Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Related Links:

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail

Olya Melen doesn't think small. In her first-ever court case, the young Ukrainian attorney challenged a massive canal project proposed for the Danube Delta, an internationally recognized wetland on the edge of the Black Sea. Melen, a lawyer for the public-interest group Environment-People-Law, argued that the canal would disrupt the area's rural communities and diverse wildlife, violating national laws and international agreements.

Olya Melen.

Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize.

The court agreed with Melen, ruling in 2004 that the Ukrainian government's environmental analysis was inadequate. But government officials pressed ahead with construction, continuing to dredge and shore up sections of the proposed canal. Not until late 2005, after the popular Orange Revolution swept President Viktor Yushchenko into office, did the government agree to a temporary halt of the project.

Yushchenko has said he wants to complete the project, which would allow shipping vessels to travel between the Danube River and the Black Sea. But Melen hopes the new government's respect for law -- and the Ukrainian people's renewed faith in their government and court system -- will help her and her allies protect the Danube Delta.

Melen, 26, was awarded one of six 2006 Goldman Environmental Prizes at a ceremony in San Francisco on April 24. She spoke to Grist from San Francisco.

Would you describe the Danube Delta and its environmental importance?

Studying a map of the Danube Delta.

Photo: John Bonine.

I have been to the delta many times, and every time it's like an adventure to paradise. The nature there -- it's incredible, it's like a fairy tale. There are so many birds, fish, insects, plants -- it's really exciting to go there, you really get an inspiration for your future work in nature protection. It's important not just for Ukraine, but also for the world. It has almost the largest reed beds in the world, and it is one of the world's largest, most beautiful, and least altered wetlands. A lot of migrating birds stay there, breed their families, and have a good time, because there are plenty of fish there. The territory was recognized as a wetland of international importance [under the Ramsar Convention], and as a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve under the auspices of UNESCO.

What would happen to the delta if the proposed canal were completed?

Construction of the canal in such a magnificent area would have an adverse effect on the environment. It would cut the territory into two parts, and [if constructed as planned] it would go through the most sensitive and most valuable territory of the reserve. There are a lot of threatened species that have their spawning and breeding grounds nearby, so the noise pollution and water pollution from the canal would have negative effects on the fish, birds, and many other species that are found there.

How did you learn about the canal project, and why were you interested in it?

Three years ago the government decided to dig this canal, and the information was posted in the newspaper. We decided to take this case because the territory was very, very important for Ukraine, and for the international community. Also, it was a very negative precedent to have a very valuable natural area sacrificed to economic interests. We feared that if the government succeeded, it could result in more illegal attacks on protected areas in the future, not only in Ukraine but also all around the world.

How did you come to be the lead attorney on the case?

This case was the first big case for me -- it was my first court experience, and my first court victory. I owe a lot to my colleagues and to my mentors, who had confidence in me, and who said, "You need to take this case." First I was just coordinating the case, but now I am leading it.

You were only in your early 20s at the time, right? Were you intimidated?

I was a little bit nervous, especially the first time I went to court. Actually, I was more than nervous -- my hands were shaking, my voice was breaking, and it was really scary. And my opponents were quite strong. The government of Ukraine employed a lot of lawyers who came to court all the time, too, sometimes three at a time, and they were quite aggressive.

So it was scary, but I think that being young was a good thing. Nobody expected to have a qualified opposing party in this suit. They all said, "She is so young, she knows nothing. She will not be able to convince the judge." So I caught them by surprise. The judges didn't take me seriously at first, but then they decided that my arguments were quite sound. Then I was taken seriously.

So what gave you the courage to stand up to these opponents?

Aerial view of the delta.

Photo: A. Vorauer.

I was very sympathetic toward nature, toward the Danube Delta. The nature there gave me a strong impetus to work further on this case. Also I liked the friendly style of family life in the delta. I wanted the people there to keep what they had, so I was also representing them in court. Also, the people in my organization who trusted me, who were confident that I would be able to do this -- there was no way I could let them down. So I had to take this seriously, I had to work hard, and I had to win.

What do you think was the most powerful argument you used in court?

The most powerful argument was that the government was breaking many, many legal norms. We were trying to persuade the judges that this territory is worth being preserved for future generations, that they need to keep this territory clear and not allow the shipping canal. The number of international conventions that were violated during canal construction was really large -- more than 10 conventions -- and so we argued that if Ukraine dredges the canal in this area, it would have problems with the international community.

What has the Orange Revolution meant to your fight against the canal?

I think the Orange Revolution was very important, almost the turning point in our struggle. The new government seems to be more sympathetic toward the environment, and toward the establishment of the rule of law in the country. They want to keep the good faith in the international community.

Also, the Orange Revolution was very inspiring to many people. It proved that every person can make a difference, and that the government needs to respect the rights of every citizen, not just the huge group but also every citizen. And it raised the confidence of people in the court system. The Supreme Court of Ukraine played a huge role during the Orange Revolution, because they were hearing the cases on the violations during the elections. Everyone was watching the court hearings on TV from morning till afternoon, and I think [the judges'] decisions inspired more people to go to court and seek justice in front of the government.

What is your strategy for the future?

The canal project is still alive, and the new president has said that we need to complete the construction. So we want to make sure that the government makes its decisions in a sound way, in a legal way, and involves the public. The decisions need to be environmentally and scientifically sound.

What does the prize mean to you?

For me, it's a great achievement, and it proves that I made the right choice in life when I became a public-interest environmental lawyer. I hope it will be useful for the case, and I hope that such a high recognition will eliminate all the suspicion that some members of the public had about our activity. We were accused a few times of being Romanian spies, but I hope that now those accusations will be eliminated, and people will be more environmentally concerned.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash

Climate Citizen: Majora Carter

Controversy still rages on 20th anniversary of Chernobyl

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the nuclear power-plant accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine, that spewed radioactive fallout across Europe. Estimates of the total number of deaths that will result range from around 9,000 (a U.N. report released last year) to 93,000 (a new Greenpeace report). The controversy stems from uncertainty about the health effects of small doses of radiation. Thyroid cancer and other thyroid abnormalities are health problems that most scientists agree are directly linked to Chernobyl, but the Greenpeace report also blames fallout for "damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated aging, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosome aberrations, and an increase of deformities in fetuses and children." The last of Chernobyl's four reactors was taken out of commission in 2000; now, the site sits quietly amidst a wide "dead zone" that has, ironically, become a kind of wildlife refuge. It almost makes it all ... wait, no it doesn't.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

The winners (left to right): Silas Kpanan'Ayoung Siakor, Yu Xiaogang, Tarcísio Feitosa da Silva, Anne Kajir, Olya Melen, and Craig Williams.

Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize.

 
Though the connection between people and their surroundings is undeniable -- a serving of clean air, anyone? -- defense of the environment is still sometimes considered antisocial behavior. But this year's winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize, the world's largest award for grassroots environmentalists, belie that pesky stereotype.

Whether they defend wide-open spaces or stick up for communities threatened by dams, these activists say they draw their strength and energy from other people. They credit their seemingly unshakable courage to their mentors and colleagues, to those they represent in court, and to those who depend on the places they fight for. "I just like seeing people happy, you know?" says Anne Kajir, an attorney in Papua New Guinea who defends indigenous landowners against the ravages of illegal logging. "So it basically gives me the kicks every time the landowners smile and say, 'Thank you.'"

Related Stories

Kajir and her fellow honorees can now enjoy a more public brand of gratitude, thanks to the Goldman Prize. Established in 1990 by Richard and Rhoda Goldman -- he founded Goldman Insurance Services in San Francisco, and she was a descendant of jeans maker Levi Strauss -- the prize gives each winner $125,000 and a splash of international attention. Winners represent every major region of the world -- Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South and Central America, and island nations -- and are nominated each year by environmental organizations. This year's six winners were honored in a ceremony in San Francisco on April 24.

This week, Grist talks to the 2006 Goldman winners:

Related Links:

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

Health fallout from Chernobyl less severe than expected

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power-plant accident has yielded much less harm to human health than initially anticipated. According to a new report prepared for the U.N. by more than 100 experts, Chernobyl will ultimately cause about 4,000 deaths, primarily from cancer -- a lot, they concede, but far fewer than the tens of thousands once predicted. No birth defects or impacts on fertility have been detected in exposed populations of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Concentrations of radioactivity in agricultural foods produced in fallout areas are by and large below national and international levels considered action-worthy. The report says that Chernobyl's most severe impact has been on the mental health of the millions classified as victims, who have become fatalistic and dependent on government entitlements. These people should be given realistic information about the risks they face, says the report, and encouraged to become more self-reliant.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

It's been 17 years since the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe -- but a new disaster could be around the bend if the concrete shield encasing the old power station isn't rapidly reinforced, according to Russia's energy minister. "We can see a situation where the roof could fall in, or rather the supports that hold up the roof could fall down. There are a lot of holes in the sarcophagus," said Alexander Rumyantsev. The minister also said the shield was initially put up quickly under difficult and dangerous conditions, and urgently needs replacing to protect the Ukraine from another -- albeit smaller -- nuclear calamity. Despite his experiences with Chernobyl, Rumyantsev remains a staunch supporter of nuclear energy and claims the number of victims of the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster were exaggerated.

Related Links:

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions

Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?

Related Links:

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions

Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?

Sixteen years ago today, a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl exploded, resulting in the worst atomic accident in the history of the world. The explosion affected 3.3 million Ukrainians as well as untold numbers of other people, and sent a radioactive cloud drifting over much of Europe. All of the area within 18 miles of the plant has been a no-man's-land since the accident, but last year, under urging from the U.N. to focus on redevelopment, the Ukrainian government began contemplating building in the area. That move provoked an outcry from victims groups, who point to ongoing ill effects from the explosion. The number of thyroid cancer cases, for example, has risen from 119 in 1986 (prior to the explosion) to 3,022 last year.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

Ukraine plans this year to shut down the Chernobyl nuclear plant, site of the world's worst nuclear accident, Ukranian Pres. Leonid Kuchma said Saturday. But Kuchma told U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who was in Ukraine for a two-day visit, that the plant will close only after the U.S. and other industrialized nations hammer out a deal to help compensate Ukraine for the energy it will lose. Richardson pledged $22.5 million from the U.S. to help build a thermal power plant, as well as additional money to help Ukranian industry improve energy efficiency and to repair the aging concrete tomb that was built around the radioactive rubble of the Chernobyl reactor that exploded in 1986.

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy