{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023331173039533377, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5423728813559325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Industrial Pollution Discourse in the European Arctic

This article reviews the environmental interface between Russia and Norway in the European Arctic, defining major discourses in the two countries pertaining to industrial pollution. Metaphors and story lines, catching certain aspects of a problem in a simple and understandable manner, are essential in defining the range for political action. Calling the Kola Peninsula a "black desert" and the clouds drifting from Russia into Scandinavia "death clouds" - largely the achievement of the media, non-governmental organizations and environmentally oriented politicians - had a substantial effect on the general public in Norway and propelled large assistant schemes to Russia. The emergence of the "death clouds discourse" coincided in time with the "Barents euphoria discourse", which held optimistic views of a general "clean up" in northwestern Russia with the help of infrastructure financed by the Nordic side. The Norwegian discourses clash with the Russian "anti-hysteria discourse", depicting the Kola Peninsula as a pristine corner of the world. The "environmental blackmail discourse", found on both the Norwegian and the Russian side of the border, hinges on the assumption that Russian polluting enterprises have no incentive to close down activities as long as they have prospects of foreign assistance. The Barents euphoria having largely vanished, alternative ensuing discourses have not significantly altered the outcomes of the original "disaster and euphoria discourses".