The Switch by Milica Simeunovic

Editorial Did you ever have that feeling of being lost in the thoughts with desperate need for clarification of the world around you? And that deep wish that everything can be clarified with snap of the fingers? That little mind switch. Imagine your life at this very moment, if you are average human being at the teen age you are going to school, trying to discover who you are and find your place beneath the sun. If you are below average, you are probably just trying to fulfill what is asked from you without specific ambition or goal you are aiming to. Now, if you are above the average, you are trying to discover the world in your specific special way trying to explore what is out there for you. By applying to this conference you showed your ambition, you showed interest in something that average teenager didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t and you are giving yourself a chance to grow. That is what I like to call special, desire of aiming forward and potential that you can never reach because it is growing by seconds in the speed of the light, but without giving up, with looking backwards only to see how far you have come. Dear all, this is what we, as media team will try to do in these 4 days, we will try to show you what is it that this organization can offer you. We will try to overcome the barrier of average and present you our EYP world in the best light, as we see it. And if you bring home from the session even a part of the idea what EYP is to us and what it can be for you, our job will be successfully completed. With love, Milica Simeunovic, Editor of the session

Members of editorial team: Milica Simeunovic Adam Borowski

Media team members: Peter Goldsborough Katarzyna Rachuba Jan Kuzior Lydia Purschke Harriet Peel Fee Kirsch Pablo Lopez Sandra Elpers

Content Editorial........................................................................................................................................1 Content.........................................................................................................................................2 Time for Europe to start up........................................................................................................3 Light up your mind with LED....................................................................................................5 May the force be with you...........................................................................................................7 Where is the female power?........................................................................................................9 A cold front.................................................................................................................................11 What to do when everyone finally gets wind from windmills.............................................13 Europe in flames: Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re doing it wrong..................................................................................15 More water and less land for less people.................................................................................17

Time for Europe to Start Up Europe is the place to be for innovation, research and development (R&D). The economic ecosystem is flourishing in all major cities of the European Union. Exciting new ventures and startups are blooming and sprouting like mushrooms from Scandinavia to Sicily, from Latvia to Lisbon. Simultaneously, many new businesses are failing, vanishing and going bankrupt. However, the culture in Europe is such that failure is not seen as a distrastrous, lamentable catastrophe; rather, it is seen as a natural stepping stone to ultimate success and is accepted gracefully, not looked down upon; followed by encouragement, not disdain. As a result, new and novel products and services are flooding the market in the sectors of technology, automobiles, pharmeuticals and all areas of industry and groundbreaking ideas are being patented by the day, by the hour, by the minute. Scientific research in public institutions and universities is equally sensational, with scientists and researchers coming to Europe from the US, Japan and all corners of the earth to work on cutting-edge projects in state-of-the-art laboratories of well-funded European research facilites.

Europe is the place to be.

Unfortunately, what was just stated is wishful thinking. If one were to really paint a proper picture of Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic environment, it would be grim. Just nine months ago, the European Commission released the results of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, an analysis of the investment activity of the top 2500 companies worldwide. According to this ranking, corporate R&D spending of European businesses increased by 2.6% between 2013 and 2014. While this may seem like an excellent figure, it is well below the world average of 4.9%. Moreover, at the same time, total sales in Europe went down by 1.9% and company profits even by 6.6%. One reason for this may be the disparity in the European investment landscape, with only ten member states accounting for over 97% of corporate R&D investment in the entire European Union, and even two thirds stemming solely from Germany, France and the UK. Furthermore, five of the top six European spenders are in Germany -- Volkswagen leading also the global ranking -- with only the French biotechnology and pharmaceuti-

cals giant Sanofi-Aventis preventing German dominance. The situation regarding patent filings is equally worrying. Intellectual property registrations are generally viewed as a proxy for the degree of innovation and thus the competitiveness of an economic region. In 2013 alone 2.6 million patents were filed around the globe. While Chinese patent filings constitute 33% of those registrations and United States inventions representing 22%, the dwarf of the round is clearly the European Union, accounting for only 5.8% of global patent filings -- and thus of global innovation. Likewise, access to public funding for universities is an uphill struggle. Europe is spending 0.8% of GDP less than the US and 1.5% less than Japan every year on public R&D. Meanwhile, existing and newly created programs such as the European Research Fund (ERC) or the Marie-Sklodowka-Curie fellowship, introduced as part of the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Horizon 2020 program and holding â&#x201A;Ź1.67 billion in funds are also not producing satisfactory results. After just one year of existence the ERC already has the reputation of being inaccessible to young researchers and less-established scientists from Eastern Europe. The natural query to ponder upon now is why other nations such as the United States are outperforming the European Union to such an extent. For this, the innovation and R&D landscape of the United States and the European Union should be compared further. The most striking differences between the US and the EU that impact their respective ability to innovate find their source in one of two underlying themes: that of ecosystems and that of the involvement of government. The Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking 2015, published by the business analysis firm Compass, addresses the first theme. Included in this publication is a ranking of the top 20 global ecosystems for business creation. Most interestingly, only three European cities -- London, Berlin and Paris -- made the cut to appear in this ranking. Meanwhile, six US cities are in the top ten alone. But what actually constitutes a healthy business ecosystem? Four main factors:

Funding: The availability of funding throughout all

Venture capital: Investment by venture capital firms

Talent: Equally essential to the existence of innovative

Most notably, among these three sources of capital not one stands in any relationship to government. Once more, this shows that the EU may need to entirely change its paradigms regarding how to effectively create a landscape of innovation.

stages of a venture’s life cycle can make it or break it. This includes initial seed funding at the birth of a business, venture capital at the intermediary stages of a firm and more serious investment throughout the company’s maturity.

focused on more long-term development of small companies. Usually involves greater sums of money than in the seeding stages.

and succesful companies is talent -- the employees of a company. Only if technical and other talent is obtainable easily and at reasonable cost can a company exist and thrive.

However, not all is lost in the European battle for competitiveness and innovation. In fact, many things are going in the right direction, such as the relationship between knowledge institutions and the private sector within the EU. Examples include the succesful partnership between Audi and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) or IBM’s research collaboration with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. A plethora of these initiatives were made possible or at least aided by EU programs such as Horizon 2020 and resulted in exactly the research and development necessary to keep Europe’s boat afloat. Clearly, the EU should keep this boat steady and continue investing in such partnerships, as research and development can only thrive in a (financially) stable environment.

Market Reach: How big is the size of the local ecosys-

tem’s GDP and how easy is it to reach customers in local and international markets?

Freedom: A thriving business ecosystem should be as

void of government and its associated bureaucracy as possible. Businesses should be free to live and die according to the implicit “rules and legislation” of the free market. Regulation should be strict as necessary for the safety and protection of consumers and yet still loose as is compatible with the former. These factors are what make Silicon Valley what it is, New York what it is and what many European cities are not. It matters not how much capital alone is thrown at companies by government institutions. What really matters is that they be able to survive on the basis of an environment that could be created by said government insitutions, with said funds..

Is Europe the place to be for innovation, research and development? Given the facts, one may be quick to answer no. The outlook is grim -- yet it musn’t be. The European Union has all the capabilites to prevent its perpetuous falling behind in the global race for competitiveness and splash brighter colors on the picture. However, the EU’s mindset will have to change for this to occur. Throwing funds at companies alone will not provide the change it seeks. The future course of Europe’s economic path depends not on the availability of funds, but on their usage.

The second theme underlining the differences between the EU and the US is the involvement of government with regards to funding. In the United States, the most common sources of investment for startups and companies are:

Angel Investors: Individuals investing in a startup us-

Peter Goldsborough

ing their private capital.

Seed funding firms: Companies that provide small

amounts of capital -- “seed money“ -- in the early stages of a business venture.

Light up your m “In today’s rush we all think too much, seek too much, want too much and forget about the joy of just Being” - Eckhart Tolle Since the moment humans appeared on earth they tend to change everything around them. Before electricity was invented they were obligated to adjust their live to the daylight. Through centuries everything has changed and we developed various technologies such as LED lightening. Light-emitting diodes are semiconductors which have been created so they emit light when they’re activated. In 1950 and 60s the first diode was developed by Nick Holonyak junior who is thought to be its inventor. Early iterations included laser-emitting devices that worked only when bathed in liquid nitrogen. During these years scientist developed various diodes which emitted everything from infrared light to green light. They were created by using different chemicals. The blue one required carefully-created crystals that where yet impossible to create in the lab.

last and the most difficult one to create. After achieving this success it was easy to produce the most wanted one – the white light. Now we can use LED technology in our smart phones, television and other devices, even in street lights. Los Angeles has swapped in 155,000 LED fixtures – in 40 years these move is supposed to reduce the bills from 2 billion to less than one.

In 2014 a trio of scientist: Isamu Akasaki, a professor at Meijo University, Hiroshi Amano, a professor at Nagoya University and Shuki Nakahmura, a Japanese-born professor currently at the University of California, Santa Barbara won the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the world first blue light-emitting diodes. Why is the blue LED so crucial that their inventors were awarded with the Nobel Prize? It was the

The benefits of LED lightening have a huge environmental impact. Modern white LED light bulb converts more than 50% of electricity it draws into light. To compare incandescent bulbs

mind with LED On the other hand from the International Space Station we have received surprising news. Totted for their energy saving benefits LEDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are actually extending light pollution. The changes are so intense that they are visible from space. It links to many negative consequence. Disturbing the night and day cycle can confuse particular animals and alter their hunting interactions or internal psychology. It can mess not only with their internal clocks. For humans it can suppress the melatonin levels which lead to sleeping disorders, anxiety, headaches and obesity. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety has published a rapport concerning the risks of LED lightening. Three main health threats are: toxic effect on human light-sensitive cells, the damage cause by glare, the luminance of individual source can be 1000 times higher than the discomfort level and disturbance in the sleeping cycle. conversion is just 4%. They can also last up to 100,000 hours which is 10 times longer than fluorescent one 100 longer than incandescent. Switching a bigger number of devices and buildings over to LED would significantly reduce worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity consumption. Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more these particular laps have potential to improve the quality of life. Because of the very small energy input, 1.5 billion people from all around the world, who do not have the access to the electrical grid, could run them on a cheap local solar power.

How should we balance the potential threats for our health and environmental benefits? Which actions should the EU take to encourage the Member States to developing the Is it even possible nowadays to find some time to just BE without the constant rush and disturbed sleep-wake cycle? Katarzyna Rachuba

Thinking about space makes us dream. Can you imagine flying around Earth within 90 minutes at a top speed of 28.000 km/h ? Or can you imagine that scientists are getting regular data information from a robotic spacecraft that is more than 19,5 billion kilometres away from Earth? These are no dreams anymore that is reality. The International Space Station ( ISS) operates around earth since 1998 and Voyager 1 left our planet 1977. But further realizations of space dreams are under threat because of the manmade problem of space debris. Since Sputnik 1, the first artificial Earth satellite was launched into a low Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on the 4th of October 1957, the importance of astronautics literally exploded. Up until now almost 5000 rockets have been blasted off into space and currently around 1200 active satellites orbit around Earth. They are helping with the weather forecast, distributing television signals and Internet, allowing navigation devices to determine your location and maintaining the phone network. To put it straight: Nowadays, we can hardly imagine to life without satellites. But while pursuing better ways to explore and to use the universe, the environment was - as all to often in the history of humankind - absolutely ignored. With every rocket launched into space, waste is created. Fanned by collisions and explosions of disused material an ever denser belt as so called “space debris” emerges around earth. This orbiting collection of defunct satellites and fragements starting from less than a millimiter have a growing impact on current space missions and probably further space research. Two events had a big impact of today´s pollution of the

satellite orbit highlighting how little it takes to worsen the situation. In January 2007 China showed his military achievements by destroying a meteorological satellite with a rocket 865km away from earth. The test is the largest recorded creation of space debris in history. At least 2300 traceable fragments (starting from 5cm) and an estimated 150,000 debris particles were the consequence. Sadly, two years later another historical event in space debris history occurred: the first satellite collision in the Earth´s orbit. The American communication satellite “Iridium 33” crashed with the disused Russian satellite “Kosmos 2251” splitting into circa 2200 trackable fragments and over 100.000 smaller pieces. Heiner Klinkrad, head of space debris at the European Space Agency (ESA) said: “Summarizing, the fragments of these two events make about a third of the objects in space which we can track from the ground.” Bearing in mind how many active and disused satellites orbit around earth this statement is alarming. Further, Klinkrad explains: “A one-centimeter object has a typical relative velocity of more than 50,000 km/h. The unfolding energy would be equivalent to an exploding hand grenade or to a medium-sized car, which crashes into a satellite at a speed of 60 km/h.“ One can just imagine the impact on satellites from bigger fragments. In January 2014 the US-military Space Surveillance Network announced that almost 17.000 objects bigger than 5cm are orbiting around earth from which approximately 9500 are fragments. Experts comment that probably 5.000 more traceable objects are orbiting considering that the US-military did not publish military

objects and non-referable ones. The amount of fragments smaller than 5cm can be only estimated. The institution of aerospace engineering in Braunschweig, Germany estimates that circa 750.000 pieces bigger than a marble and about 150 Million splinters bigger than 1 millimetre are orbiting the earth. Luckily, the monitoring of the biggest objects allows experts to manoeuvre satellites in the right moment so serious destruction or collisions are often prevented. Carsten Wiedemann, a docent for aerospace engineering at the highly recognized Braunschweig University of Technology, said: “ Today, catastrophic collisions, in which satellites splinter, occurs on average every five to nine years.” But almost every recent study and Wiedemann himself warn of rapidly rising trends. This year for example in mid-July, the crew of the ISS had to take temporarily refuge in the Soyuz capsule in matter of precaution for the fourth time because of dangerously close space debris. Among the ideas for solutions of the growing problem are a lot adventures mind games considering the present state of knowledge and engineering possibilities. Certainly, it is crucial to continue investing into research that could one day e.g. lead to the ISS being armed with a laser to shoot down orbiting debris. But mainly, scientists are concentrating on finding a solution to start reducing space debris as soon as possible. A widely represented idea, also by the ESA, is to develop a robotic, unmanned spacecraft that could approach, capture (e.g. through a magnet or net) and finally retrieve space debris or disused satellites in the Earth´s atmosphere. Different test trials in various countries are already going on.

But the solution for reducing space debris in the satellite orbit is not only in developing a system that could destroy different sized fragments. It is also necessary to answer questions like: Why should only countries be responsible for the destruction of space debris although private companies also benefit from the ownership of satellites? Is it time to create an internationally recognized institution that gives the partly used space law more weight and defends specific standards for space missions e.g. the disposal of disused satellites after completing its mission? We have to protect our only gateway to the universe otherwise our dreams about space could never come true. And who does not want that our grandchildren can cruise around space while listening to the newly remastered version from “The Notorious B.I.G. – Sky is not the limit”? Just imagine that. It will make you to a Guardian of the Universe. Jan Kuzior

Where is the female power? What TV-series “The Big Bang Theory” has taught us: Negative stereotypes about scientists. They are presented as nerds and weirdos whereas the reality looks different. But who wants to join a group of unattractive science-nerds?

working after paternal leave? Some companies (Facebook and Apple) invented social freezing for their employees. Women can freeze their ova and save them for later. It is meant to help women to first do a career and then start a family? Is that the right solution? Why not implementing reforms that ensure compatibility of family and work life so women don’t have to intervene in human nature and freeze their ova?

Marie Curie and Jane Goodall are just two examples of women who were famous researchers. Former was the first woman receiving the Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry. Women like these two have proven society that female researchers can contribute a lot to science. Having had these intelligent and excellent women in scientific disciplines, nowadays only 33% of European researchers are female. Why hasn’t changed more? On one side, there are general reasons for this and on the other side you can find causes directly related to science. One reason may be the incompatibility of family and work life. Some EU countries (e.g. France) have established better and more family-friendly systems than other countries in order to enable women to work and start a family at the same time. France is considered a child-friendly country and its birth rate is higher than in most other EU member states (12-14 births per 1000 persons in 2009). Since there are more child care facilities women have the possibility to work on their career. Another reason is also, that in some European countries paternal leave for men is still not really accepted and expected. Women are stuck in the traditional mother role and are seen as career-obsessed when they start working quite soon after giving birth. Leaving their children in a daycare center is usually not an option for many mothers as society taught them that this is what an uncaring mother does. Sometimes there are enterprises who offer their own intern daycare center even within the building. But will this project convince mothers to continue

In society it is still firmly rooted that girls in school are better at art and languages than boys who tend to have a talent in mathematics and science. Stereotypes in general can be demotivating and hinder women to gain enough confidence in order to work in certain male-dominated fields. The most powerful determinant of whether a woman goes on in science might be whether anyone encourages her to go on – which means that teachers have a huge influence on the future of their students. If he/she thinks women are not intelligent enough to study science they can have the potential to daunt her doing that – and vice versa. Science is often underrepresented in elementary schools. Most scientists claim that the interest in science should be aroused earlier than in high schools because more girls would develop a passion for it then. Some women discover their passion for science and their potential relatively late. Unfortunately, it is too late for them to change their occupation. It is already hard for women to get a job in this field as employers rank men higher than women – even if it’s unconsciously – so how possible is it for a 40 year old woman to get into that business? Statistics from 2011 reveal that only 26% of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) occupations are taken by females.

The Global Gender Gap Report of 2014 shows that northern European countries dominate in equality. Iceland continues to be at the top of the overall rankings, Finland ranks in second position, and Norway holds the third place. Sweden remains in fourth position and Denmark ranks this year at the fifth position. What is different there than in southern countries? Does religion matter? Do catholic countries estimate the mother role higher? Did they somehow overcome the glass ceiling effect? It is the effect that a woman’s career ends before getting to the management level. It is still a common problem in Europe and worldwide and a consequence of centuries of female oppression. Men are more likely to get a job and get paid more than women in the same position. If this continues to happen, women will still make up 33% of female researchers. Furthermore, so many women claim that they are tired of dressing one way to be taken seriously as a scientist while dressing another to feel feminine.

Nobody should be judged by their appearance. Some companies have introduced to accept anonymous applications. No name, gender or photo is stated so that the employer will judge everyone without any prejudices. In a modern world, where photos are more important than ever – especially in social networks – is it really possible to base application procedures on anonymous applications? I am convinced that there are a lot more Marie Curies and Jane Goodalls to come. If more women are given a chance to become researchers, the future of science will look brighter. Furthermore, these scientist will show that they aren’t nerds who disappear behind their huge horn-rimmed glasses. Scientists are smaxy: smart and sexy. Lydia Purschke

A cold front The Arctic: A vast expanse of sea, ice and cold; nature in its rawest, purest and harshest form, dotted with settlements of indigineous peoples. However, to the Arctic’s misfortune, among its riches are not only gorgeous glaciers, wild beasts and diverse cultures, but also natural resources. The rapid melting of arctic sea ice has uncovered immense reserves of oil and gas and brought the worldwide struggle for energy into prominence in this previously untouched region. In fact, In light of the ease (not strictly true, its easier, not easy) of access and extraction of natural resources, the commercial interest in the region has grown steadily, and the Arctic has now become a hub of industrial activity. As the world anticipates the impending dwindling of natural resources, the Arctic could become a potential area of conflicting interests in the race to find and extract oil and gas reserves. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds around 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered gas, and it’s very unlikely that such quantities of known resources will go untapped. However, the region has long been a beacon of international stability. Indeed, its states cooperate according to international law and in institutions such as the Arctic Council, an inter-governmental forum of eight countries, characterised by the representation of indigenous peoples such as the Inuit. Denmark, the USA, Russia, Norway and Canada have claims to Arctic waters according to each country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, by which that country has rights over marine resources up to 200 nautical miles from its coast. Finland and Sweden, though they aren’t linked to the Arctic by a coastline, also have territories in the region. Another reason for the Arctic’s almost unbelievably peaceful record so far

was the establishment of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) in 1982. It allows for peaceful development of the Arctic and natural resource management, because it leaves room for the states to negotiate amongst themselves, instead of being so stringent that discrepancies and disagreements occur. Interest in the Arctic does not however, lie solely with the coastal states. Organisations such as Greenpeace and WWF have expressed concern over the rate sea ice is melting and the ensuing dangers for wildlife. Perhaps more prominently, due to the ever rising demand for oil and gas, Arctic reserves have caught the attention of other parties. Although most of the Arctic waters are under national legislation, a small area remains an international zone, and this area is increasingly becoming a magnet for the scrutiny of non-Arctic countries, all wanting a slice of the action. So how does the EU come into all this ? While the EU does hold an interest in the region via Denmark, Finland and Sweden, it has no say in the question of natural resources in the Arctic, therefore should not push its powers of persuasion too far when dealing with Arctic matters that some believe ultimately don’t concern it. As a potential permanent observer of the Arctic Council, the EU should therefore tread carefully in its diplomatic rhetoric. But unfortunately the EU has already played the diplomatic card by imposing sanctions on Russia in July and September 2014 (in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea), which included limiting the supply of export licences for services necessary for deep water oil exploration and production. And this puts it in a rather precarious position. Seeing as EU imports from Russia in 2013-2014 represented

ural habitats and species, melting of arctic ice, and a surge to extract the most oil). In the short and medium term, extracting oil and gas as efficiently as possible being the main concern in the Arctic, the EU should lend its advanced technological means to creating safer infrastructure, thereby ensuring that it remains seen as a force for good, rather than another medler. But long term consequences of Arctic drilling would have an environmental impact on areas far greater then the Arctic itself, therefore the EU does indeed have a right to take an interest in the Arctic. Taking these doomsday scenarios into account, the question here is whether the EU should be focussing on the Arctic as a source of energy at all. Would its efforts be better spent on researching, investing in and promoting renewable energy sources that are viable for use in the region ?

about 34% of total imports of crude oil and about 49% of total imports of natural gas (Eurostat), the aforementioned sanctions could negatively impact EU-Russia relations not only in the Arctic, but concerning all other affairs as well. The Arctic is a notoriously demanding region, and its lack of infrastructure in the event of an oil spill or any other accident could seriously compromise recovery. Thereofre seeking to promote energy security and maintaining sustainable development of the region in keeping with Europe 2020 goals (i.e. supporting and promoting green growth in areas such as energy and resource efficiency) should be the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s priority if it wants to institute a credible and effective Arctic policy. It should also recognise local priorities of indigenous peoples. Natural resource extraction is not necessarily a threat to them; it could potentially be an important source of income. Greenland, for example, hopes that the exploitation of oil and gas will become sufficiently profitable to replace a yearly economic transfer from Denmark, thereby enabling it to become politically as well as economically independent. A ban on offshore oil drilling for environmental reasons for example would weaken Greenlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position. The EU should do all in its power to protect but also support indigenous people, making drilling for resources sustainable as well as economically profitable. The EU requested to become a permanent observer in the Arctic Council in 2013, but this was deferred because of disputes with Canada. The closer the EU is to the action, the more weight it would have in negotiations regarding short and middle term interests and long term consequences of activity in the region (long term consequences include destruction of nat-

With such a complex and frankly dangerous set of circumstances, should the EU interact with direct stakeholders cautiously or go all out . Indeed, the EU as an importer of energy products, depends heavily on oil and gas, a large proportion of which are supplied by the countries who have a claim to arctic waters. Another thing to consider is that Arctic oil and gas extraction needs to be integrated into local peoples economic activities and work in their favour. The rhetoric needs to switch from individual state interest to a wider scope in which social and environmental issues are not only taken into account, but put at the forefront of the agenda. Harriet Peel

What to do when everyone fina I often think of Europe as an Island. Beautiful and versatile, pretty much the place to be. But just as much as I like to believe, all you need is love, I imagine Europe to be all you need. The occasional fling, some vacation affairs included, but never dependent or needy. But then real life happened and it turns out the EU can certainly be considered an island. Just like most isolated places it is reliant on other countries. The EU is especially far from independent in one crucial area: energy supply. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) we* rely on imports for 70% of our oil, almost 50% of natural gas and 44% of coal. Europe will never have enough of its own fossil fuels. Nevertheless we can tackle this ‘pressing problem of Europe’s finished geopolitical stature’, as prof.Micheal T. Klare calls it. To set us free from energy trades, we change to renewable alternatives. Far more than the majority of energy comes from finite material, imagine the difference if that were to be wind, solar or hydropower energy. Not only would the EU then have no gas lines or strings attached politically, it moreover wouldn’t run out of energy. We would finally live on cleaner grounds. Climate change might be old news, but it should be the top priority everywhere. Not only Europe, but the world is at stake.

for research and investments in new technologies. Successful countries show consistency and stability in the government policy.

Luckily it’s safe to say, some action has been conducted and we’re clearly stirring in the right direction. Although to execute this green plan, some major problems need to be solved.

The transition to green energy is causing destabilisation of the electric grids resulting in potential blackouts, weakening voltage and possible damage to equipment. Grid problems, including an overload, are solvable using smart meters. The Europe 2020 strategy intents to replace 80% of normal meters with the smart ones. Reducing emissions by up to 9%. Such a meter brings along with it many advantages. While consumers producing energy are able to sell surplus to the grid. Operators can use the information to integrate renewable energy and balance the networks. Extremely important

What we’re lacking at the moment is a working system. Some Member States, like Sweden or Latvia have done an incredible job, having the highest percentage of renewable energy shares in Europe. With 48 % renewable, Sweden proves that for effective implementation, coordinated government support is needed to provide

The complications they face scare less experienced countries to further invest in green energy. Oettinger, the European Union Energy Commissioner admitted in June at the Eurelectric conference. ‘In some member states we have been too fast, the region needs better infrastructure to integrate the new power’.’ It took a couple of centuries to refine the fossil fuel system. Nobody should expect renewable energy to work here and now in the same way. Although it isn´t true that renewables take a long time to build, in a practical sense. Compare it to a power plant, or even a nuclear one. An EU analysis took the costs of ´external´ factors like human toxicity, air quality and climate change into account when calculating the price of onshore wind. Windmills and other renewables aren´t only the cheaper alternative (without these factors), they are better for national security, safer and faster to build. The two important key issues are grid connectivity and electricity storage.

ally gets wind out of windmills because unlike fossil fuels, renewables are less controllable. In order to prevent overload or worse deficiency, there is a need for a transparent database on usage and new techniques to send electricity both ways. Or as an alternative, to safe electricity it can be converted into other forms of energy and then reversed when needed. Storing energy is only done in hydroelectricity at the moment. The technological progress is insufficient to increase storage deployment. While being accessible, they can’t compete with the variable renewable power generation that is growing rapidly. To help save otherwise wasted electricity and make better electric vehicles; funds, political support and frameworks would definitely be needed. The question on how much and what the EU can actually do remains. The European Commission itself says 200 billion Euros is needed to upgrade power and gas grids by 2020. Other plans for this shared competence could include research funding or new regulations. But what helps a country in it’s green baby steps or a advanced renewable energy user during a time of crisis? Is there a need for a special body? Could overload be given to other neighboring countries? Is it even a priority to help the richest countries improve their energy system, when sunny southern states have little renewables at all? Are we prepared for a possible renewable energy crisis?

What the EU now needs, is a plan to make the only right thing, renewables, for our planet work. If we can successfully convince and support the MS in their transition to a clean energy policy and a sustainable execution. We won’t have to say goodbye to our ravishing nature and a stable Europe. Instead we are one step closer to the clean and independent era. Our task is simple. Catch wind and sun. Now that most are aware of its existence and purpose, we fight for the second wave of the renewable revolution. The perception that they are unreliable and unpredictable, can through improved technology and better policies be changed. So that ultimately there will be no grey days anymore. Waking up with the sun beams through the window and in our hot shower. The wind in our cell phone chargers and our faces on the way to school. Just like I imagine my dream island to be.

There are a lot of unanswered questions and numerous political directions to take. We should be grateful, we have made it this far. We’re already talking about executive problems instead of the mere concept of using the sun, water or wind. Renewable output is poised to almost double to 18 percent by 2020, according to Energy Brainpool GmbH & Co. KG, a consulting firm in Berlin. The fact that renewable energy is fortunately on the rise, comes with this enormous responsibility.

Fee Kirsch

Europe in flames: We Imagine living in a hotter world, with dirtier air and more contaminated water, constantly threatened by severe floods, droughts and wildfires. You wouldn’t want your future children to grow up in such a place, would you? Well, we must react fast then, as the current burning of the existing fossil fuels in electricity generation, transport, industry and households - among many others - is enormously contributing to air pollution and therefore, to the greenhouse effect, which is causing the slow death of our planet; our home. The mission is clear. We need to minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly those of carbon dioxide (CO2), while ensuring a more secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy for all EU citizens and the economy. As the EEA executive director stated “Air pollution is causing damage to human health and ecosystems. Large parts of the population do not live in a healthy environment, according to current standards. To get on to a sustainable path, Europe will have to be ambitious and go beyond current legislation”. But one small problem arises: there is a wide inequality between the EU Member States in terms of energy production. In Poland for instance, way more than a half of the country’s primary energy needs and over an 85% of the electricity produced are covered by coal sources. In France, almost three quarters of its electricity are obtained from uranium. In Norway, electricity generation is covered almost entirely by hydropower plants. And these are just a few examples of the existent diversity in the EU concerning energy production. Awarness of these national disparities should be the key tool to the right functioning of a common EU energy policy on the road to a green Europe. As a matter of fact, the EU has already taken some significant steps to work towards renewable energy anb to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as it can be seen in the 20/20/20 targets approved by the Member States in March 2007. Specifically, this pack of measures aims to reduce by a

20% the GHGs emissions in the EU from 1990 levels; to raise the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20% and to improve EU’s energy efficiency by a 20%. According to the Commission, this regulation of CO2 emissions was supposed to be mainly achieved through the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), but it can be easily proved that this measure is failing badly. In a nutshell, the idea was to create a financial incentive for the biggest emitters to cut back by limiting the total amount of greenhouse gases that companies can emit each year through the assignment of a fixed number of allowances. These allowances act as the currency of the carbon market and each of them gives the owner the right to emit a tonne of CO2. This way, installations with the lowest emissions can sell their surplus allowances on the carbon market, which will be bought by companies that don’t have enough of them. A wonderful thought, isn’t it? However, carbon prices, starting from around 36€ per tonne in 2006, plummeted to a low of 6,60€ per tonne in 2014, partly as a result of the recession and partly because the EU gave away too many allowances. This basically implies that the results of the EU ETS are practically negligible and even one could think that counterproductive. To tackle this oversupply, representatives from the three institutions; the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council, recently agreed to take 900m tonnes of carbon allowances off the market and reintroduce them later. As Jos Delbeke, General director of DG Climate Action, said at an interview: “In 2019, we’ll be putting this reserve into a fridge. We never know when we’ll need it in the future, but in any case they (the allowances) are taken out from market functioning.” With this in mind, there is no doubt that a balanced and higher price of carbon is needed so that further actions can be taken to invest towards renewable energy and mitigate the effects of climate change. Because, after all, the main purpose of the EU ETS is to fight

e are doing it wrong against climate change and reduce the GHGs emissions. And this can only be done if collective solutions are brought to the table, because the EU ETS is definitely not the only key tool to a green and sustainable Europe. But donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get me wrong! One doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to be particularly fond of this initiative to admit that, despite its many weaknesses, it has proved that trading in GHGs emissions is possible in a struggling Eurozone economy. In fact, it has inspired other countries such as China to launch cap & trade schemes of their own, showing what would happen if things are not monitored correctly and thus becoming an example of what not to do, as Jeff Swartz from the International Emissions Trading Association stated. Europe must not miss the opportunity to implement their emissions trading and cut its GHGs emissions to the fullest, because the Earth is asking for that change. And each and every one of us plays a role in our collective ability to reduce our personal carbon emissions. No matter how small, every contribution counts. And now I trust you, dear reader, to speak your mind for a better planet; a better home.

Pablo Lopez

Refusing Refuge: Climate Asylum Seekers in the EU As of 8 June, a total of 103,000 migrants and refugees have arrived in Europe. The number shows the amount of people that have fled or migrated to Europe, only in 2015. This means we’re talking about a serious amount of people, and not all of them manage to find a place where they can live here. And they all have their own reasons to be pushed or pulled out of their country, looking for a better life elsewhere. In 2007, Ioane Teitiota moved to New Zealand with his wife and had three children there but overstayed his visa. After that he subsequently sought asylum as a climate refugee, saying rising sea levels had destroyed his crops and contaminated the water supply in his homecountry Karibati. Unfortunately, the New-Zealand Supreme Court acknowledged that Kiribati faced challenges but said Mr Teitiota was not at risk of persecution or serious harm, the criteria for asylum seekers. Besides, his nation was not failing to protect its citizens from the environmental threat, as the government of Kiribati has raised the prospect of resettling the entire population by buying land in Fiji to cultivate crops if the land of the Former British colony can no longer feed its population of 100,000 inhabitants. However, then court did not deny that climate change and natural disasters are able to “create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction”. The International Organisation for Migration said the international community has to consider developing a new legal instrument in order to recognise climate refugees. They say that the legal system needs to catch up with this emerging group of people. Because that is the way it is, more and more lifes are getting affected by the changing climate, while the other stakeholders keep on ruining the environment, but are not likely to clean up their mess. This means they do not want to welcome the climate refugees that are driven away from their homes caused by the actions of the ones that are on the other side of the planet, unaware of the impact they have. Environmental refugees are not protected by international laws. They face even greater political risks than refugees who flee their homes due to conflict or po-

litical oppression. Unlike traditional refugees, climate refugees may be sent back to their devastated homeland or forced into a refugee camp. Climate refugees who migrate outside their home countries must adjust to different laws, languages, and cultures. Climate refugees may encounter conflict with indigenous residents. Educational and health care systems must adjust to a sudden, new population. This population may speak a different language or have different customs than the native population. However, most climate refugees are internal migrants. Internal migration is the process of people moving elsewhere in their own country. They face different kinds of problems than international environmental refugees. Often, climate refugees are rural and coastal residents who are forced to migrate to urban areas. But, skills such as herding and farming are obviously not relevant in urban areas which land is filled with buildings for accommodating both inhabitants, tourists and workplaces. Rural farmers are often more self-sufficient than many urban dwellers; they may not be familiar with depending on a corporation or other people for employment. And last but not least, climate change may also increase the number of traditional refugees. Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, has noted, “Climate change can enhance the competition for resources—water, food, grazing lands—and that competition can trigger conflict.” So it’s up to you to be diplomatic and avoid a possible war by discussing this enormous problem of internationally legalising the recognition of environmental refugees, so that they can wait in line, together with the political refugees, all seeking for asylum.

Sandra Elpers

Partners of the event