Naomi Klein's new book: Change energy policies now or the planet boils over!

I’ve just finished reading a powerful and sometimes quite personal book called “This changes everything” by investigative journalist Naomi Klein. 

The book has a clear and simple message: Climate change cannot be fought through market mechanisms. Environmental policy is in direct competition with energy and industry policy; if we want to keep our planet from boiling over, environmental policy needs to go first. 

Klein shows that all attempts by governments to incentivise good behaviour by the industry through carrots and sticks are failing. As long as pollution is economically viable, emissions increase further. The half-hearted policies by our governments, if they remain the same, will heat our planet by much more than 2°C. Klein says that our governments wasted precious years doing nothing and must now immediately pass courageous legislation to drive down absolute emissions. Market solutions are no longer sufficient if climate change is to be stopped.

Below, I have collected some of the main arguments of the book. The Canadian journalist is also working on a documentary to be released in autumn 2015 (see preview embedded at the bottom of this post). 

• The total coal, gas and oil reserves already indexed for exploitation by companies today equal about 2,795 Gigatons of CO2 emissions. However, studies today can say quite exactly how much more CO2 can be burned until 2050 to keep global warming below 2°C: not more than 565 Gigatons, only one fifth of the total resources already on the books. If governments were serious about curbing climate change, extraction of these resources should be heavily restricted; investment in fossil fuel companies should as a consequence become uninteresting. However, in March 2014 ExxonMobil informed its investors that current climate policies makes them “confident that none of [their] hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become ‘stranded’” (i.e. unusable). 
• Fossil fuel companies hate renewable energy because it is a decentralised, locally- and people-owned form of energy. Meanwhile, fossil fuels rely on a centralised resource-extraction system that allows a few companies to make millions of dollars in profits. 
• Fossil fuel companies and their employees follow a locust-principle: exploit and move on. None of the employees in the oil sector want to grow old in the places where they work. All want to get filthy-rich and take early retirement in a clean place far away. Meanwhile, locals in the regions under threat do not want to see their homes destroyed because of short-term profiteering. They want solutions which will preserve the local environment and lifestyle. 
• 97% of the world’s climate scientists including the World Bank and the International Energy Association agree that climate change is man-made and that it will have unprecedented and dangerous consequences for the next generations. If no far-reaching changes are made, the scientists agree, we are headed for disaster. 
• Right-wing politicians and businessmen in the US try to frame climate change as a hoax that the left employs to argue for more regulatory power of the state, less free markets and more redistribution of wealth. The right wingers perfectly understand the “dangerous” implications of strong carbon legislation. That’s why they spend millions of dollars to discredit the science and to kill climate legislation plans before they can get dangerous. 
•  Some businesspeople and scientists think that human activity doesn’t need to change. Everything can be solved by shooting chemicals into the sky that will block sunlight. However, it is proven that using them will cause serious draughts and food crises in some parts of the world. And using them instead of reducing carbon will lock us into using them forever. 
• It is not enough to encourage renewable energy – at the same time, fossil energy has to discouraged with increasing severity. Since this was not done in Germany, coal in that country has become a big competitor for renewable energy. To discourage fossil fuels, governments can for example introduce higher fossil fuel taxes that can be used to subsidies renewable energies. 
• Bridge technologies only work if they do not become competitors to renewable energy. By exploiting bridge technologies like shale gas and tar sands, energy companies continue to make billions from fossil fuels without any restrictions. 
• Much of the necessary climate saving depends on countries like China and India. However, the West carries a massive historical climate debt for 140 years of pollution. Even today, the West continues to outsource its pollution to the developing world. As a result of both, Western states must provide much of the financial resources to save the climate. 
• Indigenous people in several North and Latin American countries are becoming pivotal actors in the fight against carbon extraction because they can lay ancient claims to the land in which oil and gas are buried. 
• In many parts of the world, more and more determined “Blockadia” protests have sprung up. In these protests, citizens of all generations defend their regions against the profit-and-destroy mentality of the fossil fuel companies. Many governments including Canada’s, Greece’s, France’s and Nigeria’s are bitterly opposed to the protests and try to protect the extractionists. But it looks more and more that they are losing the fight against the citizen protests. 

The book makes it clear beyond any doubt that governments need to act now and impose binding limits on carbon extraction. No more market solutions, carbon-trading schemes and pollution offsets. The shift to renewable energy needs to be financed by taxing fossil fuel companies (and their customers). Obviously, this will redistribute a lot of cost to all of us energy consumers. 

Klein makes no secret about the challenges. No politician wants to destroy the jobs that rely indirectly on oil and industrial production by skyrocketing the oil price. Klein answers half of the question by pointing to the potential of new green jobs. But for the rest, she is clearly putting the reader in front of the choice: Either our politicians start today to eliminate fossil fuels, at the cost of job losses and re-education, or we will have unprecedented devastation and life insecurity for the next generations. We need to choose what we want.

What must be said

With his poem "What must be said", to be found here [DE], German nobel prize laureat Günter Grass stirred up a heated discussion in Germany. At the core of it: Can Germany, the country that bears responsibility for the Holocaust, criticize Israel? 

Public opinion in Germany seems to answer this question with a yes. Although I cannot find the figures, the majority of Germans looks at Israel's aggressive foreign policy with unease (and shows empathy with Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and the Gaza strip). When Günter Grass now writes that the "atomic power Israel endangers a world peace that is already crumbling" and criticizes the German shipment of a nuclear submarine to Israel, he speaks out what many German citizens have thought for a long time.

In other countries, this would not be a problem. But in Germany, where chancellor Merkel has declared Israel's security a piece of Germany's raison d'état and where a recent study has found "a banalization of antisemitist practices and rants that reaches far into the middle of the society", such a piece of criticism cannot be uttered without being called an antisemitist. German criticism of the state of Israel and of its government is always understood as criticism of the Israeli electorate, the Jewish nation. 

And yet, the state of Israel is evidently in breach of several UN resolutions that deal with Israeli settlements in the West Bank and has repeatedly expressed its desire for a preemptive strike on Iran which would defy the intentions of the UN Charter. You could conveniently argue that every world citizen with an interest in peace should have the right to criticize Israel for its policy, regardless of their nationality.

What Günter Grass therefore advocates in his capacity as a global citizen is to put both the Iranian and the Israeli nuclear programs under the scrutiny of an international authority. If you look at the situation without a Western bias, the question is justified: Why subject the Irani nuclear program to external control and make an exception for Israel, although its attack could endanger Iranian citizens just as much as an Iranian attack would endanger Israelis?

As a German or non-German, what do you think of the question?

MountEUlympus at the EPP Summit

In the footsteps of Julien Frisch, Joe Litobarski and Andrew Burgess, your humble blogger will cover the summit of the European People's Party (EPP), held this Saturday evening in preparation for the European Council on Sunday (and Wednesday).

Angela Merkel at the EPP Summit in June 2011
Source: Flickr CC BY europeanpeoplesparty

The EPP currently brings together 17 of the 27 European heads of state or government, among others Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Donald Tusk and Silvio Berlusconi. Discussions at the summit will mainly center around the Eurocrisis, which already brought one EPP government down last week (Iveta Radicová's liberal-conservative coalition in Slovakia). Will EU leaders, Merkel and Sarkozy most of all, be able to come to a sustainable agreement? Will they be able to produce a consistent solution that appeases the markets and brings back politicians' credibility? These are the questions that this blog will address at the EPP summit.

I will be live-tweeting directly from the summit (follow my account @mounteulympus or the hashtags #epp and #euco) and provide you with a round-up in the aftermath of the summit on this blog. You can send me your questions, comments and remarks by comment function, via Twitter or through the contact form, and I will try to address them at the summit.

Macroeconomic convergence in the EU - ok, but what about structural funds?

The macroeconomic stability regulations that the European Parliament passed in late September, better known as "sixpack", lay down severe penalties for countries whose economies exceed the European average by too much. This could hit overachieving Germany just as much as underperforming Greece.

Two of the six pieces of legislation are relevant for this, the Ferreira regulation and the Haglund regulation. The Ferreira regulation allows for the establishment of "an alert mechanism for early detection of emerging macroeconomic imbalances" within the European Commission, but under consultation of the European Systemic Risk Board. This mechanism "should be based on use of an indicative and transparent scoreboard comprising indicative thresholds, combined with economic judgment" (see the exact rules for the scoreboard in the regulation).

If a Eurozone economy exceeds the European average by too much, and for too long (meaning that it ignores several warnings from the Commission), it will be heavily fined. Within the Euro area, "the yearly fine [...] shall be 0.1% of the GDP of the Member State concerned", according to the Haglund regulation.

The aim of the two regulations is among others to bring the macroeconomic policies of the 17 different Eurozone economies closer together. While one country lowers taxes, establishes a minimum wage and gives out subsidies to make people spend more, it should be safeguarded that its neighbor doesn't raise taxes to keep its purchasing power at home (Germany has been pretty good at that over the last decade, and France was rather angry about it).


While the structural funds of the EU (European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund and two others) are not directly related to macroeconomic policy of the member state governments, they also have an important role in bringing European economies closer together. The Commission has just published its proposal for the structural funds 2014-20, which are expected to have a volume of 336 billion EUR. Three different types of regions are to profit from the funds, namely

• less developed regions, whose GDP is below 75% of the Union average (this will continue to be the top priority for the policy)
• transition regions, whose GDP is between 75% and 90% of the EU 27 average
• more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 90% of the average.

This is probably not fair, and I am not an expert on structural funds, but on a polemic note it strikes me as funny that Germany's North-Rhine Westphalia (whose Brussels representation you see below, next to the Latvian embassy) has already been promised funding of some sort for the period of 2014-20...

Latvian embassy in Brussels. Source: The embassy's Flickr page	North-Rhine Westphalian Representation in Brussels. Source: derwesten.de

Update (10/10/11): The Commission's 6 October proposal does incorporate a suspension of cohesion funds if macroeconomic criteria are not met. Read more here.

Finally - a debate about the future of the European Union in Germany

For one and a half years, debates on the European Union in Germany could be largely summed up as "we always pay, we never get anything back". Not only is this wrong, the pure limitation to financial aspects also obstructed the view upon a more important question: In a world where the European Union "will account for only 18% of world GDP in 2020, signifying a decline of 28%" compared with 2000 levels, are citizens prepared to give the EU strong multilateral institutions? This question has long been left unanswered in Germany. The Lisbon treaty was nodded off without debate.

Thanks to finance minister Schäuble, the debate now seems to take a new turn. Schäuble has always been one of the most fervent supporters of more European integration. After his initiatives for a European Monetary Fund (more or less granted), a European rating agency (still negotiated) and an economic government for the Eurozone (granted), the German finance minister yesterday pursued that the answer to the European debt crisis can only be more Europe. For once, I've got the feeling that the debate is not directed against fellow European countries but towards the degree of competence to be given to Brussels.

Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a one-hour televised live interview last week in which she explained the reasons behind the EFSF. This doesn't happen very often, and it may have given many people a new view upon the EU and Germany's role in. People begin to understand that the country profits a lot from European integration and stronger institutions do not necessarily mean less democracy.

The time is right to pursue this debate and to wonder what Europe will look like in the future. Bavaria's CSU, in dire need of voter support, warns against a "European superstate", but it was apparent from the EFSF vote last week that there is room for more Europe in large parts of CDU, Social Democrats and Greens.

Unnoticed by many, chief German constitutional lawyer Andreas Voßkuhle recently gave an interview in which he predicted (14min30) that Germany may pave the way for stronger European institutions (within the next 10-20 years, roundabout), and give itself a new constitution to accommodate these changes. The time hasn't come for such a quantum leap, but I've got the feeling politicians start laying out the cobble stones to get there.

I hope that there will be an honest debate about the future of the EU, not only in the Parliament but also in the public sphere. After Schäuble started the debate, the next few days will show if other parties are prepared to exchange some serious arguments on this.

Day of Franco-German friendship on January 22nd

There are three annual political holidays that I try not to miss. May 9th, the Day of Europe. July 14th, the French national holiday. Yes, I am German and comfortable with it, but October 3rd doesn't spark a lot of patriotic emotions with me (in contrast to the football worldcup which definitely does). July 14th with its fireworks around the Eiffel Tower is certainly a more memorable event. The third holiday is the day of Franco-German friendship on January 22nd.

I am reminded of the former two holidays by the media, but I always miss January 22nd. Was I not paying attention, or were the media not paying attention?
Well, I admit, I forgot it. However, what speaks in favor of me is that all self-proclaimed Franco-German blogs on the web including Vasistas, l'Europe en blogs, Le Blog Franco-Allemand, Le Franco-Allemand, Deuxzero, deutsch-franzosisch, Frankreich heute, Bernard de Montferrand, Scharlotte en France, Komische Petite française, Berlin & Co, Le Blogueur and the Franco-German couple blogging at Fenris et Fionan also forgot it.

Does the holiday have such a low importance that nobody cares to remember it? No! Praise goes to Das Frankreich-Blog - France Blog, which extensively covered the Franco-German Day. And on a political level, Germany and France celebrated as well. Secretaries of State Werner Hoyer and Laurent Wauqiez met in Paris on Tuesday, January 25 for a working lunch, followed by a visit to a French kindergarten and a debate at the French elite university Sciences Po. Foreign Ministers Guido Westerwelle and Michèle Alliot-Marie (sadly, Bernard Kouchner has eventually been shuffled out of the cabinet by Sarkozy) had already published a joint declaration on January 22nd. They affirm their commitment to the Franco-German Agenda 2020 and Germany declares its support to the French G20 presidency. In schools and public institutions in France and Germany, the Franco-German Day was celebrated as well.

Next year, I promise not to miss this holiday. And I hope to celebrate it in an adequate fashion as well.


By the way, if you are a young German or French professional, you can apply for a Franco-German future dialogue organized by DGAP and IFRI. However, the deadline for applications is today, Monday January 31st.
If you are interested in a one-year postgraduate Franco-German Master of European Governance in Paris, Strasbourg, Potsdam and Berlin, you can still apply until May 15th.

France and Germany are again playing old power game in climate change

The refusal of France and Germany to back Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard's proposal of curbing emissions by 30% until 2020 stems from a backward logic and is detrimental to the EU's soft power. "The European Union is ready to adopt the 30 percent figure if other major economies make comparable undertakings," French industry minister Christian Estrosi is quoted by EUObserver after a joint press conference with German economy minister Rainer Brüderle.

Estrosi and Brüderle want to play the old power game that led to the failure of Copenhagen: "We don't budge if you don't budge." Yet, it was apparent already at Copenhagen and also after Copenhagen that China was really not impressed by the EU's power play, to put it politely. The EU lost its multilateral negotiation power in Copenhagen and playing power games now does not get it back. Those of you who are familiar with game theory will understand that after a look at the rudimentary game tree below:



It is clear from the game tree that China wins if it chooses not to regulate its emissions, regardless of what the rest of the world does. It is also clear that "(m)ost of China's policy initiatives that affect climate change have come about without any direct reference to international frameworks, but have been driven by domestic policy needs" (Freeman and Holslag). Meaning that power games are rather useless.

There is only one thing that China wants and doesn't have. Technology. European comparative advantage is in technology. And if Freeman and Holslag are right that "the EU considers the combat against climate change . . . as a source of soft power", policy-makers are well-advised to start leading by example. The North-Sea Grid and the Desertec Initiative (which btw also extends to China, the US and Australia), for example, have not been paralleled by comparable projects initiated in the States or China, and progress in these projects can lead to more soft power for the EU.

Leading by example means leading by successful implementation of ambitious programmes at home. An ambitious target of 30% emission reduction entails a lot of research into best practices, consumption habits, carbon capture and storage, market mechanisms in environmental protection and other fields. An ambitious target is therefore a significant factor contributing to development of technology and thereby soft power.

Let alone that refusing an additional 10 base point emission cut where it is technically possible is not a particular sign of respect toward the population. It is true that developing countries face a trade-off between economic development and environmental protection (i.e. one declines as the other grows), but developed countries with a high degree of technology are less subjected to this trade-off and can prioritize economic development AND environmental protection.

And it is not a sign of particularly intelligent government communication that Chancellor Merkel is currently wandering through the eco-city "Masdar City" learning all about intelligent sustainable development while her economy minister rejects a stronger engagement of the EU in favor of old power games.

All in all, this makes me feel like we are far away from using the resources we have, and far away from making sustainable development a source of soft power.

Germany enters consensual politics

The elections in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia on Sunday might not have had as much coverage as the UK elections last week, but they may turn out almost as important. In North-Rhine Westphalia, the center-right government composed of CDU and FDP fell as the CDU went from 44,8% to 34,6%, and the FDP - although it went from 6,2% (2005) to 6,7% in North-Rhine Westphalia - badly lost in comparison with the national elections in 2009 where it obtained 14,6%. The Social Democrat SPD slightly lost from 37,1% to 34,5% while the Greens are the big winners of the elections, almost doubling their score from 6,2% to 12,1%.

Source: tagesschau.de

Now the parties are in negotiations. A black-yellow-green coalition has been ruled out by the Liberals and the Leftist party would never be asked to enter into coalition with the CDU, meaning that every possible formation necessarily has to include the SPD.
The SPD is happy about its electoral success and would like to send the minister-president who will be in charge of the regional government. Since the coalition party with the highest percentage gets to send the minister-president, this would exclude a grand coalition, and the SPD is currently hoping for a red-green-yellow formation including the liberals or a red-red-green formation including the Leftists. However, the liberals have made the election promise not to go together with the SPD and the Greens, and they have a record of sticking to their electoral promises (except for tax cuts). And it would be plain political suicide for the SPD to coalition with the Leftists after the huge political scandal in the state of Hesse where the party was stupid enough to dare the game.So in the end, my educated guess is that it will be a grand coalition, meaning that the SPD has to sacrifice the post of the minister-president. Incumbent minister-president Jürgen Rüttgers (CDU) lost 10.2% and had to admit a range of political scandals in the run-up to the elections, so my guess is that he will eventually have to cede his post. Former integration and equal opportunities minister Armin Laschet would be a good candidate for the post since he could moderate between CDU and SPD. I believe that he will become the next minister-president.

Much more importantly however, the regional elections upset the balance in the second German chamber, the Bundesrat, where all states are represented by a number of voices according to their size (see chart). With North-Rhine Westphalia ("Nordrhein-Westfalen" in the chart) moving from black-yellow to black-red, center-left parties are represented in 10 of 16 regional governments and control 38 of 69 votes (32 of which are controlled by the SPD alone).

Source: tagesschau.de

According to the basic law, delegations have to cast their vote unanimously. A failure to find an accord within the state delegation leads to the vote becoming invalid. Since motions can only be passed with an absolute majority of more than 50%, abstentions will automatically be counted as a "no". Delegations are normally supposed to represent their state rather than their party, but the issue remains that the center-left now has the possibility to block legislation if they act as a union. If they now gets their acts together, they can be a powerful force. They can block unpopular legislation coming from the center-right government.

This means that the government will have to seek the consent of some of the opposition parties at times and lead to a more consensual style of politics than before. No agreement can be done any more without the consent of at least one opposition party. This may make the system less transparent, as a lot of negotiation, bullying and lobbying will go on behind the scenes. There will be less open conflicts between the government and the opposition. On the other hand, this may be an option for the center-left to regain its power. It only has to do what we've been urging the EU to all the time: to act as a common body.

Happy Europe Day!

We are celebrating Europe and European integration which has tremendously benefitted the citizens in the Member States. Not only is the EU a guarantor of peace, it has also established a strong emotional interconnection of the European citizens compared with the pre-EEC days. It has made traveling across the borders absolutely self-evident for all of us. It has endowed us with a common currency and become a strong, value-based civilian-power force in international relations. Other regional organizations such as ASEAN and the African Union are looking at the EU with envy for the achievements that have been made in the integration of various policy fields. The EU is not only the largest economy in the world but also the largest donor of development aid and the global frontrunner in environmental policy.

While many things can and need to be criticized about the functioning of the EU, we should bear in mind that all of these achievements have created a great international and intercultural project that is unmatched in the world.

Having said that, it is of course necessary to point the finger at the failures of the EU at all times, because it seems that the fleet of Member States drifts away from one another as soon as the slightest breeze comes up. The most worrysome news for me in the last week has certainly been the loss of appreciation for the EU in the United States. Spiegel Online wrote that the incapacity of the EU to handle its crises (ash cloud, Greece) in a swift and consistent manner cause American policy-makers to increasingly shake their heads in disbelief. That should be perceived as a tremendous shame by all governments involved in the process! The Union that has just endorsed the creation of a European External Action Service discards wise and far-sighted coordination measures for short-term gains in regional elections (Angela Merkel in the case of Greece) and short-term economic gains for the airlines (although I agree with Julien Frisch that Eurocontrol handled the information of internet-savvy citizens rather well). Yet, the failure to coordinate more closely is a shame!

A strong navigator is needed, a navigator who focuses his eyes on the horizon while staying in constant communication with all of the vessels, paying attention that the demands of their crew are equally met. It is time this navigator started to emerge.


It so happens that the Euro Model United Nations Conference (EuroMUN) in Maastricht, one of the largest MUNs in Europe, coincided with Europe Day. In the assembly of the European Council, we focused on the hot topic of financial aid for Greece (me filling in as Greece at the last minute) and international speculation. Far-sighted, and with a view to protect the various crews, the Heads of State and Government "condemned" international speculation against the Euro, paved the way for a European Monetary Fund and a tobin tax to finance it and urged the Central Bank to acquire government bonds. I wished that the real European Council would sometimes take these kinds of bold decisions as well...



I would also like to make you aware of an article on my travel blog about recent measures in the US which may seriously impede future high school exchanges into the US (German, English as translated by google).

Christine Lagarde is right

It is surprising how harsh the reactions were from the German side when French finance minister Christine Lagarde told policy-makers in Berlin to step up domestic consumption. German enterpreneurs suggested other Member States "do their homework" and step up their own competitiveness so that they wouldn't need additional German investment. The government and Commissioner Günter Oettinger agreed that German products should remain cheap as not to compromise its export revenues.

But in my view, Christine Lagarde is absolutely right. As I have expressed here, Germany's so-called "competitiveness" is essentially a public bailout of the enterprises on the shoulders of the working population. Of course it is true that Germany has the strongest economy in Europe and contributes much to growth in other Member States. But that can be increased by shifting resources back from the businesses to the consumer: A legally imposed minimum wage as practiced almost everywhere in the EU would raise aggregate consumption - and note that people have proven on various occasions throughout the crisis that they did not save the money they had at their disposal - which then means

• more consumption of domestic goods and services
  
• more consumption of foreign (inter alia European) goods and services
• more possibility to invest in enterprises at home and abroad, and thereby a greater involvement of the citizens into economic decision-making and a greater democracy in some enterprises
  

Yes, it also means that enterprises have less financial room for manoeuvre and investment. It means that some enterprises will relocate, to European states with a lower labor cost (beneficial for inter-EU trade) or to extra-European states (bad for the EU). But as the high-skilled services sector is taking ever-increasing importance and businesses have already come back from Asia in fear of technology theft, a large part of enterprises will not compromise the conditions that they find in the education level, social climate and infrastructure of central Europe.

Therefore, Christine Lagarde is absolutely right. For the last ten years, German entreprises, withholding pay rises of the employees despite inflation and higher product revenues, have benefitted from a society that does not take to the street except against nuclear power and right-extremists. They have benefitted from a disunited, individualized workforce that can be easily put under pressure. They have benefitted from state contributions if they employed a recipient of social security.

Let's not talk about repaying those ten years. But it is about time the employees/consumers obtained their rights for the benefit of the rest of Europe.


Update: Couldn't say it better than Robert von Heusinger in this article (translation: Google Languages/myself):

"Let's take the economic growth as the epitome of wealth and power of an economy. Here the matter is clear: France grew by an average of 1.5 percent in the last ten years, while Germany only grew by paltry 0.8 percent. Also in terms of employment as the epitome of participation and self-esteem of the people, the country across the Rhine performed better: while France's employment grew by 0.8 percent per year on average, in Germany it only climbed by 0.5 percent.

Where does this French success come from? From domestic demand, private consumption. It averaged 2.2 percent, four times as high as in Germany (0.5 percent). How did France achieve this - in spite of globalization? Through higher wages, that's the simple answer. The slightly more sophisticated one: it was achieved through an economic policy that recognizes interrelationships instead of blindly reducing national debt, shrinking the state sector, and relying merely on competitiveness."

Update 2: Christine Lagarde is completely wrong, on the other hand, if she suggests to finance consumer spending through tax cuts. That would take money away from state services like education and research and development that dearly need it. Consumer spending has to be financed through the real economy. The money has to be shifted from the enterprises to the citizens, not from the state to the citizens.

Geschafft

"Liebe Aktive auch alle anderen Freunde des ICJA,

ihr habt es geschafft! Wie wir gerade erfahren haben, wird es auch ab Sommer 2010 Förderungen für internationale Freiwillige geben!

Als Ergebnis des Drucks, den ihr alle mit Briefen, Protestaktionen, Anrufen, etc. aufgebaut habt, wurde heute, am 12. März 2010, ein spontanes Treffen wichtiger Entscheidungsträger einberufen und gemeinsam beschlossen, dass es auch im Sommer 2010 eine Förderung für Freiwillige im FSJ geben wird!

Das ist eine super Nachricht und ist der Erfolg vieler Menschen, die ihre demokratischen Rechte wahrnehmen, hinschauen und sich gemeinsam für eine Sache einsetzen!

VIELEN, VIELEN DANK an euch alle, die ihr euch auf vielfältige Art eingebracht und engagiert habt: mit Mailings und Briefen, mit Beschwerden und Anfragen bei Abgeordneten, der Organisation von Unterschriftenlisten und der Organisation von Flashmobs! Ohne euch wäre das nicht möglich gewesen!

Bitte leitet diesen Erfolg auch an diejenigen weiter, die vielleicht nicht auf unseren Verteilern stehen. Das heißt auch, dass Flashmobs und Briefaktionen nicht mehr notwendig sind!

Euer ICJA Team"

Internationales Freiwilligenprogramm: Weitere Informationen

Nach meinem Post gestern hat Kosmopolito über die Pläne der Bundesregierung geschrieben. In den Kommentaren hat Felix das Anschreiben für die Abgeordneten etwas verändert, damit es in die Form bei abgeordnetenwatch.de passt. Abgeordnetenwatch ist eine einfache Möglichkeit, mit Bundestagsabgeordneten zu kommunizieren, allerdings muss man sich vorher registrieren. Ich kann jeden Leser nur bitten, von dieser Möglichkeit Gebrauch zu machen und auf seinen Abgeordneten und die in der Email genannten Politiker Druck auszuüben.

Die genannten Abgeordneten sind Mitglieder des Ausschusses für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend; hier geht es direkt zum Ausschuss auf Abgeordnetenwatch. Ich habe in der kurzen Spanne seit gestern abend schon drei positive Zuschriften von Abgeordneten erhalten, die das Vorhaben unterstützen und hoffe, dass es bald noch mehr werden.

Hier die aktuellen Positionen der Parteien zu dieser Frage:

• Sönke Rix, SPD-Bundestagsabgeordneter im Ausschuss für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, setzt sich für eine Stärkung der Freiwilligendienste ein (Stand: 4. März 2010 bzw. 9. Februar 2010).
• Florian Bernschneider von der FDP hat sich in diesem Interview mit der Welt (Stand: 3. März 2010) eindeutig für den Ausbau der Freiwilligendienste ausgesprochen: "Deswegen müssen wir die Förderung (bisher knapp 50 Millionen Euro) ausbauen, um die Stellen zu erhöhen und in ihrer Qualität zu stärken."
• Die Position der CDU/CSU ist derzeit unklar, aber wie schon berichtet schreibt der ICJA Freiwilligenaustausch weltweit (ICJA e.V.), "dass man sich im
  Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend darauf
  geeinigt hat, noch im Mai diesen Jahres den §14c Abs. 4, in dem die Höhe
  der Fördermittel (421,50 €/TN-Mon.) festgelegt war, zu streichen".
• Die Grünen lehnen die Mittelstreichung für den Internationalen Freiwilligendienst ab, sagt der zuständige Bundestagsabgeordnete Kai Gehring in einer Pressemitteilung: "Die Zukunft liegt im quantitativen und qualitativen Ausbau der Freiwilligendienste. Die notwendigen Mittel dafür stehen nur dann zur Verfügung, wenn die überholten Pflichtdienste endlich beendet werden."

SPD, Grüne und FDP kämen bei einer Abstimmung im Plenum auf 307 von 622 Stimmen, sofern tatsächlich jeder Abgeordnete gegen die Mittelstreichung stimmen würde. Das reicht aber noch nicht. Ich kann die aktuelle Position der Linken nirgendwo finden und habe deswegen meine Zweifel, auf welche Seite sie sich schlagen wird.

Das bedeutet im Umkehrschluss, dass Lobbyismus zwar überall zugleich ansetzen muss (wie gesagt, der persönliche Abgeordnete ist eine wichtige Macht), dass allerdings vor allem bei der CDU/CSU und der Linken Druck ausgeübt werden muss, damit sich die Positionen verändern.
Meine Hoffnung ist es, dass SPD, Grüne und FDP gemeinsam mit der organsierten Zivilgesellschaft und den Bürgern gegen die Mittelstreichung kämpfen werden damit das Ministerium seinen Vorschlag zurücknimmt.


Update: Auch europaeum hat einen Blogpost zu dem Thema verfasst.

Update 2: My apologies to all English readers of this blog. Despite an international implication, the cancellation of the international volunteer programs by the German government is essentially a domestic question. A communication campaign first has to target German politicians. This is why I chose to blog it in German.

Die deutsche Bundesregierung will das Internationale Freiwilligendienstprogramm einstellen!

Mehr Informationen dazu gibt es hier.

Germany, the poor man of Europe

Last week, Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble defended the 2010 state budget before the Bundestag. He plans an additional debt of 85,8 million to stimulate the economy, while he preferred to keep silence on plans for general tax relief (which will cost another millions of EUR in future).

As a member of the young generation in Germany, it's difficult to take CDU/FDP financial politics seriously any more. The government is selling off the future of the country in a feeble hope of rekindling domestic consumption. It is now doing something that has been neglected throughout the last decade: increasing domestic purchasing power.

Indeed, from 2000 to 2008, wage raises have been below inflation so that real income actually decreased by 0,8%. This trend continued until 2009. Proud of being export leader in the world, changing governments in Germany supported supply-side measures which would reduce wages and product prices and thereby create affordable products for foreign consumers. In other words, generally speaking, revenues for German enterprises have been generated on the back of the workforce for the last ten years. No wonder that domestic consumption broke down.

In a monetary union (MU), this kind of "beggar thy neighbor"-policy which gives one country an advantage over others due to fewer imports and more exports can only function for a few years. Afterwards, the lack in purchasing power (and thus, imports) has a tremendous impact upon fiscal stability in the rest of the MU and will start to drag the entire construction down.

Leading German economists have responded to this question over the last decade by stressing supply-side measures. If the wages remain low, the argument goes, enterprises have the room to invest and create new jobs which will increase aggregate purchasing power. However, the financial crisis has revealed that enterprises seldom used their discretion to create new jobs or invest in product development and R&D. Instead, they placed their export revenues into flawed financial products and ended up gambling away the fortune of the country.

Therefore, I think it's legitimate to say that enterprises have had their chance. They had their chance for the last ten years, throughout different government coalitions, and enterprises failed horribly in fulfilling their social responsibility. Supply-side measures were a failure, and the government finally understood it.

So it's all about boosting demand now. The best measure to increase domestic purchasing power would be a legally imposed minimum wage in Germany as it is the case in all EU countries except Cyprus. This would equalize purchasing power between Germany and the rest of the EU and prevent a race to the bottom in 2011 when the Schengen criteria are relaxed and more Eastern European workers gain access to the German job market.

However, the government is still too afraid to hold enterprises to their responsibility. Rather than financing purchasing power through the real economy, our current government prefers to reduce VAT for hotels while it finances domestic consumption through tax money. Borrowed money, mind, which future generations will have to repay.

Again, the government is bailing out enterprises like it bailed out the banks in 2009. As a young person, you cannot take this government seriously any more.


for supporting and contradicting viewpoints, see here

the political talk "Anne Will" (in German) had the same topic on Sunday evening, the audio file is here:


Update (10/02/2010): Herman van Rompuy, in a note seen by the German Handelsblatt, condemns the German beggar-thy-neighbor policy as uncooperative and calls for a model similar to the "economic government" proposed by France.

Interacting with politicians? It's possible

Germany is just struggling with a question of German-Polish relations. It's about the appointment for a cultural foundation that works on remembering European reconciliation after the second World War. The Chancellor wants a Polish-hostile CDU politician to sit in the commission; our Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is against her appointment.

Inspired by a discussion on the news portal tagesschau.de and by Conor Slowey, I wrote an email to the minister, trying to give support. What was I thinking? Maybe my email is one of tens of thousands that arrive in these days. Maybe not. Maybe the foreign minister does not get a lot of popular feedback, apart from newspaper comments and articles. And these, as we all know, come from journalists in the high political echelons that are remote from the common people. So I thought a little popular feedback might be a good think. Never expected to get a reply. But today it came, certainly written by his deputy staff rather than himself.

Dear Mr Feldhof,

thank you for your email on 6 December 2009 and for the support that you expressed. I was very happy to receive it.

As the German Foreign Minister, I have to represent the interests of our country. One of them is to increase relations with our neighbors. To me personally, it is an important point to project the profound relation that Germany has with its western neighbors to Poland as well. ... I will continue to support this direction.

Again, thank you for your email and your support. Personally, all the best to you.

Guido Westerwelle

(my translation)

It doesn't sound like a standard answer they send to all their respondents, does it?

I believe that everybody with the courage to voice his opinion can reach someone in political life. We just have to start writing emails.

Franco-German friendship: Symbols are not enough

Three months ago I was ringing the alarm bells for the Franco-German friendship by enumerating the problems between the two countries:

• the difference between French deficit spending and German frugality,
  
• the different security politics within NATO,
  
• and the ministerial shift of pro-German agriculture minister Bruno LeMaire.

I might add another example for controversy with the German solar power plans in northern Africa, rivalling with French nuclear power plans in Morocco. And what about division between Merkel and Sarkozy about the future President of the European Council?

But given the new German government and its expansionary fiscal policy, Sarkozy fell in love with Germany again. Now France and Germany are demonstrating symbolic unity: The chancellor flew to France first thing after she was sworn in. Sarkozy will be in Germany to celebrate the 20th annivesairy of the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 11, followed by Merkel travelling to France, commemorating the end of the First World War.

For Sarkozy the honeymoon could well go a little bit farther than that:

• German ministers joining French cabinet meetings and vice-versa.
  
• A French minister for Germany and a German minister for France.

The SPIEGEL 45/2009 writes that this goes too far for Merkel's new government. French love for symbolism meets German love for pragmatic and output-oriented organization. In the chancellory, they don't think it would lead to any concrete results to have a French tourist with a political opinion at the cabinet table.

I like the message that would emanate from a French minister for Germany and vice-versa. But rather than on symbolism, the Franco-German friendship has to be based on concrete political results (as in the cooperation on the CAP). It has to be based on common positions in the international organizations and the EU. A German ministry for Europe, as argued by Deutsche Bank Research, could coordinate the positions of the German ministries in the Council and create more coherence between them. It could thereby coordinate policy with the French government which already has a ministry for European affairs.

In addition, the Franco-German partnership should support a strong diplomatic service of the European Union. If the European motor states don't back a common European position vis-à-vis China, India and the United States, Europe will become marginalized on the international scene. Recent actions by the US government show this very clearly.

But more important than political cooperation between France and Germany, there has to be a continued exchange between the citizens of our two countries via sister cities, study exchanges, language courses, scholarships and internship opportunities. The Franco-German friendship can only last if the citizens do not lose the interest in one another.

A German commissioner Peer Steinbrück would be a wise decision

After the German elections are over, the question is on the table who will be the German commissioner for the next Commission. The names put forward in the press have not been very convincing. They include

• neo-liberal finance expert Friedrich Merz (CDU, without support in his own party),
• MEP Elmar Brok (CDU, little known to the public),
• MEP Martin Schulz (SPD, unlikely after losing the European Elections),
• interior minister Wolfgang Schäuble (with no interest to go to Brussels)
• economic sherpa Peter Hinze (CDU, little known to the public).

All of these candidates would not find a lot of support by the public and cause a further distance of the citizens towards the European institutions. And I doubt whether they could negotiate with a Baroness Ashton on the same level.

The idea to nominate former finance minister Peer Steinbrück (SPD), put forward by MEP Jo Leinen (SPD), is a good option for both political competence and public acceptancy. Steinbrück has been on of the central figures in the financial crisis and earned respect of politicians all over Europe for his far-sighted positions. In Germany itself, Steinbrück was probably the SPD minister closest to Angela Merkel. The finance expert would be one of the first to hope for a nomination by the chancellor. And he is not only respected in politics but also viewed as an honest broker by the German public. Steinbrück speaks out what he thinks and I perceive him to care about future generations as much as for current unemployment figures.

The Commission post would fit Steinbrück's CV pretty well. He was economy and finance minister in several German states, then became minister president for the state of North-Rhine Westfalia in 2002. When his state government was voted out of office in 2005, Steinbrück didn't have to wait long to get his next job. The national elections in the same year brought him to the post of finance minister in Germany. Becoming European commissioner now seems like the next possible step in a steep political career.

The question remains, what portfolio Steinbrück would get. A major industrial country, Germany is pressing for the portfolios industry, economics and finance, monetary affairs or trade. But I could also imagine him being the head of the common market portfolio and of competition policy - it fits very well given his watchdog role as a finance minister in Germany.

Inglorious bastards - What a shame for European actors

If you decide to watch a film by Quentin Tarantino, you mostly know what you're up for. You know Pulp Fiction, the celebrated black comedy in which a guy in the back seat gets his head blown off because the car hits a bump in the road. You know Kill Bill, in which hundreds of people get killed by Uma Thurman in a revenge fight. You know that Tarantino films are bloody, macabre, funny and far off reality. That's what you're expecting when you decide to see a Tarantino.

But the new Tarantino film is totally different. This time, the fun is not so far off reality, and that's what makes the film a very gruesome experience - at least if you watch it in Europe. The first twenty minutes show a nerve-wracking scene. A Nazi officer, played by Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, discovers a Jewish family in the house of a French farmer and has them murdered. Unlike former Tarantino films, a long intensive and deep-reaching dialogue in French and German language preceeds the kill. This is not fun. This is good acting of highly qualified actors. After watching that dialogue, you don't feel like laughing about the kills any more.

The film continues with a weird interplay of trash-talking American-style Brad Pitt humor, fighting scences and a serious and well-acted character study of the only survivor of the farmhouse massacre. That HAS to touch you as a viewer if you have an inkling of historic sensitivity. It's not a problem for me to parodize Nazi history, if it's done in a sensitive way. But Tarantino doesn't really choose if he wants to show an irrealistic black comedy or a serious revenge story in a historic setting.

If it was only for that, you could still shrug off the film as an uninformed American-style war movie. But the really sad part is that highly qualified European actors sign the movie with their name. German actors Til Schweiger and Diane Krüger as well as my personal favorite Daniel Brühl and Austrian actor Christoph Waltz have a high potential and have starred in outstanding films before (let me just remind you of Daniel Brühl in "Goodbye Lenin"). Of course it's their right to appear in funny and parodistic films. But a history-based film like this one also sends a political message. An American's vision of Europe and European history is often shaped by Hollywood movies like this one. And many Americans will now get to know the actor Daniel Brühl, one of the very few German actors with a reputation outside of the country, in the role of the self-loving Nazi whom he displays in the Tarantino movie.

It's a real shame to see the actors' talents wasted in a movie like this one.

Someone is taking the piss of the FDP's immigrant expulsion policy...

...or so you would think at first when you see this photo on Youtube and on other places where it's currently advertised.

Source: fdp-fraktion.de

The picture reads "20 years freedom of travel" - you would think someone malicious meant the trip back home to civil war stricken countries in the Balkans. But no: The picture is from the Homepage of the FDP group (Liberals) in the German Bundestag itself and they apparently meant something very different...

Some thoughts about the German election campaign

It's only a little more than a month until a new parliament will be elected in the largest state in Europe. European politicians are awaiting the election results in Germany before the European Parliament can approve the designated commissioners.

Germany is currently experiencing a very astonishing development. You could almost say that the voters have no clue what they really want. In the pre-election survey "DeutschlandTrend", the journalist Jörg Schönenborn observes that "the anger about banks and financial actors, the renewed feeling of injustice and the increasing wish for a more solidary society are normally signs for a [...] leftist majority. However, in the judgement of parties and persons, this is currently not reflected at all" (my translation). Quite the opposite, the more effort the SPD puts into its election campaign, the more the number of supporters seem to drop.

Before blaming the voters, it has to be said that the parties are not making it easy for them either. Over the last years in the grand coalition, it has become more and more difficult to divide the most important claims of SPD and CDU/CSU apart. While many citizens believe that the SPD has turned away from its social-democrat roots, the CDU has begun to talk about a social market economy. Not many of the common achievements in the grand coalition were attributed to either party and both sides are now trying to show what they have achieved over the last few years.

The young Green politician Jan Seifert believes that a new grand coalition may mean a further drop in popular support as voters perceive they don't have a real choice in the elections any more. Likewise, he believes that this could lead to a stronger radicalization of the small parties who lure the frustrated voters into their own camp with populist promises. I could add that those who vote for the small parties in order to end the grand coalition will lead to a weak SPD and CDU, which again will leave only triple coalitions (ruled out by all parties) or another grand coalition as an option.

What very much frightens me - and there I have to blame the citizens - is the hostility that voters show toward the election campaign in general. Politicians have to justify why the political parties - accepted vehicles for the aggregation of political ideas and the finding of solutions - dare to voice their proposals for the future of the country to the sovereign. For a week, the so-called "affair" about SPD minister Ursula Schmidt's business car has caused more attention than the political proposals of the parties. And in my view the German media have to take a share of the blame for that kind of coverage.

Final thought, I haven't seen any real campaigning emerge yet. Neither of the big parties has a real star. The CDU is trying to push the popular economics minister Theodor zu Guttenberg, but sooner or later in this campaign he will have to show his profile more clearly than he did so far. Commentators hold against him that he can say a lot of beautiful words without making a statement, but I believe that won't get him through the campaign.
The SPD has a few young talents, but I haven't seen them voice their ideas very clearly yet. We may have to wait a little more until the Steinmeier team really kick-starts.

Secondly, neither of the big parties has voiced a very clear campaign topic yet. The CDU is trying to gain voters with the promise of a vague tax reduction while the SPD is speaking out against nuclear power plants and in favor of renewable energy. I wonder if the topic of energy can be sharpened so much that there will be a public debate about it. Clearly, with the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen coming up in December and the recent Desertec initiative, there is a lot to talk about. But the issue will have to be framed by politicians and the media in a way as to appeal to the daily life of the citizens.

I think the next few weeks will be interesting one way or another. It'll be exciting to see what topics will interest the citizens the most...