Friday Gallery: Walls

I had missed that Friday Gallery started up again in September due to our move to a new country (I think I'm excused for missing it!), but now with life having returned to some sort of normalcy, I should be able to blog on a more regular basis.  So here's the first post for October.  Birgitta is our hostess (as in picking the themes) this month and for today she has picked "walls".

Today I can only think of one thing when I think of "walls", and that is the grim pictures from the latest accident involving people wanting to get to Europe from across the Mediterranean.  Over 100 are dead and even though many have been rescued from the burning and sinking boat, about 200 are still unaccounted for.  I know the issue is very complex (or, you could actually argue it is not), but in principle I think we should really welcome everybody.  I don't like so-called Fortress Europe.  If we had more normal routes for migration, whether it is political, economic or human reasons, we wouldn't thousands of people arriving dead (or never arriving at all) on the shores of Europe.

Image borrowed

Something is Rotten in the State of Sweden

Apparently it is not just for snus that Sweden and Finland have a special exemption from EU rules; we also have a exemption that allows us to sell rotten fish. Okay, fermented herring, surströmming.

But now the EU is giving us a hard time about this again. Me personally couldn't give a stink about surströmming but I assume some of you out there are in uproar.

So who are you hooting for, Sweden/Finland or the EU?

P.S. Obviously there is a discussion to be had here about what cultural traditions and practices (or other politics for that matter) should be decided at national or EU level, and if we get into that discussion I'm all for keeping the rotten fish, but if we keep it less complicated, are you for or against?!)

Show & Tell: The Dinner of My Dreams

Simone takes over Show & Tell for the month of November. She starts off in style with a very difficult topic! The Dinner of My Dreams - three guests, four with yourself. What is the seating plan, the menu, wine selection, table setting, etc.

Just when I was about to sit down and write this the show Simone got the idea from was on TV. What a coincidence!

I could answer my wedding dinner, because I dream about getting married. I could also write about a dinner with Peter and two kids around the table, the two (or three) kids I hope to have one day. But I really hope to have more than three guests at my wedding and neither my own kids nor Peter would really qualify as "guests". A dinner with friends would not be a dream dinner either since I meet them regularly anyway and I hope we will continue to do so until we're turn 100 at least.

So I will have to opt for guests that I would like to meet, but not just meet for meeting's sake but in order to try to influence them. With a month left (from tomorrow) before the start of the negotiations about a new climate change agreement in Copenhagen, getting an agreement that would be strong and effective enough to eventually stop climate change would be the topic of the day, the raison d'être for the dinner.

At the moment the international negotiations are heading for disaster. If not complete failure at least a very watered down agreement*. The last round of negotiations before Copenhagen, which took place in Barcelona over the last couple of days, didn't make much progress. And the EU-India Summit over in Delhi today wasn't a huge hit either.

Image from photobucket.com

So who are the key people I would need to convince that the planet is worth saving; that we don't have that much time; that even though we can't see climate change yet** and/or it's such a difficult thing to comprehend, it IS happening; that we cannot close our eyes and pretend it's not happening anymore, etcetera etcetera?

Yes, Obama, that's where we need to go. Forward. To the future. A green future. (Image from climaticoanalysis.org)

China's President Hu Jintao (image from thehindu.com)

I can't decide if Russia or Canada gets the third seat. At the moment Canada is hiding behind US but if I got the US onboard I'm sure Canada would come running. Russia is a problem in terms of hot air and is closer to some of the oil states that would be useful to have onboard too. India is another potential third guest but one which I don't think will be a real problem once China is game. I could also choose to have another climate advocate at the table, for example Australia or Japan, but they will make good extras instead.

So I think Russia would be my best shot.

Russia's President Medvedev (although Putin would probably be knocking on my door trying to take Medvedev's place) (image from rusecounion.ru)

The EU has taken most of the necessary decisions so the EU wouldn't really need to be at the table but could come and slip in some arguments while serving our food (first course). Besides, I represent the EU anyway. Australia and Japan would be cooking and come out and check on us once in a while. The "progressive developing countries", for example Brazil, Mexico or South Korea, could come and shout some encouraging words together with the main course. The G77 would accompany the dessert and the Maldives' President*** would serve the cheese. By the time the coffee comes we should have a deal!

What would we eat and drink? Only organic and/or fair trade produce of course. But I would also try to serve meat, fish and vegetables that may go extinct in a world with rising temperatures to make the point that this is something we may not enjoy in the future.

Let's hope we can stop the world from this scenario:




* In all likelihood there will be some sort of deal, but a weak one, or something like a statement or political intention, and next year will be full of further negotiations to seal the deal. This is an alternative that wouldn't be all bad but it would be even better if a deal could be reached in December 2009 already.
** We can really but not not in all parts of the world, and not in the countries which need to take the decisions, and not enough in other parts of the world for people to really understand.
*** Did you know that the Maldive government held a government meeting in the sea, fully dressed in diving suits to demonstrate to the world what sea level rise means for low lying states and/or the least developed states!

Image by/from Mohammed Seeneen/Associated Press

Questions for Europe

Learn more about the EU and European politics on this site. You can no longer submit your own video questions but you can read up on a variety of topics! And don't forget to vote this weekend!

Pretty Cool

The Swedish EU Presidency* logo was launched today. I think it's get a pass. Simple but elegant (I want to use the Swedish word "snygg" but there's no good English equivalent in this context).

Image from the Swedish government site

* Sweden will hold the Presidency July-December this year. The woman in the picture is Sweden's EU Minister Cecilia Malmström.

....Ask What You Can Do for the Climate

Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.
No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
John F Kennedy

Granted, things might be changing in the midst of the financial crisis, but the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's yearly survey on people's attitudes to climate change that was presented three weeks ago did have some uplifting information.

• 8 in 10 Swedes think that they can contribute personally to putting a halt to climate change, which is a clear increase since 2002 when "only" 68% said yes and roughly the same response as last year

So how do people contribute*?

• by choosing public transport - 54%, up from 45%
• by taking the train instead of air travel for long-distance journeys - 76%, up from 71%
• by car-pooling - from 54% to 59%
• by leaving the car at home - 57% compared to 33% seven years ago
• by lowering the indoor temperature - from 36% to 59%
• by driving slower (eco-driving) - 63%, up from 41%

What other measures wouldn't people mind taking?

• buying energy-saving domestic appliances - 86% answered "absolutely"
• driving a car with a better fuel-economy - 77%
• taking the train instead of a plane - 76%
• decreasing the energy use in the home - 75%

But when asked if people were willing to eat less meat, only 40% said yes.

67% wants more information on climate change, especially help with choosing goods and services that reduce CO2 emissions.

What else did people say?

• 100% said that they knew or had heard about climate change
• 96% thinks that Sweden has already been affected or will be affected by climate change
• 71% thinks that it is very important that Sweden takes action against climate change
• 84% thinks that Sweden is able to do something to halt climate change
• 80% thinks that they themselves can do something
• 67% wants more information on how they can reduce their own carbon footprint through news in the media, while other information sources are preferred by between 21 and 46

Finger crossed that the EU agrees its Climate & Energy package (the 2020 package) in the coming weeks!

* Figures compare 2002 and 2008 if not otherwise indicated

A Little Step Forward in the Fight Against the Sex Trade

I read that Nordic MEPs are trying to make its fellow (male) members of the European Parliament to set a good example by not using hotels that do not have an explicit policy against prostitution. 37 MEPs (out of 700 something) signed a letter addressed to the Parliament President stating "[We] strongly propose that the EU parliament without delay follow the Nordic Council* and decide that the EU parliament only use hotels that issue a guarantee that the hotel is not involved in the sex trade, and that all staff have written guidelines on this issue". The move is to particularly target hotels that turn a blind eye to what happens or even encourage it.

* The Nordic Council adopted a policy on prostitution and hotels in 2006.

Healthy Smoke - UPDATED

Today the European Parliament decided on carbon emission levels for new cars from 2012. Even if the share of "green cars" has increased substantially over the last couple of years (partly due to a 10,000 SEK grant towards purchase), Sweden still has the oldest car fleet in Europe and desperately needs tough requirements to get rid of old, fuel-consuming cars. This means that when it comes to actual emissions, Sweden is worst in all of the EU.

Today's decision is important but unfortunately the Swedish government was successful in getting their particular demands through, namely to easen restrictions on flexi-fuel cars. Sure, flexi-fuel cars are "greener" than regular petrol run cars, but that is provided their owners actually fill them up with the greener fuel option. But since these cars can actually run on both biofuel, mainly ethanol, and traditional fuel, owners can easily get away with fuelling the old, regular way, and producers can keep on making cars that run on petrol (especially at the moment with ethanol prices competing with petrol for the most expensive position). And even if they do run on ethanol, ethanol isn't perfect either - it still emits carbon and then of course we have the issues of where it comes from but I won't go into that debate now.*

Greenpeace has made a very interesting and important point - I hadn't really thought of it that way before. The car producers and the politicians, including Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren talk about "green fuels" when these fuels are still far from "green". But car producers make it sound like these fuels are in fact good for the environment and healthy, i.e. not just a bit less bad but actual on the plus side so-to speak.

Last year the Swedish Consumer Agency reacted and stopped Kia Motors from using terms such as "in harmony with nature" and "environmentally friendly" in its commercials. The Agency said that "words like environmentally friendly in principle can never be used in the marketing of cars, since cars normally are a major stress on the environment".

But one year has passed and such slogans are now every day stuff. Words like "environmental engine", "environmental family diesel", "environmental champion" and "environmentaly nice" are common. Greenpeace also questions the car producers' choice of images in their marketing - they often use their slogans together with sun flowers, butterflies, forest, greenhouses and fields.

Greenpeace is consequently reporting 25 international car producers to the Consumer Agency for misleading marketing. Instead producers should be telling the truth, that cars have a more or less negative effect on the climate or are more or less energy efficient. Greenpeace argues that if the marketing doesn't change we will have "an impossible discussion - that about the environmental cars and the green fuels' environmental problem".

In case you haven't really seen the problem with this yet, Greenpeace illustrates it well:

"If a cigarette manufacturer would market cigarettes with less nicotine as health cigarettes many would react. But not when car producers market less emissions as environmentally friendly."

UPDATED
Just to give you a few details from the decision. New cars will be able to emit a maximum of 130g/km of CO2 by 2012 and 95g/km of CO2 by 2020. This can be compared with the present average of 158g/km of CO2. Should carmakers fail to meet these limits they will have to pay a penalty of 20 euro for every extra gram emitted. Larger cars will be allowed to emit slightly over 130g/km but for Volvo and Saab, both of which currently produce cars that emit an average of 190g/km of CO2, much needs to be done.

The lighter restrictions on ethanol cars that I mentioned is in effect an exception designed in a way so that it currently applies to Sweden only: the prerequisite is that the country must offer ethanol (E85) at more than 30% of its petrol stations. Then ethanol cars sold in that country get a 20% "discount" on CO2 emissions - as long as it's not more than 25 grams/km.

* Also, for me it's difficult to see a huge SUV as a green car just because it runs on ethanol. We need to look at the actual emissions rather than the kind of fuel, i.e. output rather than input.

The Lisbon Treaty and the Irish

Please Ireland, vote yes today! Since you're the only ones having a referendum on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, you're holding its future in your hands! The EU cannot spend another four years on a new treaty (we all remember what happened with the Nice Treaty)!

I have written about the benefits of the EU several times before, for example here, here, here, here, here and here.

Updated: an older post specifically on the EU constitution (that has now been renegotiated into the Lisbon Treaty).

Abort now!*

* i.e. stop this development now

I'm a bit worried by the latest developments on the issue of abortion in the EU. European Parliamentary Forum (EPF) has just published a new survey of European parties' view on abortion, which concludes that 36 out of 75 parties, mainly Social Democrat, Liberal and Left parties, are in favour of the right to abortion. EPF defined this as "still big support for" the right to abortion, as some of the parties that don't specifically express the right to abortion in their party manifesto implicitly support the right, but to me, that isn't good enough. Actually I don't know what the views of the party was last year or five years ago or ten years ago, but it feels like people are questioning this fundamental right for women to decide over their own body.

Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden are some of the countries where there is broad consensus on the right to abortion (though one wonders sometimes what the Swedish Christian Democrats really think), while parties in Ireland, Poland and the UK are more divided. For example, in the UK there are differing opinions within the Labour party if the right to abortion on socio-economic grounds should be extended or restricted.

24 of the 75 surveyed parties want to reduce the number of abortion, which is not obviously the same as wanting to ban them, but it depends how (and why) you want to reduce them. The Swedish Christian Democrats, Liberals, the Centre Paty and the Left party belong to this category although the Christian Democrats want to restrain the grounds for the right to abortion. I can also support measures that reduce the number of abortions if these concentrate on the causes of unwanted pregnancies, increasing access to and use of contraceptives and discouraging the use of abortion as a type of contraceptive, but any means that try to limit women's right and access to abortion is really a no-no for me. I think it's probably safe to say that countries where abortion is banned or restricted have as high number of abortions as countries where access is free, and more women in dying in the process.

Some facts about the right to abortion in the EU
Completely free until at least twelve weeks into pregnancy: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Czech Republic, Germany and Hungary
Allowed on socio-economic grounds (also to save the women's life and on physical and psychological grounds): Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg and Great Britain
Allowed only to protect physical health: Poland
Allowed only to protect mental health: Spain, Northern Ireland
Allowed only to save the woman's life: Ireland

Sources: Europaportalen and Political Party Mapping by European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development

Mobile Flightmare

It looks like the EU will allow mobile phone calls on airplanes soon*. What a nightmare! Can you imagine dreadful 10-hour transatlantic flights with mobile phone ringing constantly and people jabbing away about relationship problems or their latest illness??!

The newspaper Svenska dagbladet reports that reactions to the news among passengers at Stockholm Bromma Airport were somewhat mixed, with several worrying about disturbance onboard. Some believed that a number of airlines will use peace and quiet onboard as a marketing tool - for those who regard one of the virtues of air travel as being the haven it provides from being reached or hearing other people being reached - while others will target passengers with the offer of mobile phone use.

Hopefully it will only be a short period of free mobile use before airlines - and passengers - come to their senses! The future probably - hopefully - holds mobile phone booths or small compartments for those who cannot stand being disconnected for a few hours instead.

* On certain flights under new European Commission rules, provided the airlines have the necessary technical equipment. The plan is to install small base stations into the cockpits of the planes. Calls made via the station will be routed to terrestrial networks via satellite link. However, according to the decision, flight captains will have the power to switch off the service if they feel it necessary.

Healthcare or Sick Care?

Helena argues really well for more European healthcare co-operation! Some people think the EU should stay away from healthcare issues but like Helena, I think we can only benefit from more co-ordination and more patient influence.

Helena has a personal story to tell - you can read it here. In brief, she has moved back and forth between Stockholm, London and Brussels over the last five years, which has caused some difficulties for the Swedish health service, mainly as a result of the procedures in place for GP appointments, referrals for tests, waiting times, IT systems and ultimately, her living abroad. Even though she had a letter from her doctor in London stating that she needed to have a certain test taken, the Swedish health service could not set up an appointment unless she went through the normal routes within the Swedish healthcare system (details on her blog).

Her point with the post is to:

ask the question how the Swedish health service manages increased internationalisation? If they could not manage my needs, despite me being registered in Sweden, because I had taken a test in another country, how would they then meet the needs of persons who live in Sweden temporarily, persons who have just moved to Sweden, or person who do not speak Swedish?

The need of the patient must always be more important than the system. If something does not fit into the system there must exist a culture within the health service that encourages flexibility and initiative. But all too often governance through quantitative evaluation and budget goals makes it more profitable for divisions and units to stand on the side of the system when it collides with the needs of the patient.

Thus I cringe when I hear Swedish politicians saying that EU initiatives in the healthcare sector threatens the Swedish healthcare system. Defence of systems and models is seldom a very good political starting-point.

What I would add is that - which probably Helena would agree with as well - is not that we want the EU to start deciding the financing or the content of the healthcare provision, but to facilitate for patients in an increasingly global world.

Age and Gender

Sweden has just (October) changed to the ILO definition of unemployment which encompasses the 15-74 age range instead of 18-65-year-olds. The Swedish unemployment rate accordingly rose to 5.7% from 4.8%.

This being said, according to fresh labour market figures from the European Commission, Sweden's elderly work the most in the EU. The statistics only look at 55-64 year-olds, but if Sweden is already best in the class in that age range, I would assume that the 65+ are doing reasonably well (although I really hope that our elderly don't have to work if they prefer to retire but that they can work if they want to).

The EU average for employment among 55-64-year-olds are 43.5%, far below the Swedish figure of 70%. One reason for the Swedish scoring top place is that employment among women aged 55-64 is by far higher than other EU countries: 67%. The equivalent in Belgium is 23% (wow, that's low!), in the UK 49% and in Finland 54.3%.

The European Commission praises Sweden for its work with lifelong learning and active aging. Coupled with the high birth rate in Sweden this provides a basis for an increase of the work force until 2050.

The European Story

One of the professors from my Masters programme at Oxford, Timothy Garton Ash, has started an interesting web project ahead of the EU's 50th anniversary encouraging people to contribute to the "story of Europe". Garton Ash has written a first draft around six goals that he thinks most Europeans aspire to: Freedom, Peace, Law, Prosperity, Diversity and Solidarity.

Join in the debate or vote for your favourite story!

New Concepts

Apparently the EU is talking about older people's contribution to economic and social development as the so-called silver economy. Maybe it's an old concept and it's probably not the EU that coined it but was new to me! I like it!

Good Ratings for Sweden

Some good news about Sweden in a new study by the European Commission. The report, a collection of statistics and comparisons of the different EU countries' results when it comes to poverty, employment, lifelength and healthcare, forms the basis for a discussion on European social policy in March.

A sixth of Europeans live below the EU's poverty line, that is, they have an income less than 60 % of the median income in their country of residence. In Sweden 10 % are considered poor by this definition, the lowest share in Europe, to be compared to 20 % of the population in Latvia and Poland respectively.

The number of elderly who works has increased in the whole of the EU - very positive considering the demography with ageing populations across the EU. Sweden has with full measure fulfilled the EU's target that half of the citizens between 55-64-year-olds should be employed by 2010 - 70 % of 55-64-year-old Swedes work. In Italy this figure is less than 33 %.

Sweden is also the country where men are expected to live the longest: c. 78 years, which can be compared with Latvia or Lithuania where the average lenght of life is 65-66 years. The average life span has increased across the EU with three years for men and two years for women between 1995 and 2005. When it comes to women Spain leads and the differences between the EU countries are not as big.

Many of the 16 % poor in the EU are persons and families that do not work - 10 % live in households where no one works, a problem especially prevalent in the UK where this figure is 16 %. 19 % of the children risk living in poverty, also as adults. That is however not true for the Nordic countries, where the poverty rate for children and adults are the same.

Update - A new study by the Swedish Save the Children has found that although within the figures given above child poverty in Sweden has in fact increased. Children of non-Swedish backgrounds living in single parent households have the highest risk to end up poor. In reality they also feel poorer than their poorer friends in other parts of the world - see my earlier post on the status syndrome.

European, Swede, World Citizen

Feelings of 'Europeanness' are apparently on the rise, according to a new study published in the journal Science. Despite gloomy analyses over the EU's failure to connect to its citizens, Europe's younger generations are increasingly feeling "European" next to their national identities.

A team of Austrian sociologists found that older generations of citizens who only feel attachment to their nation – not to "Europe" - are dying out. The sociologists based their findings on European Commission's Eurobarometer studies from 1996 to 2004, which contain the question whether respondents feel, for example, only Swedish; Swedish and European; European and Swedish; or only European.

The group of respondents who express that they have "multiple identities" is on the rise, i.e. European identity is not replacing national identity. In 2004, 58 percent had some sense of feeling European, a number which is set to rise to 68.5 percent by 2030 if the current trend continues. Luxembourgers are the most "European" with 78 % feeling some sort of European identity. The Italians came second at 72 %, followed by the French (68 %) and the Spanish (64 %) while Swedes (45 %), Finns (43 %) and Brits (40 %) are at the other ends of the spectrum.

The study thinks that increasing media reporting at the European level, increasing mobility within the EU - across national borders - both among students and workers, and the fact that we live in the information communication age are factors contributing to Europeanness.

The study covers neither the period following the rejection of the EU constitutions in France and Netherlands nor the enlarged union of 25 member states, so we'll have to wait for new studies to find out what the present mood is. Being the ever European I think we'll have even better figures in the next study!

If you want a taste of European politics, play the "Be a MEP" game!

Euromyths

Bananas, sausages, cucumbers, buns... No, the EU does not regulate in detail about size, content or colour, instead most such stories are myths or misinterpretations on behalf of national authorities!

From Honour Killings to Suicides

As part of its bid to meet EU membership requirements, Turkey in 2005 approved new legislation making "honour killings" - the practice of men killing their female relatives for perceived immoral behaviour - punishable by life in prison. So far so good. However, growing numbers of female suicides raise suspicion that women are now being forced or pressured by relatives to kill themselves instead. An estimated 70 women die in honour killings in Turkey every year, mostly in the south-east, the country's poorest and most conservative region, and now suicides seem to reach similar numbers. The real figure may be higher as in remote villages, deaths (or births) are not always recorded. In a survey conducted in this region in 2005, 40 % of males said a women guilty of adultery should be killed. And violence against women is accepted across Turkey. Domestic violence is considered a family matter.

Hopefully the prospect of future EU membership will create enough political willpower to enforce further legislation and lasting positive change.

(Earlier post about Turkey)

Bloggressive...

...is apparently the new word for when you get angry while you're blogging. I'm angry, well, I was already before I started on this post. I'm not angry with the French result as such; they are allowed to vote in any way they want, though I had hoped people would have voted on the issue at stake instead of expressing disatisfaction with the people in power due to high unemployment levels or what have you. But that's always going to happen to some extent.

No, I'm angry with the Swedish Left Party (aka the former communists). This is a party that's usually against the EU and the supranationality and transnationalism it entails. They want Sweden to remain sovereign and don't want to secede power to the EU and its member states. However, today the Left Party is saying that the French result means that Sweden can and should abandon its ratification process. To me, that, if anything, is saying that Sweden doesn't have its own say and to let France decide instead for us. Granted, the constitutional treaty may fall in the end but we're not there yet. Until that day we should let each member state have its say, irrespective of whether it's ratification (or rejection) through a parliamentary vote or a referendum. So the Left is contradicting itself by saying that today we accept supranationality (at least as a means, if not an end). "Listen to France when it suits us."

To make matters worse, the Left had threatened to leave the Government as a results of the French vote. The Left party is not actually a coalition partner and accordingly doesn't hold any ministerial posts, but in effect, together with the Greens, it functions as a partner to the minority Social Democratic government. They threaten not to agree to the budget which is scheduled for September unless Sweden opts out of ratification. Not sure whether they are serious or whether they are in the position to demand such actions, but the whole thing just pisses me off! It's perfectly understandable that France is in a crisis but Sweden??

The French didn't even reject the constitution for the reasons the Swedish Left Party would. Not even the French Left has the same opinions. Many voted no because they don't think the EU does enough on social issues (the European social model) and think they can amend the Treaty (in effect add) and have a new vote. I.e. they want Europe to do more (even common taxation in the future). The Swedish Left would cringe if they really understood this (which they don't seem to do) because they want to move power back to the nation state, not add to the European level. Oh well.

At least these nay-sayers voted on the basis of a conviction and had actually read the constitutional treaty. I heard one guy on the news who said "I haven't read it so I'm going to vote no." Sigh.

I will end with a thought that was voiced at the seminar I attended this morning on the topic: perhaps the positive thing that will come out of today's results is that the UK will vote yes to spite the French!