciting a coup.
A central theme in Tokaev’s election campaign was his project to build a fairer, “New Kazakhstan”. However, economic difficulties persist, as do the authoritarian reflexes of power.
Europe’s air quality keeps improving and the number of people dying early or suffering illness due to air pollution is in decline. However, according to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) analysis, published today, air pollution is still the largest environmental health risk in Europe, and more ambitious measures are needed to meet the health-based guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO).
According to the EEA analysis, air pollution continues to pose significant risks to health in Europe, causing chronic illness and premature deaths. In 2020, 96% of the EU’s urban population was exposed to concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) above the WHO guideline level of 5 microgrammes per cubic metre (µg/m3) of air. Air pollution also harms biodiversity and damages agricultural crops and forests, causing major economic losses
At least 238,000 early deaths from fine particles in the EU
Poor air quality, especially in urban areas, continues to affect the health of European citizens. According to the EEA’s latest estimates, at least 238,000 people died prematurely in the EU in 2020 due to exposure to PM2.5 pollution above the WHO guideline level of 5 µg/m3. Nitrogen dioxide pollution led to 49,000, and exposure to ozone to 24,000 early deaths in the EU.
As well as premature death, air pollution causes ill health and adds significant costs on the health care sector. For example, in 2019, exposure to PM2.5 led to 175,702 years lived with disability (YLDs) due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease across 30 European countries.
Note: As with previous years, the health impacts of different air pollutants should not be added together to avoid double counting due to some overlaps in data. This is the case for both mortality and illness.
From 2005 to 2020, the number of early deaths from exposure to PM2.5 fell by 45% in the EU. If this trend continues, the EU is expected to deliver on the zero pollution action plan target of a 55% reduction in premature deaths by 2030.
Nevertheless, further efforts will be needed to meet the zero pollution vision for 2050 of reducing air pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to health.
Loss of biodiversity, damage on forests, crops
Air pollution also harms land and water ecosystems. In 2020, damaging levels of nitrogen deposition were seen in 75% of the total EU ecosystem area. This represents a 12% reduction since 2005 while the EU zero pollution action plan’s target is to reach a 25% reduction by 2030.
According to the EEA analysis, 59% of forested areas and in 6% agricultural land were exposed to damaging levels of ground-level ozone in Europe in 2020. Economic losses due to the impacts of ground-level ozone on wheat yields totalled about EUR 1.4 billion across 35 European countries in 2019, with the biggest losses seen in France, Germany, Poland, and Türkiye.
More than half of fine particle emissions from energy use in buildings
The main source of particulate matter pollution in Europe is from fuel combustion in the residential, commercial and institutional sector, the EEA analysis shows. These emissions are mainly linked to burning solid fuels for the heating of buildings. In 2020, the sector was responsible for 44% of PM10 and 58% PM2.5 emissions. Other significant sources of these pollutants include industry, road transport, and agriculture.
Agriculture was also responsible for the vast majority (94%) of ammonia emissions and more than half (56%) of methane emissions. For nitrogen oxides, the main sources were road transport (37%), agriculture (19%), and industry (15%).
Overall, emissions of all key air pollutants in the EU continued to decline in 2020. This trend has continued since 2005 despite the considerable increase in the EU gross domestic product (GDP) over the same period, the EEA analysis notes.
Policy background
The European Green Deal aims to improve air quality and to align EU air quality standards more closely with the updated WHO air quality guidelines. The EU zero pollution action plan sets a vision for 2050 to reduce air, water and soil pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to health and natural ecosystems.
In October 2022, the European Commission proposed a revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, which includes stricter thresholds for pollution, enhanced right to clean air – including potential provisions for citizens to claim compensation for health damage due to air pollution – strengthened rules for air quality monitoring, and better public information.
Note to editors
The EEA has been estimating mortality due to exposure to air pollution since 2014. Until 2021, the EEA used WHO’s 2013 report recommendations for the evidence of health risks of air pollution. In this year’s assessment, EEA applies for the first time new recommendations for health impacts set out in the 2021 WHO air quality guidelines.
Due to the change in methodology, the estimated number of deaths is lower than before and the EEA has updated its earlier estimates to monitor consistently progress and relative change toward the zero pollution action plan goals.
Some studies indicate that health impacts, including early deaths, can occur already at low levels of air pollution. The EEA has estimated those considerably higher health impacts in a specific ‘sensitivity analysis’, summarised in the health impacts briefing.
Europe’s air quality keeps improving and the number of people dying early or suffering illness due to air pollution is in decline. However, according to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) analysis, published today, air pollution is still the largest environmental health risk in Europe, and more ambitious measures are needed to meet the health-based guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO).
According to the EEA analysis, air pollution continues to pose significant risks to health in Europe, causing chronic illness and premature deaths. In 2020, 96% of the EU’s urban population was exposed to concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) above the WHO guideline level of 5 microgrammes per cubic metre (µg/m3) of air. Air pollution also harms biodiversity and damages agricultural crops and forests, causing major economic losses
At least 238,000 early deaths from fine particles in the EU
Poor air quality, especially in urban areas, continues to affect the health of European citizens. According to the EEA’s latest estimates, at least 238,000 people died prematurely in the EU in 2020 due to exposure to PM2.5 pollution above the WHO guideline level of 5 µg/m3. Nitrogen dioxide pollution led to 49,000, and exposure to ozone to 24,000 early deaths in the EU.
As well as premature death, air pollution causes ill health and adds significant costs on the health care sector. For example, in 2019, exposure to PM2.5 led to 175,702 years lived with disability (YLDs) due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease across 30 European countries.
Note: As with previous years, the health impacts of different air pollutants should not be added together to avoid double counting due to some overlaps in data. This is the case for both mortality and illness.
From 2005 to 2020, the number of early deaths from exposure to PM2.5 fell by 45% in the EU. If this trend continues, the EU is expected to deliver on the zero pollution action plan target of a 55% reduction in premature deaths by 2030.
Nevertheless, further efforts will be needed to meet the zero pollution vision for 2050 of reducing air pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to health.
Loss of biodiversity, damage on forests, crops
Air pollution also harms land and water ecosystems. In 2020, damaging levels of nitrogen deposition were seen in 75% of the total EU ecosystem area. This represents a 12% reduction since 2005 while the EU zero pollution action plan’s target is to reach a 25% reduction by 2030.
According to the EEA analysis, 59% of forested areas and in 6% agricultural land were exposed to damaging levels of ground-level ozone in Europe in 2020. Economic losses due to the impacts of ground-level ozone on wheat yields totalled about EUR 1.4 billion across 35 European countries in 2019, with the biggest losses seen in France, Germany, Poland, and Türkiye.
More than half of fine particle emissions from energy use in buildings
The main source of particulate matter pollution in Europe is from fuel combustion in the residential, commercial and institutional sector, the EEA analysis shows. These emissions are mainly linked to burning solid fuels for the heating of buildings. In 2020, the sector was responsible for 44% of PM10 and 58% PM2.5 emissions. Other significant sources of these pollutants include industry, road transport, and agriculture.
Agriculture was also responsible for the vast majority (94%) of ammonia emissions and more than half (56%) of methane emissions. For nitrogen oxides, the main sources were road transport (37%), agriculture (19%), and industry (15%).
Overall, emissions of all key air pollutants in the EU continued to decline in 2020. This trend has continued since 2005 despite the considerable increase in the EU gross domestic product (GDP) over the same period, the EEA analysis notes.
Policy background
The European Green Deal aims to improve air quality and to align EU air quality standards more closely with the updated WHO air quality guidelines. The EU zero pollution action plan sets a vision for 2050 to reduce air, water and soil pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to health and natural ecosystems.
In October 2022, the European Commission proposed a revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, which includes stricter thresholds for pollution, enhanced right to clean air – including potential provisions for citizens to claim compensation for health damage due to air pollution – strengthened rules for air quality monitoring, and better public information.
Note to editors
The EEA has been estimating mortality due to exposure to air pollution since 2014. Until 2021, the EEA used WHO’s 2013 report recommendations for the evidence of health risks of air pollution. In this year’s assessment, EEA applies for the first time new recommendations for health impacts set out in the 2021 WHO air quality guidelines.
Due to the change in methodology, the estimated number of deaths is lower than before and the EEA has updated its earlier estimates to monitor consistently progress and relative change toward the zero pollution action plan goals.
Some studies indicate that health impacts, including early deaths, can occur already at low levels of air pollution. The EEA has estimated those considerably higher health impacts in a specific ‘sensitivity analysis’, summarised in the health impacts briefing.
