1.1. Rich countries hold UN Climate negotiations hostage
12 May 2009, FOEE
EU offers little hope for just climate agreement
Bonn, 12 June – Throughout the United Nations climate talks due to end today in Bonn, the United States administration has blocked progress to move negotiations forward. While the EU is not playing such a negative role, it is failing to make progress towards finding just solutions to the climate crisis, according to Friends of the Earth Europe.
The Obama Administration failed to live up to its responsibility in Bonn as the world’s largest historical greenhouse gas polluter. This strategy helped damage the prospects for a just, equitable, and effective outcome at the key UN conference due to take place in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December this year.
The European Union, also amongst the largest historical emitters of greenhouse gasses, has failed to show leadership at the negotiations, remaining largely silent in the face of US obstruction. It has also not criticised the dangerously low proposals from Japan for an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, and the US proposal to remain at 1990 levels by 2020.
"The election of President Obama created tremendous hope worldwide that the U.S. would finally play a leadership role in solving the climate crisis that – more than any other nation on earth – it is responsible for causing. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s position sounds frighteningly similar to that of George Bush, and the EU seems unwilling or unable to show leadership or hold the US to account" said Sonja Meister of Friends of the Earth Europe.
The current EU position of 20% reductions by 2020 (30% if other industrialised countries make comparable efforts and if major developing countries take on adequate responsibilities) falls short of the necessary reductions. Considering the EU is set to offset over half of its commitments, this will water down already weak targets. Industrialised countries need to reduce greenhouse gas emission by at least 40% by 2020, without offsetting, to have a reasonable chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
Delegations from many developing countries adopted strong positions and demanded a fair and just climate agreement. Several developing countries called out for industrialised countries to take on a target of at least 40%. Bolivia demanded repayment of the developed world’s climate debt. El Salvador and Paraguay stood strong to protect indigenous peoples’ rights.
Alarmingly, the EU and industrialised countries failed in Bonn to agree to the substantial transfers of money and technology cooperation needed to enable developing countries to tackle climate change. This money must be provided in addition to overseas development aid, in recognition of the debt that they owe developing countries.
"Industrialised countries need to assume their historical responsibility and pay back their climate debt. Developing countries must stay strong in calling for climate justice. A fair and just agreement is the only way forward for the world," said Sonja Meister.
1.2. EU finance ministers’ inertia threatens to derail international climate negotiations
9 June 2009, GreenPeace
Brussels/Luxembourg/Bonn, International — EU finance ministers meeting in Luxembourg today have failed to agree on financial support for climate measures in developing countries. Greenpeace warned that the EU’s inertia sends a worrying signal to delegates meeting in Bonn this week to prepare the ground for the Copenhagen global climate agreement.
"All it will take is for EU countries to raise the equivalent of the price of a bus ticket for each European citizen every week. But EU finance ministers have put their own political concerns ahead of an opportunity to break the deadlock in global climate talks. The looming economic catastrophe of dangerous climate change will make today’s economic woes look like a walk in the park,” said Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace EU climate and energy policy director.
Although the EU made a small step by agreeing to criteria to divide up the funding burden between industrialised nations, finance ministers were still unable to put concrete figures on the table. Ministers even ignored the advice of their own financial experts, who called for €100 billion in funding to help developing countries reduce emissions, and failed to make the clear and quantified commitments required to provide additional public funding for adaptation in developing countries.
More at: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/ecofin-reactive-09-06-09
1.3. Ecologist’s film ‘boosted’ French Greens
10 June 2009, EurActiv
Broadcasting the documentary ‘Home’ on public TV just ahead of the European elections certainly favoured the ‘Europe Ecologie’ list in France, its director Yann Arthus-Bertrand conceded. But he denied any intention to influence the poll.
Several mainstream French newspapers simultaneously asked the question: ‘Did the release of Home on 5 June, which resembles a cry for help, favour the ‘Europe Ecologie’ lists?’
Indeed, Daniel Cohn-Bendit’s ‘Europe Ecologie’ surprisingly obtained 16.3% of the vote in France, more than doubling the score of 7.41% posted in the 2004 EU elections.
However, it is difficult to evaluate the impact of the film. Surveys had already shown growing support for the Greens, eroding the leadership of the two big European Parliament political groups, the centre-right EPP and the Socialists (EurActiv 04/06/09).
The French far-right denounced the "manipulation" of releasing of the film on the eve of the elections.
"I stress the extravagant, scandalous character of broadcasting the film ‘Home’, a movie designed to boost the candidacies of [French grass-root environmentalist José] Bové and Mr. Cohn-Bendit," said Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the far-right ‘Front National’.
Yann Arthus-Bertrand rejected any hints of manipulation. "The date for broadcasting the film was decided two years ago, and I really had to rush to be able to finish in time," he said, quoted by Le Monde.
But he conceded that by watching the film, viewers may have been influenced in their vote.
French Green leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit concurred with this view. "There is an ecological sensibility in France. This sensibility has been activated or certainly reactivated by films like ‘Home’. Yes, it is possible," he said.
Arthus-Bertrand said that following this line of thought, the film may have also helped the ruling UMP party of President Nicolas Sarkozy, "which has a good environment minister" [Jean-Louis Borloo].
Even Sarkozy spoke about the controversy. The French president said he "did not understand" the polemic surrounding the film. "If there is a mission for public TV, it is to explain environmental challenges to citizens," Sarkozy said.
The press reported that France 2 had hesitated before releasing the film. At the time of the release, an anchor explained that the date for the broadcast of ‘Home’, in 134 countries simultaneously, had been decided long before the date of the EU elections was set.
1.4. India unhappy with Bonn climate talks
12 June 2009, Thaindian News
Bonn, June 11 (IANS) The preparatory talks here on a global deal to tackle climate change are in an “unsatisfactory state”, Indian delegation leader Shyam Saran said Thursday on the penultimate day of the June 1-12 conclave.
“At this rate, we’re unlikely to get an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen, one that will be able to tackle climate change adequately,” Saran, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, told the media here.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had convened this meeting to narrow down differences – mainly between industrialised and developing countries – on who would do what to combat climate change, which is already affecting farm output, making droughts, floods and storms more frequent and more severe and raising sea levels.
Instead, the differences between the 182 countries gathered here have become more consolidated. Saran said: “As long as delegates stick to the UNFCCC and the Bali Action Plan, we can reach our
objective – a comprehensive, balanced and equitable agreement.”
He was strongly critical of attempts by some industrialised countries to ignore the existing Kyoto Protocol under which these countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are leading to climate change.
“We are not negotiating a new climate treaty but enhancing the existing UN convention, nor are we negotiating a new protocol,” Saran said. “On the protocol, the current negotiations are for emission reduction commitments for the period beyond 2012… If we ignore the Kyoto Protocol because one or two countries find it inconvenient, what is the credibility of international legal instruments?”
India’s chief climate negotiator said: “It is a matter of deep regret that most Annex I (industrialised) countries are unlikely to meet their current commitments under the protocol. It is a matter of even deeper concern that they are not yet committing to make the kind of deep emission reductions necessary” to combat climate change.
Saran was also critical of attempts by some industrialised countries to shift from 1990 the base year from which cuts had to be made, describing it as “inadmissible. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.”
Asked if India wanted industrialised countries to cut their GHG emissions by 40 percent within 2020 compared to 1990 levels, Saran said: “Given what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists have been telling us, we believe it is necessary to meet the challenge that we are facing. We are being told that we are very close to the tipping point of the disastrous consequences of climate change.”
Asked what major developing countries like India were willing to do to limit their own GHG emissions, Saran talked in detail of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and added: “With other major developing countries, we’re prepared to have significant deviation from the business-as-usual scenario as long as the (incremental) activities are fully supported by financing and technology transfer” from industrialised countries.
“If we get a good agreement in Copenhagen, we can ramp up (India’s mitigation efforts),” he said, “by matching the resources required and the actions to be taken”. At the same time, Saran expressed unhappiness because talks on such financing had made little progress here.
He said the NAPCC, which would “significantly advance the ecological sustainability of India’s growth”, was in the public domain and so would be details of the eight national missions under it as soon as they were finalised by the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change a few weeks from now.
“Climate change is among the key priorities of the government of India,” Saran declared. But he dismissed the idea of any other organisation verifying the action taken by India to mitigate its GHG emissions. “We cannot have a supra-national agency. That’s not something we’re willing to accept.” Link: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/india-unhappy-with-bonn-climate-talks_100203795.html
2.1. EU kicks off battle for billions of energy funds
10 June 2009, EurActiv
Advanced green technologies such as superheated solar towers and gas from trees can compete with industry-backed carbon capture and storage technology for around €9 billion of European Union funding, an EU document shows.
Money could also go to giant wind turbines, made of space-age composites, nearly as tall as the 300-metre-high Eiffel Tower and three times more powerful than today’s biggest.
The report lays out the principles the European Commission will use for dividing 300 million emissions permits to companies testing new technologies that slash CO2 emissions from power generation and gives the first list of eligible technologies.
Under the EU’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS), polluters must pay for allowances to be able to emit greenhouse gases. The free allocations under the reserve are therefore effectively a subsidy.
The report could kick off a battle between Europe’s nascent green industries, backed by environmentalists, and the giant utilities that back carbon capture and storage (CCS).
"We think the majority should be earmarked for renewables," said Greenpeace renewables campaigner Frauke Thies. "CCS is risky and we don’t know if they can deliver. But we know renewables can deliver and there is so much more potential."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown played a key role in securing the funding during last year’s EU climate negotiations, but the big winners from CCS are utilities such as Germany’s E.ON and engineers like Alstom of France.
CCS, essentially burying harmful gases, is seen by some as a potential silver bullet to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants, which are multiplying rapidly worldwide and threaten to heat the atmosphere to dangerous levels.
Sharing the technology with China and India could also prove critical in securing their commitment to a new global deal on fighting climate change at talks in Copenhagen in December.
Bias towards clean coal
While the technologies exist, utilities are reluctant to build CCS power stations without public funding, because the CCS component adds about one billion euros to the cost of each plant.
The European Parliament last year proposed billions of euros to help kick-start CCS, but could only get member states to back the proposal if the money was shared with new green technologies such as geothermal energy and concentrated solar.
Environmentalists argue that the companies lobbying for CCS in the EU made profits of over 90 billion euros last year and support is unjustified.
The current drafts indicate that CCS projects would receive at least 75% of the New Entrants Reserve. This comes on top of the €1 billion allocated to the technology under the European Economic Recovery Plan (EurActiv 07/05/09), which has led the supporters of renewables to cry foul against the Commission’s bias in favour of clean coal.
Many renewables on the list of eligible projects, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, are at the very cutting edge, such as so-called concentrated solar power systems using lenses and mirrors to eke the most energy out of the sun’s rays.
"The principle is that the extra funding is distributed proportionately between CCS and renewables, but departures from this can be justified by a lack of suitable candidate projects," said the report.
Environmentalists fear the fragmented renewables industry will fail to compete against utilities that have proposed clearly defined CCS projects, many of which received recognition in a recent EU economic recovery plan.
"The Commission is not saying how much funding is going into CCS and how much into renewables, and we think they should define that at the start," said Thies of Greenpeace.
The EU plans 10-12 CCS demonstration projects by 2015 to kickstart the industry. Operators will not be able to keep the knowledge gained in the pilot projects for their own commercial advantage, but must share it freely.
3.1. UNFCCC urged to address ecosystems
9 June 2009, WurActiv
Managing carbon losses from ecosystems must feature in a new global climate policy framework if the world is to reduce global warming to a sustainable level, a new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report argues.
The report was published on Friday (5 June) in Bonn, where the global community has gathered to negotiate the terms of a new global climate accord, due to be agreed upon in Copenhagen in December.
"Safeguarding and restoring carbon in three systems – forests, peatlands and agriculture – might over the coming decades reduce well over 50 gigatonnes of carbon emissions that would otherwise enter the atmosphere," said Achim Steiner, UN under-secretary general. He argued that the tens of billions of dollars earmarked for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to secure emissions from power plants would be better spent on addressing the capacity of natural systems to retain and absorb carbon.
Ecosystem carbon management makes sense in economic terms too, the report argues, stating that without subsidising alternative land use, the costs are "modest relative to clean energy options".
According to estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body, agriculture will be second only to buildings in terms of climate-change mitigation potential. Combined with forestry and peatland restoration, it offers the greatest potential for greenhouse gas cuts, the report states.
In addition to ensuring that the carbon stocks in natural ecosystems remain intact, effective carbon management involves increasing CO2 sequestration, the report states. Policies and direct interventions to stop deforestation and protect peatlands from drainage could have a positive impact on both emissions levels and the health of ecosystems, it said.
The agriculture sector could become carbon-neutral by 2030 with appropriate techniques, the UNEP believes. Replenishing often-depleted agricultural soils with appropriate techniques, such as conservation tillage and the use of compost and manure, would bring societal as well as environmental benefits by creating new jobs, the report adds.
The environmental arm of the UN stresses, however, that policymakers must strike a balance between rural livelihoods and carbon management policies, so that the livelihoods of rural communities and indigenous peoples are not sacrificed in the race to cut emissions.
The UNEP said that parties in Bonn were now starting to heed calls to address ecosystems in the fight against climate change. The biggest reductions in the agricultural sector can be made in the developing world, but extensive capacity-building is needed to make the required technologies available, it pointed out.
However, observers in Bonn pointed to fatigue among some developing countries which are yet to see any commitment from rich nations to helping them financially with their climate efforts.
3.2. UN climate talks advance, poor urge more CO2 cuts
12 June 2009, Reuters
BONN, Germany (Reuters) – Climate talks made progress on Friday toward a new U.N. treaty to curb global warming but ended far short of calls by developing nations for the rich to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Four years of talks to widen the existing Kyoto Protocol have struggled to agree on how to share the cost of efforts to curb greenhouses gas mainly emitted by burning fossil fuels.
The United States and Europe warned in closing remarks on Friday that the private sector would finance the climate fight, not their governments.
"I look back on this as a significant session that has advanced our work in important ways," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told a news conference at the June 1-12 talks among 183 nations in Bonn.
He said governments staked out far clearer views after their first review of a draft legal text of the treaty due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December to succeed Kyoto.
But developing countries called for more, despite the global recession.
"We finally managed to have a positive exchange on the numbers" for developed nations, China’s climate ambassador Yu Qingtai told Reuters. "But still we hear repeated statements resisting calls for further meaningful cuts."
China and many developing nations want the rich to cut by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of global warming such as droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
Offers made by developed countries so far work out at cuts of between 8 and 14 percent below 1990, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The United States and Europe poured cold water on hopes for major public funds, such as the 1 percent or more of national wealth demanded by many poor nations to help them avoid a model of high-carbon growth dominant since the Industrial Revolution.
"The key issue is not the number," said Jonathan Pershing, head of the U.S. delegation, referring to "marginally" bigger investments to improve efficiency or to install low-carbon instead of polluting coal plants.
"We’d like to change that" view of developing countries that governments would bankroll the fight against climate change, he said, adding that carbon offset markets could play a big role.
The European Union also underscored that private finance would dominate in the climate change fight.
Pershing said progress in Bonn had been "slow," and the European Commission’s Artur Runge-Metzger said "enormous effort" was required to get a deal in Copenhagen in December.
The United States expected China to undertake action, such as setting renewable energy targets, but not be legally bound to prove curbs. China and the United States are top emitters.
"We have advanced perhaps a couple of miles toward Copenhagen. We still have thousands to go," said Jennifer Morgan of the London-based E3G think-tank. The next meeting will be in Bonn in August.
Outside the talks in a Bonn hotel, protesters brought along two live camels and laid out some sand to illustrate fears of creeping desertification. "We spit on weak targets," one banner said, another said: "Shrinking targets, growing deserts."
The chair of a group looking at new actions to curb emissions by all countries said a draft text had swollen with new ideas from about 50 pages to 200. Big breakthroughs were likely to happen only in Copenhagen, he said.
"This is like the evolutionary process in reverse. The Big Bang comes at the end," said Michael Zammit Cutajar, of Malta.
3.3. Australia calls for tough stance on aviation, shipping and climate change
11 June 2009, T&E
Bonn, Germany – In an attempt to break the political deadlock preventing action on international aviation and shipping emissions, Australia has called for reduction targets for these sectors to be agreed at the Copenhagen climate talks in December. In an indictment of the failure of the UN bodies responsible over the twelve years since the Kyoto protocol was adopted, Australia is effectively calling for the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to be stripped of their responsibility for developing and implementing reduction targets. Environmental groups have welcomed the move and called on the European Union to support it.
Since Kyoto, aviation and shipping emissions have grown rapidly while many other sectors have reduced theirs. Australia’s move follows recent scientific reports (1) suggesting that if aviation and shipping emissions continue unchecked they could grow by 2050 to represent 50% or more of the total greenhouse gas emissions permissible worldwide to keep global warming below 2 degrees.
Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and shipping were left out of national reduction targets when Kyoto was adopted in 1997, with responsibility handed instead to ICAO and the IMO. But both organisations have so far failed to act. ICAO, spurred on by IATA, the aviation industry lobby, as well as several developing countries, has spent nearly twelve years actively blocking progress in the aviation sector. The IMO has produced reports but has come to no agreement on action.
Australia is calling for the UNFCCC climate talks process to take charge of the sectors and set a framework and targets at Copenhagen with a view to agreeing new treaties for each sector by 2011, effectively bypassing ICAO and the IMO.
Australia’s proposal goes further than the European Union, which also wants the Copenhagen process to set sector targets but only urges ICAO and the IMO to speed up their work.
Last week, ICAO’s special committee on climate change (the GIACC) published its so-called “action plan” for aviation emissions. It recommended short and medium term non-binding fuel efficiency ‘aspirational goals’ of 2% per annum – the same result the industry is already achieving without regulation. But this will not even offset expected growth in air transport of 5% per year.
On Tuesday, British Airways boss Willie Walsh was quoted in the UK’s Guardian newspaper as saying: "I don’t think ICAO has done enough and I don’t think they will be able to influence decisions at Copenhagen." (2)
Bill Hemmings, of Transport and Environment (T&E), said: ‘’reading between the lines of Australia’s measured statement, the meaning is clear: industry-dominated ICAO and IMO have manifestly failed to deliver progress in the last twelve years and now its time for environment ministers to take over ahead of the Copenhagen climate deal. They should set genuine reduction targets and take real action for these two fast-growing sectors.’’
Last year, in view of ICAO’s inaction, the EU agreed plans to bring aviation into its Emissions Trading System in 2012, but continues to hesitate about shipping. It is quite clear that global solutions are urgently needed for both sectors if climate goals are to be reached.
EU Finance Ministers acknowledged this week that revenues from global measures to control aviation and shipping emissions could play an important role in assistance to developing countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.
"The inclusion of emissions from international aviation and shipping in the Copenhagen agreement can be a crucial source of funds to protect vulnerable countries from the consequences of climate change" said Pete Lockley of WWF, adding that "Australia must also think about how it can address the concerns of the most remote and vulnerable countries."
John Maggs of Seas At Risk, said "the EU should now step up and support the new approach suggested by Australia to ensure that the Copenhagen negotiating process finally takes the action that ICAO and IMO have failed to deliver over the last twelve years."
4.1. Environment groups: European Commission off target
10 June 2009, Green 10
The environmental record of the outgoing European Commission is worryingly off target, Friends of the Earth Europe and the ‘Green 10’ coalition of leading environmental organisations said today in Brussels as they published an assessment of the Barroso Commission, giving it an overall mark of 4.4/10.
In all, the ‘Green 10’ report examines successes and failures in 12 policy areas that impact the environment, and sets out a checklist for the next Commission. The Green 10 blamed the low score on, among other things, a failure to reform agriculture and fisheries policies, and, more broadly, to propose sustainable economic policies. But there were some positive notes, notably in climate, energy and transport policy.
At a time when Europe is gripped by economic and environmental crises, the environmental groups call on the next Commission to double its efforts over the next five years and put in place policies that benefit the environment and people’s health, and create sustainable economic growth and jobs. On taking office in 2004, the Barroso Commission got off to a bad start by judging environmental objectives to be inconsistent with the overriding jobs and competitiveness agenda, the report says. But spurred by growing public and media interest in environmental issues in the second half of its term, the Commission belatedly began to strengthen legislation in the fields of climate, energy and transport, thus earning scores of 7/10, 6/10 and 6/10 respectively. The Green 10 report, however, warns that these policies – in particular the EU’s ‘climate and energy package’ – have not delivered the results predicted in the original Commission proposals after being weakened by EU governments. Much more will need to be achieved by the incoming European Commission, say the groups.
The report also finds that the Commission has neglected the protection of nature and disregarded its importance for long-term economic sustainability and the fight against climate change. The report is critical of the Commission for too often giving in to vested interests when legislating on issues affecting agriculture and marine life. In particular, the so called ‘CAP Health Check’ was a missed opportunity to truly reform the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, the groups say. The Commission only scores 4/10 on agriculture.
Failure to adequately finance ‘Natura 2000’ sites, a network of sensitive protected areas, a poor initial proposal for the new ‘Marine directive’ that failed to address the pressures on the marine environment, and continued support for genetically modified organisms all contributed to another low score of 4/10 on biodiversity policy.
Although polls consistently show that citizens are concerned about the impact that the environment plays on their health, the Commission has only achieved a mark of 5/10 for its health-related policies. The positive outcome of a global mercury ban and proposals to reduce air pollution have been contrasted by internal disagreements over legislation to ban dangerous chemicals.
5.1. OFF TARGET, Green 10
European Commission 2004-2009 Environmental Progress Report & Lessons for the Next Commission
5.2. SOLAR THERMAL BAROMETER
+51,4% growth of the EU solar thermal market
The European solar thermal system market grew spectacularly in 2008 with over 4.6 million m2 installed as against less than 3.1 millionm2 in 2007. This was largely due to the doubling of the German market was largely responsible, but strong growth in Southern Europe also played a vital part. While 2009 is looking uncertain, the medium and long-term growth prospects are still very exciting.
Download the recently published barometers: http://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/baro191.pdf
6.1. ADMINISTRATIONS INTERN
Friends of the Earth Europe is seeking an:
ADMINISTRATIONS INTERN for six months
Full time and working in the FoEE office in Brussels
Friends of the Earth campaigns for sustainable and just societies and for the protection of the environment. It unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups and is part of the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International.
The administrative intern will assist the finance officer, the office manager and the communications and events officer to support our campaign staff and to ensure a smooth running of the office. This is an excellent opportunity to be part of a green NGO working at the European level in Brussels. You will be working in a highly respected and growing campaigning organisation, as part of a vibrant European network.
* General financial administrative tasks
* Booking travel and hotels
* Assisting staff with reimbursement request
* Secretarial tasks: reception, mailings, fax, filing and archiving
* Logistic support for meetings
* Data entry
* Assisting staff with invoices
* Assisting staff with cost-authorisations
Profile of the candidate
* Fluent in English, knowledge of other languages (especially French or Dutch) is an asset
* Service and detail oriented
* Flexible, able to work in a team as well as perform tasks independently
* Proficient skills on Microsoft Word and Excel, and Internet and email
* Experience in NGO work and /or volunteering is an asset
* A great learning experience in a highly motivating working environment
* he opportunity to work in an international NGO with its office located in an environmentally friendly
* A monthly contribution to living costs of maximum €800
This is an internship for 5 days per week based in the FoE Europe office in Brussels.
If you feel you meet our criteria, please send a motivation letter and a CV to [email protected] by the 21st of June 2009, 6pm. Only candidates selected for interview will be contacted – thank you for your understanding. Invitations to interview will be sent shortly afterwards and interviews will be conducted between 23rd and 26th of June. The internship ideally starts immediately.
7.1. Anti Nuclear European Forum (ANEF)
on 17th of June in Linz,Austria
In the autumn of 2007 the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) was established. Within ENEF it was aimed that all aspects of this controversial form of energy should be discussed. Both, Czech Republic and Slovakia showed intensive efforts for the organization of ENEF. Semi-annual meetings take place in Prague and Bratislava alternately. The next ENEF meeting will be held in Prague on 28th – 29th of May 2009. This is already going to be the fourth meeting. Unfortunately, ENEF failed to fulfill ENEF´s official objectives and is used one-sided as a propaganda instrument for the promotion of nuclear power instead. The Prime Ministers Topolanek and Robert Fico used the opening of the forum several times for unqualified unilateral cheering speeches on nuclear energy, while the discussion of the negative aspects of nuclear energy use has been largely ignored, which resulted in increasing dissatisfaction of the critical participants.
A balanced discussion within the next ENEF meeting on 28th- 29th of May seems impossible and therefore we decided – after intensive discussions with Austrian and international NGOs –to organize a counter event – the
European Anti-Nuclear Forum (ANEF) -, under which at least some of the negative aspects of nuclear energy will be discussed on an international level. At the same time ANEF aims to send a strong signal across Europe that the EU-funded renaissance of nuclear energy is not an appropriate instrument to fight climate change. The event is organized by the office of the Anti-nuclear Representative of Upper Austria – Radko Pavlovec-in cooperation with the NGO’s Antiatom Szene and Antiatom-Komitee. Your participation is very important because it needs a strong signal against the nuclear renaissance.
The organizers would like to warmly invite you to participate in ANEF. PARTICIPATE! Your participation is important!
Please register by sending an email to
7.2. Take part! Be a participant on the tour!
We are expecting a total of 25 primarily young participants (around the age of 20-30) from the countries of the tour (Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary). But applications from other countries might be considered as well. Application process is open and continuous till all places are filled.
* good biking,
* good English,
* interested in the topics: environment protection, sustainability, active citizenship,
ABOUT THE TOUR
Date: 19.06.2009 Koper (Slovenia) – 20.07.2009 Pécs (Hungary)
Total distance (approx.): 740 km
Average distance of a day: 50 km
Days spent with pedalling: 17 days
All the costs are covered by the project for those, who take part on the whole tour, except the travelling costs (to Koper – starting point – and from Pecs – destination)
More at: http://greenbikesforpeace.eu/node/331
Disclaimer: We do not guarantee for the accuracy, reliability or content of information. For help or questions, contact: [email protected].