The UN climate conference that will be hosted in Copenhagen Denmark this month Dec7 – Dec18 plans to deliver a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto Protocol which, by the way, The US, who shares with China the position of the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, signed but did not ratify.

With this Copenhagen summit, along with the turnaround of Washington on the topic, it is becoming clearer that climate change is indisputably the issue of the century. However, I have some reservations about this climate conference with regards to the question of who should normally “pay the price”.

If it is unquestionable that climate change would have a serious impact on both developed & developing nations (for example, recently, two studies were undertaken on the impact of climate changes on China and other major crop producers. The research showed that the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases will experience unstable weather and a dramatic drop in major crop production in the future. Furthermore, the Chinese grain production is likely to drop ten percent when temperatures rise by one degree Celsius. The rice growing period of China will generally shorten by seven to eight days if temperature rises one degree Celsius. And, according to Zheng Guoguang, head of the China Meteorological Administration, in an article published on an agency’s website, this will lower the quality of rice, and if the current grain production mechanism does not change up to 2030, the production potential of crop farming will drop between five to 30 percent). However, coming back to the point I was making before the brackets, the notion that emerging economies should somehow be part at the same pace & level of responsibility in the greenhouse gas emission reduction seems unfair to me. Why? Because it is important to remember that developed economies for more than three centuries now have been damaging the ecosystem with their industrialisation that was not in any way low carbon oriented.

Therefore, asking developing or emerging economies to slow their development process in order to pay the price of the damage caused by developed nations is just absurd to me. Especially since the richest nation in the world, which is also one the largest emitter of greenhouse gases nations, namely US, did not show until recently any will of reducing their carbon emission. It is only lately that the White House revealed that President Obama, who will attend the Copenhagen conference, would pledge to reduce US emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and that the US would continue that downward path over the following 10 years to reach a 41 percent reduction.

Here is the problem: The richest nation, the nation that caused the damage in the first place and currently one of the greatest emitter would “pledge” to reduce only by 17% by 2020; whereas the UN is pressing developing countries to lower their emissions growth by 15 to 30 % from business as usual, according to the authoritative UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Well, no comment…

The World Wildlife Fund declared recently that the US pledge for 2020 translated from 4 to 5 percent below the commonly accepted benchmark year of 1990. “It certainly doesn’t bring us closer to that range of emission reduction levels that we need to see,” said Kim Carstensen, WWF’s climate change director.

Also, the EU environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “The aggregate offers from developed countries still fall well short of the level of ambition needed, so I urge those countries with weak targets to improve them,”

Please judge for yourself…

As usual, in such circumstances, these international institutions always try to make things look fair for everybody and that they are there for developing countries too. In a statement issued lately, UN’s top climate negotiator said: “We can get an agreement that specifies financial support to developing countries”. In other words, financial support to help developing countries adapt to green technology would also be part of the treaty. Good! But wait a minute; does anybody remember the pledge to commit 0.7% of rich-countries’ gross national product (GNP) to Official Development Assistance? Can anybody tell me how many of these rich countries have met that commitment so far? Please not this time… promise, promise, enough is enough!

Rich countries should take their responsibility and “pay the price” of their reckless industrialisation methods. Not that emerging economies should not take part in this, ultimately this is a worldwide issue. But there is no way developed economies should expect emerging economies such as Brazil, South Africa or India not to maximise the use of their capacities and therefore jeopardise their own development while trying to respect the so called “Climate Change Treaty” which is in some respect boycotted by some rich nations. This is what I call “the trap of de-growth” that developing countries must avoid.

The Berlin underground line 55 has been opened in August 2009. Consisting of three stations, you can change trains at the Berlin Hauptbahnhof only as it is not connected with any other underground line yet. We went there in October 2009 on a Sunday afternoon.

We went on this line at Hauptbahnhof. Other than the rest of it, the underground station was rather quiet, only few people were waiting with us for the next train. On the walls of the station you will find pictures from old Berlin stations which look totally different nowadays – if they still exist at all.

The next station, Bundestag, is the one I like most from the architectural point of view. On both sides, there are galleries over the railtracks. On one side, the gallery consists only of plain concrete, whereas the gallery on the other side is covered with pictures from Berlin – past and present. The numerous columns on the platform end up in a lightwell with incident daylight.

Finally we got to the last station, Brandenburger Tor (Brandenburg Gate). The walls of the station are covered with images relating to the division of Berlin between 1961 and 1989. The illumination of the station through top panels looks impressive.

A single train is running this little line. A second railtrack already exists though it is still closed. A sign-board is informing you that this track is “out of service”.

The construction works on the stations have not yet been finished. As an example, the escalators at the Bundestag station are still missing.

This rather short line will surely become much more important when being extended to underground line 6 at Friedrichstraße. I have heard this should be finished in 2017.

Sprache: Englisch.

Though this park is quite at a distance from home, I always enjoy going there. The various gardens are beautiful. The best time for a visit is from spring – autumn. Be sure to bring a camera – you will take lots of pictures there!

If you like drinking tea, try the Chinese Teahouse. They offer various black, green, yellow and white teas.

Don’t miss the magnificent Oriental Garden with its mosaics and ornaments.

In the Balinese Garden, located in a glasshouse, you will find lots of orchids and other tropical plants. Please mind the rather high humidity there.

It is not easy to walk around the Japanese Garden – you will have to cross lots of stones up and down a hill. And the guards at the entrance make sure nobody will enter the garden from the wrong side.

Next to it you will find the Korean Garden. It is much easier to walk around there.

One of the recently opened gardens is the Italian Renaissance Garden. It is located close to the entrance at Blumberger Damm.

Erholungspark Marzahn mit den Gärten der Welt
Eisenacher Straße 99
12685 Berlin
Tel. 030-700906-699

www.gruen-berlin.de/parks-gaerten/gaerten-der-welt/erholungspark-marzahn/

The Netherlands was once again the best country in healthcare service in Europe according to the newest The Euro Health Consumer Index, followed by Denmark and Iceland.

 The EHCI since its creation three years ago, has become a measurement standard for European healthcare. It ranks 33 national European health care systems across 38 indicators, covering six areas that are key to the health consumer: patients’ rights and information, e-health, waiting times for treatment, treatment outcomes, range and reach of services provided and access to medication.

• Patient rights and information: Denmark
• e-Health: Denmark, Netherlands
• Waiting time for treatment: Albania, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland
• Outcomes: Sweden
• Range and reach of services provided: Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden
• Pharmaceuticals: Denmark, Netherlands

 And here is the detailed ranking of all countries being taken into account:

Source: Euro Health Consumer Index 2009 report

The latest release of European Price Index Survey revealed by Eurostat ? main European Union’s Statistical Office shows that in 2008, price levels for consumer goods and services differed widely across member states and three EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland).
The price level calculates the cost of consumer goods and services which was divided into the following sections, food and non-alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages and tobacco, clothing, consumer electronics, personal transport equipment and restaurants and hotels.
According to the report in 2008, price levels for consumer goods and services differed widely across Member States, for example: Denmark (141% of the EU27 average) had the highest price level, followed by Ireland (127%) and Finland (125%), and the cheapest countries were Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania (~50% below the average).
And here is the exact price level index for consumer goods and services:

Rank Country Price Index
EU27 100
1 Denmark 141
2 Norway 139
3 Switzerland 130
4 Ireland 127
5 Finland 125
6 Iceland 117
7 Luxembourg 116
8 Sweden 114
9 Belgium 111
10 France 111
11 Italy 105
12 Austria 105
13 Germany 104
14 Holland 103
15 UK 99
16 Spain 96
17 Greece 94
18 Cyprus 90
19 Portugal 87
20 Slovenia 83
21 Malta 78
22 Estonia 77
23 Latvia 75
24 Croatia 75
25 Turkey 73
26 Czech Republic 72
27 Hungary 70
28 Slovakia 70
29 Poland 69
30 Lithuania 67
31 Romania 62
32 Montenegro 62
33 Serbia 58
34 Bosnia & Herzegovina 56
35 Albania 53
36 Bulgaria 51
37 Macedonia 47

Source: Eurostat, Consumer price levels in 2008”, News Release, 104/2009 -16 July 2009

©Copyright by Lukasz Manczak

Are we moving back to the Keynesian economic approach with all these bailouts around the world, or should we define a new paradigm for economics after the world financial crisis has demonstrated the limits of the free market with its invisible hand?

The failure of economists, businesses and politics to predict and manage the recent catastrophic crash of the world’s financial system has triggered a re-evaluation of the whole basis of current economic theories.

Since the end of the 20th century, economics has been dominated by the classical paradigm based on notions of rational consumers making rational choices in a simple supply/demand world of finite resources, with prices constrained by decreasing returns; all driving the economy to an optimal equilibrium point.

So far, this classical economic approach, initially conceived by Adam Smith, has been working well. Indeed, in normal circumstances people are generally rational. The market automatically allocates resources and controls excesses in an optimum way with minimum oversight or outside regulation required. Under this model, the economy has been working as an equilibrium system; a system that moves from one equilibrium point to another, driven by shocks from external disruptions – technological, political, cultural etc- but always coming to rest in a natural equilibrium state.

But in extreme or complex circumstances, people and the system tend to behave/react differently including consumers, banks, financial institutions, stock market traders and governments. And perhaps the most critically flawed assumption of this classical model has been that economic agents are generally rational. Whereas, we observed recently insolvent households taking mortgages that they could not afford, banks lending to insolvent households without conditions etc. leading us to the subprime crisis …we know the result.

From this flawed assumption, the following question is raised: is it the theory that should be questioned or is it one of its hypotheses (namely the rationality)? Some would argue that questioning the hypothesis is questioning the theory. Anyway…

To tackle this current crisis, Some voices have been suggesting more regulations as this would frame the rationality of economic agents and force them to behave in a more sensible way; some others have been calling for more government intervention in order to set rules and monitor  the whole system (with a big bailout here and there when necessary).

Wait a minute, if I am not mistaken, this would mean going back to the Keynesian approach of economics?

Indeed, according to Keynes, Excesses or deficiencies in aggregate demand are the rule and not the exception. Therefore, for Keynes, government intervention is needed to eliminate recessionary and inflationary gaps: laissez faire, laissez passer policies should be replaced with an active interventionist policy by the central government.  Keynesians believe that monetary and especially fiscal policies are required; otherwise disasters like the Great Depression that followed the First World War or the crisis that we are facing now would certainly reoccur.

There we are! Was Keynes right? Or should I say, is Keynes right?

Not so sure. If the Keynesian prescription for active government involvement in the economy was warranted after the World War I, in the past few decades, government intervention has become less desirable…and some argue, less necessary. Indeed, since the World War II, we have experienced six decades of growing competition. The once oligopolistic market structures in autos, telecommunications, services, etc. have become very competitive, and government policies increasingly have impact across borders. Furthermore, nowadays, banks, financial institutions, manufacturers, energy suppliers are increasingly internationally managed; following Keynesian policies with their fundamentally collectivist, centralized approach would just lead to more trouble. For instance, if a multinational that has networks over the world is centrally managed in the way Keynes suggests, the collapse of one element of the network in one country would easily make the whole system topple like dominoes around the world as we have just experienced.

In short, if the Keynesian approach was likely to work after the First World War, the crash that we are facing now is far more serious than the Great Depression of 1929 as it can not be contained within borders or so easily solved by mass bailout, mass lending or big government investments/ job creation programs.

The need of an evolutionary or new economic model…

Instead of going back to the Lord Keynes School of thought, maybe we should rather think of a new model that would fit with the globalisation of markets, and that would -to some extent- set some global regulations to frame agent behaviours around the world, but ultimately leave the market free.

This new paradigm should be based on the principle that economies, markets, regulations, globalisation, as well as the internet (a new and very important component), consumers, enterprises and the brain all form complex adaptive systems in which agents dynamically and rationally interact, process information and adapt their behaviour to a constantly changing environment- but always reach a final equilibrium.

In this new model, and unlike the strict distinction between the too much and the too little government approach, the market should rather be a combination of an “invisible hand” and necessary regulatory elements (government that would not impede competition and risk) with the mindset that the market is henceforth a small village that needs to adapt to the constantly changing global environment.

To conclude this paper, I strongly believe that free market still has a future, and markets are still perfectly self-regulating systems. They are only becoming enormously complex adaptive networks – too complex and interdependent for economists and governments to control or even understand.

Ultimately, every individual/company is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he / it can command. Therefore, by pursuing our own interest we benefit society more than when we directly attempt to benefit society. According to Adam Smith, we are all led by an “invisible hand” to benefit society even as our intent is to benefit ourselves.

Invisible Hand Theory proposed by Adam Smith in the 18th century, really helps to explain how the market economy works even with its chaotic nature.

Personally, I view the Invisible Hand theory as the economic counterpart of democratic theory. Just as, in a democracy, people are supposed to choose the best leaders for themselves, the Invisible Hand theory presumes that people chose to produce and consume in the most efficient manner when given a free hand.

So in practice, markets may still end up being little bit chaotic due to the irrationality of agents or inadequate information shared within the system, but that is not because the Invisible Hand theory or the free market model is inaccurate.

Again an article in English on this weblog. I know it’s hard for you, being a foreigner in this country, to find good information about health and Mexican flu, so I’ll provide it in English. Here an article in English and also in German about WHAT is in the vaccine against the flu.

Read here in English

Read here in German

For the rest there are viruses of 4 flus in the vaccine:

1. the Spanish flu from 1918. They even got a person out of his grave to get out the virus. That virus was H1N1, just like the Mexican flu
2. the bird flu
3. the pig flu
4. normal flu

and a lot of stuff that we call ‘adjuvants’ or helping stuff. These are mercury (inside an agent called thimerosal), squalene, formaldehyde and  aluminium. Very, very dangerous agents, that severely attack our immune system and can even kill some people.

For the rest there  are vey serious rumours going around that there is a nano-chip, called RFID-chip in the needle. You can read about that in the-above mentioned articles. The pharmaceutical industries don’t officially give away the ingredients and of course not at all the truth about the chip, but people that work for these industries sometimes give away information.

Do also read this website: http://www.theflucase.com. It’s in many languages.

Please wake up and tell EVERYONE you know about this. Send this article anywhere you want, only place my name under it and a link to this weblog http://dutchlearning.wordpress.com.

©Sophia Berkati-Dijkhuis, M.A. 2009

If you want to lose weight, you should eat pure chocolate, said Dutch free newspaper De Pers (page 8 ) last Friday. Not only if you’re a woman: it’s for men too.

According to the research bureau Tangram did, men eat even more chocolate than women: 72% versus 70%. The interview is with chocolate expert Tonny Sonneveld, who states that chocolate is a nutrivite product that contains many vitamins and minerals. Since he didn’t say which, I looked them up for you: milk and white chocolate contain a lot of vitamin A and B12 (good for teeth, bones and destillation of calcium and fosfor, making of red bloodcells and growing of muscles and tissues) . Dark chocolate contains a high quantity of vitamin B complex (freeing of energy, making of body-building nutrients), D (vivacity, is also in the sun) and E (is found in fats).

Dark chocolate is also rich of magnesium, copper, iron, manganese and zinc. Cocoa mass contains many fibres as well. If you eat a small piece of dark chocolate instead of a dessert after your meal, you will lose weight, so Sonneveld states.

©Language Coach Sophia Berkati 2009

But should the cross be worn like a flag? Wouldn’t it upset people who didn’t share my choice? Wouldn’t it be better to preach the Good News by example, anonymously? I wasn’t sure, and I prayed that the Holy Spirit would show me what was best. I was really waiting for a sign which would be the answer to my prayer. I knew from experience that true prayer, which comes from the depths of your being and not from your lips, always finds an answer. And now, that day, an answer was given to me.

A Moroccan drew near and was looking insistently at my cross. He was fortyish, dressed in European style. Suddenly he tuned in one direction, surely towards the East, towards the tomb of the Prophet. He joined his hands, lifted up his eyes and spoke a few words in Arabic, which of course I didn’t understand. He bowed down, as Muslims do at the hour of prayer. After a moment he came up to me, seized the Dominican cross around my neck and kissed it. Then tears fell, which he dried furtively on the sleeve of his denim jacket.

• Why are you crying?
• Because I have never kissed a cross before. But I know that we both have the same God, Allah, for there is only one God! 
•  That’s true, but you say so because your heart is pure and there is no hatred in you.

I asked the stranger to sit down and he shook my hand with typically Eastern fervour. What he said then testifies to his close knowledge of the Koran, and he told me he was an Imam. He said:

• You have passed through the first three levels of perfection. Now you must pass through the last two. The fourth is the cancelling of all the vanities in you. Do not seek honours or power, nor ever use human beings to satisfy personal ambitions. 
• And what is the fifth level? 
• It is asking forgiveness of Allah. 

His answer froze me. For twelve days earlier, when I made my first commitment as a lay Dominican, when the president of the Fraternity said: « What do you ask? », I had answered, in accordance with the ritual used by our Dominican friars and nuns too: « The mercy of God and yours! » – the equivalent of my interlocutor’s « forgiveness of Allah ».

The answer was clear. I have worn my little Dominican cross on my breast ever since. It has never been blessed by a friar – we’re not mad about blessing material objects in our Order – but it has been kissed by a Muslim. One day, no doubt, we shall pray together. 

 Translated from French (original text   by Ludovic, Belgium, Vicariate of Belgium-south)

Back to frontpage 

It was reported last week that civil society engagement in the World Bank operations has been evolving from being institutionally based to being more issue oriented.

Indeed, increasingly, civil society organisations that have been interacting with the World Bank seem to have shifted their advocacy stance from a do-no-harm to a do-good approach that seeks to influence the World Bank to further adopt socially and environmentally sustainable development approaches.

So, what has been the real contribution of these civil society organisations?

Coming soon…still thinking