-20% CO2 reduces footprint?

Do the EU policies reduce the footprint of the European citizen, as is always suggested in the media? Or will the CO2 footprint of an EU citizen actually still be bigger than in 1990?

This December COP15, an important climate change conference in Copenhagen will take place and its main goal this time won`t be just discussing the implementation of climate change policies in regard to the Kyoto protocol, but issuing a new global climate change agreement, ratified by all industry nations.

An event which encompasses as much hopes as fears. Hopes that after it, with shared efforts, countries will manage to change the course of climate change into a positive direction. Fears that at the end nothing will actually change and it all would have been only nice words, greenwashing and no actual agenda with actions we should start working on straight away as we are running out of time. And later could be too late.

So far the EU countries are the only ones stated reducing CO2 emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels and by 30 percent, if other nations follow suit. Also the only one to make these targets legally binding. But are we really going to use less CO2?

Just think of that for a moment…. Where did you buy your laptop? Probably in Europe. Now think again- where has your laptop been made? And its parts? If you look around in your house, you will find a lot of things that were not produced in Europe. Probably a lot of them were ‘made in China’ alone.

You can combine this with another. The chosen 1990 levels were just after China opened her borders for European companies. In the 90’s and this century we stopped producing a lot of things in Europe. If CO2 emissions would have been stable, the amount in Europe would have gone down due to the transfer of production alone. But the footprint of a European citizen would have stayed the same. The result: under the proposals made by the EU now, we do not have to count the transfer of CO2 that is connected to transfer of production.

It sounds nice to speak about reducing CO2 within the EU borders, but shouldn`t we focus on our CO2 footprint, the amount of CO2 that we really use? If every citizen on this earth was using the amount of CO2 that we use, this planet would be too small. We help them with their fight against climate change. The CO2 emitted to make our goods is for a good part not emitted in Europe. We use it without counting it in our CO2-goals.

The big question for large statistics bureaus that remains is: Are we really aiming on reducing CO2 emissions per person? It seems to us we are not.

This article was a co-production from Mariya Vasileva and me and was produced during the ‘New media - all innovative, all public?’ workshop for young journalists in the European Parliament.

T-shirts: easy way to show opinions about climate change - JOIN US at www.climatechangetshirts.com

climate change t-shirts

Irene Sacchi and I were thinking how people can voice their options about climate change. Demonstrations might work, but not that much people will be willing to do this, and the effect is only very temporaly and limited to a location. A better idea would be, if everyone all over the world would start wearing T-shirts about climate change. This is not a big effort, but a great statement after all.

This is why we started the website www.climatechangetshirts.com The idea is that we ask everyone in the world to make a picture of themself wearing a t-shirt that relates to climate change. And send it to us at photo@climatechangetshirts.com

Before we will announce the website to the world, we would like to have pictures from all around the world to already be online. So, please, make a picture with you in a climate change related t-shirt. If you do not have one, you always can wear your Thinkabout it T-shirt on the picture ;-)

Don’t let us down, and if there are already readers from outside our blogging competition, please also join our quest for the biggest T-shirt action ever!

PS: climate change sceptics are also invited to send in their pictures ;-)

The Age of Stupid - putting climate change in perspective

Tuesday September 22nd the movie Age of Stupid was shown worldwide to ask for attention for Climate Change. The movie reports from a preservation archive in 2055, about our times. It was the age of ignorance, the Age of Stupid. We know the facts, we are not bad people, but we did not change anything. A good concept to open our minds.

The age of stupid

What I like about the movie, is that it does not put climate change in an absolute perspective. We are shown an indian low cost airline owner that is totally motivated to make it possible for the poor indian to travel around in its own 1 billion people large country. His intentions are good, but do frustrate climate goals.

The combination of a black-white stance on climate change - it will destroy the world if we do not act now - with the reality of a complex world with a lot of priorities makes the movie highly interesting. A pity is that all the heroes that are working on good climate things are not mentioned and we are shown a depressing picture of our future that can also demotivate people to change their habits. But should we always have a happy end? Is it wrong to concentrate on the urgency of the problem?

The beauty of the movie is that it puts climate change in a perspective. It shows how our world is pressing us to use fossil fluels, even with the best goals. A girl in a third world country that uses Omo (made of oil), to wash the fish that is poluted by oil spilling. And the same girl ending up selling diesel to earn the money to become a doctor and buy nice clothes.

Maybe we should not think only about climate change. Maybe the real answer is in the combination of much more changes. And this could be the time to do it. We still have oil, and we should use it to build a new world that is sustainable. A world where we have changed our habits not only on climate issues, but also on conceptions like consumerism and private ownership for everything. Why wouldn’t we share our drilling machine we use once a month? Or share our ideas to improve the world?

Are we living in the Age of Stupid? I like the idea. In the Stone Age, could we blame mankind not using new tools that were not invented? I do not think so. Just like then, it is up to the inventive people that are open to change and can think out of the box to change to a next Age. And if we share our new tools, the Age of Stupid might be over sooner than you think.

So, as a first step let’s use the expression Age of Stupid in general life ;-) Like: ‘The Age of Stupid is almost over!’ The idea of an ending Age opens our minds and puts our way of living in the widest perspective possible.

Signing Not Stupid - www.notstupid.org

A new episode on the web

Google is working on a new means of web communication that is called Google Wave. It will combine chatting, email, shared documents, wiki and blogging. Anything that is going on on the web right now, will be integrated in the new wave protocol. For a lot of people this will be a big step to take. Changing the well know email is not an easy social step to take, and all the options that google Wave offer will ask for a well developped etiquette among its users.

I am one of the lucky people that got an developers account from Google to already use Google Wave during its development. In this small community of webnerds, we already see that etiquette is important. Before you know, a wave (email/document) gets totally overfilled with information. But this is a learning process, and the way we will use waves will usually develop from a small known group of people towards a big unknown group. Nevertheless, Wave will be a huge step in the social development of the web.

Although wave can start a social revolution, I am even more excited about the fact that google is making wave working under a federal structure and open source. This fact alone will make us less depending on big internet companies that we can not controll anymore. Where facebook owns the addresses, personal networks and most personal information of over 200 million people (april 2009), google wave will be able to run on servers that are owned by different organisations. This means that all the personal gains are still there, but there is not any one identity any more that can access all the information from all people. It will only take time for organisations like facebook to also either adjust, or loose the competition with federal structured open source networks.

For those that are interested in more detailed information about the possibitilies Google wave has, there is a youtube video about wave, available at http://wave.google.com. But more fun is of course to be able to play with it. I can not show you the options that google Wave will have, but it is already possible to work with wave in this blog for those that have a wave account. I used a plugin to give them access to the wave below. As long as this works good an no one messes with it, I will leave it online ;-)

I am sorry that you can not try it without a wave account too.

European Commission has closed itself from journalists

The EuropocketTV organised conference in Pablo de Vallbona (Valencia) opened this morning with a critical debate about the communication of the European Commission. The core message shared by all debaters is that the European Commission is closing itself from journalists. Ten years ago journalists were able to walk around and talk with everyone. Right now, there are even voices in the European Commission that want to cancel the daily press conference. It is more difficult for journalists to get interviews.

Part of it can be explained by the fact that the EU has the biggest press core in the world. But more important is that the EU is not addressing the journalists. The EU is addressing the public directly, and on a non-critical way. Sergio Cantone (Euronews): “The communication strategy of the European commission totally failed. They do not make a distiction between journalists and people. It is all propaganda, and they all are thinking like bureaucrats. The commission is a strange beast. They think they are the elite of the European bureaucracy. You have to treat it as a bureaucratic body, not as a goverment.”

Raymond Franken (EUX.TV): “In Brussels, a lot of times it is the journalists that are blamed for not getting the message out. But in fact, it is the structure of the EU itself that is to blame since no one is accountable. The Parliament can only send away the full Commission, for example.”
Cantone: “The governments are responsable for that situation. Good control must be from the parliament in the first place. National governments are trying to hide what is happening in Brussels.”

But journalists have a responsability too. A lot of journalists are using the press conferences as a one way communication that they can see from their desks. Patricia Kelly (CNN, BBC): “If we do not ask questions at press conferences, they will disappear. Now there are daily briefings, but a lot of people in the commission do not see it as something important. It is very important that journalists show up in the press conferences in Brussels, not just follow it online. It is almost disappearing now.”

Only prime minister gives EP power

The power of the European parliament is limited. The more influence the EU gets, the more important it becomes that the European Parliament has real power. There is consensus that the EP now lacks power, and that it should become more important in the political games between the council, the commission and the parliament.

The positions of the debaters in the EP power debate were remarkable this week. The wishes for a strong European Parliament were represented by a former Prime minister, while the leader of one of the most important parties in the European parliament represented the lack of willpower to put the EP in a central position.

First position was the European Parliament accepting its position in the EU. This time, it was German MEP Martin Schulz - leader of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - that took the weak position. He stated, according euractiv quoting FT Germany, that even if the PES (Socialist Group) in the EP would become the biggest and defeats the EPP (conservative and christian group), he would not expect a socialist to become the President of the European Commission. According to Schulz, the president would still be from the EPP, since the majority of the European Governments are center-right now. WHAT??? If the people vote Socialist, then the socialist leader is defending the governments being center-right? Isn’t voting for the EP supposed to serve the people making a decision where the EU should be heading too? And isn’t the President of the Commission the person that has the most infuence on this direction? He is the one that can propose new rules, and he is negotiating with everyone. When the Lisbon treaty would be accepted, he also is the one chairing the Council and presenting the EU outside.

Schulz is right that officially the Council does a proposition to the Parliament for the appointment of a President of the Commission. But it is the Parliament that can accept or refuse the candidate. If the Parliament already accepts that the council is not following the will of the people, who should think the Parliament will gain power at all?

Schulz should have a socialist candidate, present this person to the European People and have this person challenge Barosso. Public debates being broadcasted in all EU countries could follow. That would make people understand what choices can and will be made with their vote. And make them willing to vote. The Council then could only suggest this person and see other candidates being refused by Parliament. But no, Schulz implicitly says the EP has no influence on the direction the EU is going.

Luckily, we have Guy Verhofstadt too. This former Prime Minister of Belgium decided to run for a seat in the EP. And he knows what he wants. On sunday morning in Buitenhof, the most important discussion television programm of the Dutch television, he got half an hour to tell his plans. You can agree with him or not - that is not my point here -, he showed that the European Parliament could have power. That is, if a majority of members would not be as weak and passive as Schulz.

Investigating European mobile phone and mobile data costs

Investigating European mobile phone and mobile data costs

It has taken some time, but ‘the bullit is through the church’ (Dutch expression ‘De kogel is door de kerk’, meaning that a decision has been made). The topic of my research will be mobile phone and mobile data costs. I want to thank all people that have commented on my last blog (published in several places), and through personal contacts.

I want to make this research serious, but the scale of the research will also depend on finances. To get this research done, I asked for funding at a new European investigative journalism fund. The fund just started and there already is a big demand for it, so let’s see if I get it.

I aim to do the research by blogging, and with all the help of indigo journalists all over Europe. But you can help too! Please write comments, or send me your knowledge, ideas, or rumours about what is going on in the mobile industry, the politics concerning this etc.
The research results will constantly be published online, but a concluding article will be published in the European lifestyle magazine Indigo that is published in seven languages. Other media can also publish articles based on the blogs.

It is an interesting time for this research. On one hand, we already have free options to call with Skype and VIOP services. And we have wifi access, and options for unlimited data within our own country for prices sometimes as low as 10 euro a month.
On the other hand, we have high mobile phone roaming costs and the European Union just deciding to force mobile companies to lower their prices again. And we have a market not functioning, since almost all companies use the EU prices, where the EU only gives the maximum.
For data roaming, it is even worse. The EU limits her efforts to a warning for costomers who are abroad and pay over 40 euro (VAT excluded). If they do not accept more costs, the data roaming is stopped after 50 euro of data roaming costs.
The third element that I want to investigate is the connections between the mobile phone companies and the surrounding industries. Ever noted that an apple i-Phone has all the techniques in it for skyping (wifi connection, enough processing power), but it is not allowed by Apple? Or the company Truphone that offers VOIP service to call internationally, and T-mobile trying to block access to their numbers? Anyone having details on this type of actions, please let me know.

For now, I am interested in your help. It would be the most beautiful if I can get contacts just by blogging about it. If not, I will start contacting people myself.
I am searching for:
- people that work for Skype or a VOIP company
- people working for Apple I-phone, or one of the mobile phone companies that have an agreement with them
- people that are working for lobby organisations from the phone companies in Brussels or in the national countries?
- people working for the EU Commission, EU Council or national governments, or European Parliament that have to do with the phone lobby and policies.
- people that work for a mobile phone company that can explain me the real costs of mobile phone and data traffic
- people that have insight in the technical understanding of roaming.

If you are not any of them, do you know someone working there? Or do you have any other tips/suggestions?

If you are working with one of the mobile phone companies and are willing to help me discover where to search for the right information easily, I would be very happy if you can let me know. My skype is joerioudshoorn, my mobile phone number ;-) is +31645472961 and my email mail@joerioudshoorn.nl

I can keep your source safe, but I sure need to be able to use your information. We together will find out how we can blog about this without risking your job ;-)

Open letter to Mark - Facebook - Zuckerberg

Facebook claims the right to keep and use all the data we put online for ever, even after deleting the account. Mark Zuckerberg explains why in his blog at: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

Your claim that Facebook works like email where both the sender and the receiver have a copy of a message is not correct. If, with facebook, someone has 200 friends, that does not mean that you are making 200 copies of that. If you would, facebook would blow itself up.
What you should do, is you assign data to one person (the one putting the info online). And you make links to other people that can read it (the friends). Now, if the one who puts something online deletes his account or this information, it also does not appear with the friends anymore.

If facebook wants to go ‘the email way’, you would have to limit the rights on data based on what friends do with it. Right now, you are claiming rights for yourself. If you want to do this fairly, you have to introduce the option that friends can click on a button saying ‘I want a copy of this in my account’. If they do so, THAT would make that there are two copies and the information only disappears when both accounts are lost or both delete the information. Otherwise, it is still only a link to the account of the person who placed it there. And as you can notice with internet more often: if the link disappears, the information is gone unless someone made a copy of it before.

We do not want Facebook to make a copy of our information for facebooks own use. Your solution is unacceptable.

Yours,

Joeri Oudshoorn

PS: more interesting links:
The Consumerist, who published first about Facebook’s changes in Terms of Service
Blogger Amanda French who compared the terms of services of different social networks to find out that Facebook is totally out of line
The facebook group against the terms of service

My big experiment:
European investigative and research
journalism by blogging

Yes, this will be it! You are witness of my first blog about investigative and research journalism by blogging. What I am going to do is find out if blogging is a good way to do investigative and research journalism. And here we start.

What am I planning to do?
I will pick some topics, like why mobile roaming is still not as cheap as local calls, or why pricefighting airlines can offer so cheap flights. And I will start investigating this. The things I know for sure, but also any guesses, any speculation etc. will be blogged. And when I get to know facts, I will put links, references etc in the blog too. This way, everyone can follow the research done, comment and give tips on what I am thinking right or wrong, and everyone can give links that tell more.

Continue Reading…

Fluid information will win

A lot of blog entries have the goal to comment and share your experiences. To do this most effectively, we want to link to the sources we use, so you, the reader, can find out more if you like. In the blogging world, this works good if you link to other blogs. Bloggers refer to eachother and are happy to share their stories, news and creations with everyone who likes to invest time to take notice.

Sure, not all information is linkable. If I experience a smile on the street, I could tell you, but I can not link to it. Usually, that is why we are not blogging about these things. Live experiences usually are not registered, and I am more then happy that CCT camera’s are not.

There is a lot of information that is not available, although registered. Even available digitally. Newspapers publish their articles online, and television and radio stations send out their programs over the cable. But for a lot of newspapers you have to be registered as a subscriber to open an article, and although more and more television and radio programs are available on the internet, most still are not.

Continue Reading…