Regarding ‘Parliament under pressure for shunning free software’:

While we sympathise with the FFII petition to the European Parliament on streaming plenary sessions, we are equally concerned about broad categorical mandates with regard to software procurement. While the notion of “non-discrimination” is worthy, the idea of mandates is a slippery slope. If I only have a slow modem connection in my home, should I circulate a petition to prevent the distribution of broadband content by the Parliament because it is discriminatory? In truth, there are free alternatives for viewing Widows Media including TurboLinux, Xine, Real and InterVideo.

Obviously the agenda here is political and not the public clamouring to watch more plenaries on their computers but contrary to the rhetoric of a vocal minority, commercial software is not the playground of big business, but primarily of inventive SMEs thriving in niche markets. Only the protection of their intellectual property permits those small business innovators to create growth and jobs.

Commercial software must therefore be allowed to compete on a level-playing field with other software types. Public procurement decisions should be based on technology neutrality, allowing governments to buy software on its merit and not through categorical preferences. To advise otherwise is to demand the imposition of one business model over another.

As technologists, let’s work together to devise a solution to the streaming challenge presented to the Parliament that does not involve overthrowing a solid technology but is creative in delivering that technology to a broader audience.

Regarding ‘Parliament backs calls for EU anti-discrimination law’:

Millions of young people in Europe face discrimination every day in access to goods and services, such as healthcare, education, insurance and banking products, and access to participation in policymaking.

I support the European Parliament’s strong call for comprehensive legislation to combat discrimination covering a range of grounds – including disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation – and all areas of life. If the EU wants to live up to its promises of achieving equality, all EU citizens should have the same legal protection.

Whereas protection for people with disabilities is of crucial importance – and indeed, it needs to be urgently addressed by a directive – it is unacceptable to build a hierarchy of different grounds of discrimination. If disability is to be considered as the only priority ground, there is a risk of existing legal gaps being extended.

Furthermore, “people who are subject to multiple forms of discrimination”, for instance, young Muslim women or disabled gay people, “are particularly vulnerable”, as the adopted petition, written by MEP Liz Lynne, stresses.

Therefore, I totally agree than a specific provision protecting against multiple discrimination should be included in the new legislation.

President Barroso should stick to his promises delivered in 2004 and outlaw unfair treatment on all grounds.

Regarding ‘Green Light from the Emerald Isle? Questions and Answers about Ireland’:

In their paperPdf external , Hierlemann and Heydecker underline the important duty of Irish politicians to ensure that their citizens approve the Lisbon Treaty.

So politicians should tell us ho to vote. How interesting. What happened to democracy? I thought the electorate told the politicians what to do, not the other way around?

To quote Bertolt Brecht, if Ireland rejects the treaty: “Would it not be easier, in that case for the government, to dissolve the people, and elect another?”

The Irish political establishment has been telling us to vote “yes” to Lisbon, without even attempting to explain the issues. Our Taoiseach has admitted that he has not even read the Treaty. Yet he tells us to vote for it. There has been no democratic debate on the Treaty.

Politicians and civil servants across Europe should stop treating citizens like sheep. Like most other Irish people I am strongly pro-EU, though I have some concerns about certain aspects of the Treaty.

What concerns me more is the anti-democratic way that this issue has been handled in Ireland. Your article highlights this reversal of democracy, which is a grave source of worry to many Irish people. Our politicians would have been better off encouraging true democratic debate, rather than telling us what to do.

The EU and Irish politicians should prepare for the electoral backlash. If the treaty is rejected, the EU and political establishment and should start planning with democracy in mind when amending the treaty.

Concernant ‘La Commission hésite à autoriser plus de cultures GM’:

Pour quelles raisons l’Europe semble-t-elle faire le jeu de l’OMC dans le dossier des OGM? Pourquoi veut-elle imposer des législations favorables aux cultures OGM alors que la balance bénéfices/risques n’est même pas clairement établie et qu’il semble impossible de maîtriser les croisements avec les espèces sauvages et les disséminations dès l’introduction de la culture OGM?

L’exemple étranger (Amérique du sud et Inde) ne semble également pas en faveur des OGM: les rendements ne correspondent pas aux promesses du vendeur et les paysans sont poussés à la ruine en raison de l’augmentation des coûts des semences. Comment peut-on croire que des semences stériles dont une entreprise obtient le monopole pourront résoudre la faim dans le monde? Où y voit-on la liberté d’entreprendre chère à l’OMC?

Regarding Reinhard Lauer of the BBFU’s letter dated 8 April (‘Mercury use in dental amalgam’):

The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) shares the concerns of Bundesverband der Beratungsstellen fuer Umweltgifte about the use of dental amalgams containing mercury.

However, we were surprised to learn of their doubts regarding the scientific basis of our work.

Our “Stay healthy, Stop mercury” campaign is based on various research, including the work of the internationally-recognised expert and Harvard professor Philippe Grandjean.

His findings on the effects of low-dose mercury exposure in children were publishedPdf external in the Lancet, an international, peer-reviewed scientific publication.

Regarding ‘Interview: Russia not to blame for Caucasus war threat’:

Ambassador Chizov obviously lives on a different plane from those of us who choose to base our judgements on facts and not propaganda.

When the NATO secretary general offers to eat his tie in reaction to outrageous Russian claims (“NATO chief offers to eat necktie over Russian plane claim,” IHT 30 April), when independent media travel up and down the Kodori Gorge and see no sign of a Georgian military presence (“No sign of attack plan in Georgia-Russia flashpoint,” Reuters 2 May) and when the EU, NATO and the US unite to condemn Russian moves towards Georgia as dangerous and destabilising, maintaining that Georgia is somehow to blame for the rise of tensions in the region shows nothing but the utter contempt in which Ambassador Chizov holds European policymakers.

The Russian government under Putin has shown an uncanny ability to shoot itself in the foot with its foreign policy. This depressing interview reminds us of how very far Russia has fallen since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Regarding ‘Green Light from the Emerald Isle? Questions and Answers about Ireland’:

In their paperPdf external , Hierlemann and Heydecker underline the important duty of Irish politicians to ensure that their citizens approve the Lisbon Treaty.

So politicians should tell us ho to vote. How interesting. What happened to democracy? I thought the electorate told the politicians what to do, not the other way around?

To quote Bertolt Brecht, if Ireland rejects the treaty: “Would it not be easier, in that case for the government, to dissolve the people, and elect another?”

The Irish political establishment has been telling us to vote “yes” to Lisbon, without even attempting to explain the issues. Our Taoiseach has admitted that he has not even read the Treaty. Yet he tells us to vote for it. There has been no democratic debate on the Treaty.

Politicians and civil servants across Europe should stop treating citizens like sheep. Like most other Irish people I am strongly pro-EU, though I have some concerns about certain aspects of the Treaty.

What concerns me more is the anti-democratic way that this issue has been handled in Ireland. Your article highlights this reversal of democracy, which is a grave source of worry to many Irish people. Our politicians would have been better off encouraging true democratic debate, rather than telling us what to do.

The EU and Irish politicians should prepare for the electoral backlash. If the treaty is rejected, the EU and political establishment and should start planning with democracy in mind when amending the treaty.

David Egan

Ireland

In einer Zeit, in der sehr gut bekannt ist, dass jeder dritte Allergiker ist und die Zahl der Umwelterkrankten rapide steigt (rund 15% in Industrienationen), wäre es in keinster Form mehr nachvollziehbar, warum nicht EU-weit von chemischen Zusatzstoffen Abstand genommen wird.

Es ist ganz simpel auf Basis der Allergologie nachweisbar, dass sich diese Stoffe im Körper akkumulieren und zu Spontan- bzw. Spätreaktion führen. Die Folgeschäden (z.B. Genmutationen) sind eine Katastrophe.

Unsere Nachkommen sind doch an sich schon die reinste Mülldeponie. Flammschutzmittelausdünstungen aus PCs und Druckern, Pestizide und Azofarbstoffe in der Kleidung, Blei, Gerbstoffe und Chrom in den Schuhen, Kohlendioxid, Schwefel, Chromsalze und viel andere Chemikalien in der Luft, Amalgam, PFT und diverse andere Stoffe über die Muttermilch, Formaldehyd im Laminat, Pestizide im Teppich, Weichmacher im Spielzeug, in den Schnullern und in fast allen anderen Gegenständen aus Kunststoff, Chemikalien in Waschmittel, Weichspüler, Parfüm, Elektrosmog vom Handy, von den Sendefunkmasten, vom PC (W-Lan)und vom Funkwecker ausgehend. Gentechnik, mit selbstbildenden Pestiziden, verursacht dann noch den Rest an Schädigung.

Wer braucht da noch Zusatzstoffe in der Nahrung? Schimmel und Co. als Aromabildner im Joghurt oder Konservierungsstoffe und Co.? Die Antwort kann nur lauten: kein Mensch. Die Einzigen, die davon langfristig profitieren, sind lediglich die großen Chemieriesen. Die wiederum ernähren sich dann wissentlich rein biologisch und bauen ihre Häuser öko- und baubiologisch. Diejenigen, die für den Profit mit der Chemieverseuchung der Weltbürger verantwortlich sind, haben dann auch das nötige Kleingeld, um die nötigen Präventions- und Entgiftungsmaßnahmen zu treffen.

Setzen Sie dieser Chemikalienüberflutung der menschlichen und tierischen Organismen ein Ende!

Mit umweltfreundlichen Grüßen,

Aida Infante-Gööb

Umwelt Rundschau.de

In Zusammenhang mit dem Werbetrick der Energiekonzerne durch das Verstecken von Kohlendioxid und eine Effizienzsteigerung der Kraftwerke das Klima retten zu wollen, ist mir außerordentlich wichtig, Sie auf Sachverhalte aufmerksam zu machen, die leider nicht die notwendige Beachtung finden, wenn über Maßnahmen zur Abwendung des Klimawandels geschwafelt wird.

Die Politik hat vergessen, dass sich Kraftstoff und Gas aus Kohle nach bewährten Verfahren auch heute noch effizient herstellen ließe, bis Alternatives verfügbar ist. Unser Reichtum an Kohle wird vergeudet. Das bedeutet ineffizient verstromt. Auf die effiizientere Verarbeitung zu Kraftstoff, zu Gas, zu Grundstoffen für die chemische Industrie und zu Strom wird verzichtet.

Erlauben Sie mir in Zusammenhang mit der Entsorgung von 100 GIGA Watt Wärme, die zwangsläufig bei der Einspeisung von Elektrizität allein nur durch deutsche Kraftwerke entsteht, von einer nicht übertreffbaren Dummheit zu sprechen, die politisch geduldet wird.

Über das Versprechen, den Wirkungsgrad zu erhöhen und das Kohlendioxid zuverlässig verstecken zu wollen, werden die Fördertöpfe der EU und die der Mitglieder geplündert, ohne gezwungen zu werden, nach Anwendungen für die Wärme zu suchen.

Es geht den Energiekonzernen doch nicht, wie vollmundig in Verfolgung ihrer Marketingstrategie behauptet, um die Abwendung der Klimaänderung! Es geht den Konzernen um die Sicherung Ihrer Profite auch in Zukunft unter Ausnutzung der Akzeptanz, die in Zusammenhang mit Sorgen der Bürger und dem Klimawandel entstanden ist.

So wie die Verbraucher durch ein perfektes Marketing der Anbieter gelegentlich “völlig am Bedarf vorbei vereinnahmt werden”, wird das selbstverständlich auch gegenüber den Politikern und den Bürgern in dieser Sache erfolgreich angewendet. Ich beneide die Politiker deshalb keinesfalls. Ich möchte sie deshalb mit meinem Aufschrei sensibilisieren.

Die Verwertung der Abfallwärme ist kein technisches Problem! Eine sinnvolle Anwendung dieser Wärme besteht darin, dort, wo es geht, bisher aus Primärenergie erzeugte Wärme (und Kälte) durch Abfallwärme und daraus erzeugte Kälte zu ersetzen.

Die Hemmnisse gegenüber der Abfallwärmenutzung sind wirtschaftlicher und organisatorischer politischer Art (zum Beispiel Genehmigungs-, Auflagen- und Standortpolitik) und nicht technischer Art. Zur Realisierung dieser Aufgabe fehlt jedoch der kraftvolle wissenschaftliche Einsatz und der politische Wille.

Ich hoffe, dass der Kohlendioxidaktionismus nach Veröffentlichung des IPCC-Klimaberichts, der Fehlentwicklungen ergeben hat, zu denen der Werbetrick “Innovative Kraftwerke”, wie auch der “Bio-” und “Öko–” Wahn mit dem Thema “BIO-Kraftstoffe” und “BIO-Gas” gehört, überwunden wird.

Hans-Jürgen Kastner

Senior Consultant Engineer

Umwelt-Technik-Marketing

Brake (Unterweser)

European Union officials must be getting used to the familiar refrain they hear every time an industry sector is asked to cut carbon emissions. But when the latest industry to claim it will be “destroyed” by a flagship European climate policy also happens to be one of the richest and most influential, its arguments warrant a closer look.

Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, said in a recent interview that the proposed European Union scheme to force companies to pay for carbon emissions permits previously handed out for free threatens to destroy Europe’s petrochemicals and refining industry. Mr van der Veer, whose company made a profit of $27.6bn last year, thinks that the proposals would harm his “struggling” industry, causing refineries in Europe to close and jobs to leak outside the EU.

That doesn’t seem likely. The UK Carbon Trust has said: “The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is unlikely to have much impact on the trade of oil products [...] Harmonising free allocations could be complex and create perverse incentives. Avoiding free allocation altogether [...] would avoid these problems and the benefits of this requirement may outweigh any plausible international trade impacts.”

Depressingly, the oil industry is also trying to severely weaken another very important EU initiative. Article 7a of the proposed Fuel Quality Directive says that carbon emissions from transport fuel production should be reduced by 10 per cent by 2020. Europia, the industry lobby group, says the law should not apply to oil companies. It argues that biofuels are “the only option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of road transport fuels,” implying that oil production is already as clean as it can be. Apparently (and worryingly) the oil majors have never heard of reducing flaring, improving refinery efficiency or cutting back on tar sand oil production, which is three times more carbon-intensive than conventional oil production.

For several years the oil industry has been trying to convince the world that it is serious about going green; “beyond petroleum”, as one company famously put it in a multi-million dollar marketing campaign. The sad reality is, they are up to all their old tricks.

Jos Dings

Director

European Federation for Transport & Environment (T&E)external

Brussels