Fahrenheit - Issue 1

Fahrenheit 4.51 | 1

green issueto end all green issues

FAHRENHEIT 4.51magazine of the extraordinary

international session of the eypissue 1| december 13 2010

online edition

2 | Fahrenheit 4.51

Green Light for Green Ideas. Tomorrow’s World – Today’s Challenge. High North – High Tem-perature. Climate change is a pet theme of In-ternational Sessions of the EYP. It is indeed a pet theme – a pet crisis – of our age.

International co-operation to tackle climate change and the process of discussing climate change in EYP share many similarities. As Lavrentia Christodoulou points out in this issue, little progress has been made since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. !e in-ternational community failed to reach a binding climate agreement for the post-Kyoto age in Co-penhagen, only to convene in Cancún a year lat-er – and leaving the summit with only a slightly better deal.

Cancún replaces Copenhagen not only on the agenda of the international community but also on the committee topics of EYP sessions. Our resolutions lack the same continuity and sense of going forward that is evident in the international climate regime. Even though actions suggested on the Copenhagen resolutions didn’t work, the same actions can be found on Cancún resolu-tions.

As Ben English argues in this issue, international climate summits and international EYP sessions share another striking similarity: huge amounts of carbon dioxide are produced when politicians and delegates alike leave on their jetplanes from all corners of the world and Europe to discuss global warming for a few days – with few con-crete achievements. For any active EYPer, this dilemma is naturally impossible solve. All we can thus do is to make sure those few days are worth it, at least when it comes to the quality of the discussions – let’s not settle with the ideas we came up with in Tromso or Stockholm but aim at something original.

With this issue, the Lillehammer Extraordinary Press Team wishes to have its say on climate change – in the de"nitive session newspaper on global warming. Dan Brown has a look on the irony of climate change. Schima Labitsch pon-ders whether rants against nuclear energy are justi"ed. Sophie Debrunner Hall argues against the meaning of “little things.”

Yours,

jari marjelund

Freeze

by the editor

Fahrenheit 4.51 | 3

4 | Fahrenheit 4.51

Content

10–11

16–17

26–27

30–31

Fahrenheit 4.51 | 5

Contributors

ben brown Journalist, the United Kingdom

dan brown Journalist, the United Kingdom

jan bubienczyk Journalist, Finland

lavrentia christodoulou Journalist, Greece

marie dromey Journalist, Ireland

ben english Journalist, Ireland

justus goettemann Journalist, Germany

sophie debrunner hall Journalist, Switzerland

sara juricic Journalist, Croatia

schima labitsch Journalist, Austria

lars melakoski Journalist, Finland

zahra runderkamp Journalist, the Netherlands

Fahrenheit 4.51 is the o!cial magazine of the Extraordinary International Session of the European Youth Parliament. It has been typed in adobe garamond pro by Robert Slimbach, alte haas grotesk by Yann le Coroller, nautik by Henning Skibbe and fontin sans by Jos Buivenga.

6 | Fahrenheit 4.51

Only twenty per cent of human beings have a sense of irony. !is means that eighty per cent of the world takes eve-rything at face value. !is is an apposite statistic regarding climate change. We are all constantly exposed to the bar-rage of comments, statistics and pic-tures of woe in the media, detailing the cataclysmic future that awaits us and – more depressingly – our children. In all this gloom and doom it can take just one subtle piece of irony to refute the depressing sea of statistics, opinion and argument and make us understand that perhaps things are not so bleak.

Copenhagen and Cancún have been the two places where the most impor-tant debates on climate change have been staged in recent times. Both

events have been hailed as crucial to the future of our planet. What the vast majority of people will remember, how-ever, will not emanate from the myriad of arguments and cogent opinions but from the shrieking irony of the weather present at both conferences. Cancún hosted the event in a temperature of 12 degrees Celsius. !is was the cold-est temperature in the city for 100 years and stingily ironic. It is a "ne repeat of the Copenhagen conference when the city was hit with the worst levels of snow in over 100 years. It was so bad that key speakers who were poised to vehemently claim that the world’s temperatures were undisputedly rising, were unable to #y as snow imposed de-lays and forced cancellations.

Scientists claim that 2010 is the warm-est year this planet has ever had. !ey argue that this is conclusive evidence that proves climate change is happen-ing. !ese arguments may seem ludi-crous to you if you were currently sit-ting in Poland. In recent weeks they have been exposed to bitterly cold temperatures, those far lower than their average. It would appear that mother nature herself is the biggest skeptic of the global warming crisis.

Such ironic events seem too good to be true. For many, it is an issue of divine intervention. !at leads me to the is-sue of the religious interpretation of climate change. Pastors, preachers and priests alike use the Bible to stress that God created the Earth for each of us

green light for great ideas > Pointing out the examples of Cancún, Copenhagen and Gore, Dan Brown tries to see the irony in climate change.

The Pen IsMightier than

the Sword

Fahrenheit 4.51 | 7

to use. It was made for our bene"t and progression and through its use we are rewarded. It thus seems ironic that we are now trying to stop using what God gave to us because we believe we will be rewarded by not using it.

!e less religious amongst us will per-haps appreciate the ironic and confus-ing actions of the World Bank. !ey champion schemes to promote the im-portance of water and its retention as a crucial resource. !ey believe that as the planet warms there will be less wa-ter available. !e World Bank promotes itself as forward thinking organisation helping protect our planet. !is does however, seem strange as in the past 15 years they have given $37 billion to coal mining across the world. Univer-

sally known as damaging the planet, it is ironic that they on the one hand sup-port mining which damages the envi-ronment and the other protect it.

One of the great ironies regarding cli-mate change is, ironically, linked with Norway. !anks to Alfred Nobel, it is the job of the Norwegian Parliament to appoint a selection committee to de-cide a winner of the Noble Peace Prize. In 2007, they awarded it to Al Gore for his ongoing work promoting and enhancing understanding of climate change. Al Gore’s big aim is to stop the extraction, export and use of oil. It is deeply ironic then, that a Norwegian panel would chose such an individual with such strong views against oil. Re-garded as the “Kuwait of Europe”, Nor-

way has more oil than any other Euro-pean country and thus would seemingly want to protect its industry as opposed to awarding an individual for doing such a good job in stopping it.

!ese are just a few examples out of many that show contradictory and iron-ic events disproving climate change. It is interesting to note that it is irony that can be used as such a powerful weapon in countering arguments. !e sheer fact that time and time again the brightest of scientists are out done by the simplicity of the weather proves that over issues like climate change scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. –db

8 | Fahrenheit 4.51

!e Closing Ceremony of my "rst ses-sion, Interlaken 2009, was a sobfest even by Closing Ceremony standards. Our president, the legendary Finnish EYPer Cecilia Pellosniemi was saying goodbye and presiding her last session. I tend not to get overly emotional when sessions end, but Cecilia’s goodbyes, underlined by her love for the organi-sation, made an impression. I had just fallen in love with EYP, and here she was, letting it go. I remember wonder-ing how utterly tragic it must be to say goodbye to something not only as good as EYP but also to end such a signi"-cant chapter in your life.

At the time, I couldn’t possibly imag-ine ever leaving. It was more than an expression to cheesily reproduce how much I had enjoyed my weekend – the EYP bug had me enough to make me

feel intense sadness at the thought of no longer being a part of this experience. Irrational, of course, but it showed me already then how close I would become with the organisation and the people in it. Standard procedure would be to chair for the last time when you end your degree – this is, after all, a project for students, by students.

But how do you end it? Having been to several sessions since that "rst one, I have had the opportunity to meet some real EYP veterans, and I can begin to understand that there comes a point when you are ready to move on from an o$cial’s position within EYP. !e absolute key to chairing is a connection with your delegates. !at connection becomes arguably more di$cult, the longer it is since you were one yourself.

With each session, o$cials, too, learn and develop. !ey are not standard "xtures, prepared for the stream of del-egates which is run through for three annual International Session. Participa-tion always brings with it development and change on the part of the o$cials’ team as well, a re#ection of one of the core elements of the EYP: the nurtur-ing of the personal development of each and every participants, be they del-egates, organisers, journalists or chairs.

“End? No, the journey doesn’t end here,” says Gandalf. !e journey of your life is never over – well, hopefully not for a while – but eventually, it gets to be time to change companion. We are not in the EYP so much as with it. –sh

european youth parliament > The beginning of your first International Session is hardly the place to be thinking about leaving EYP – at least we hope so. Sophie Deb-runner Hall asks when, why, and how do people actually leave the organisation.

Journey’sEnd?

“The absolute key to chairing is a connection with

your delegates. That connection becomes arguably more di!cult

the longer it is since you were one yourself.”

Fahrenheit 4.51 | 9

I can’t a%ord to actively care about the environment. If you ask me to choose between the clothing produced in a third world sweatshop versus something stitched by blind nuns in Provence, I am not going to consider how it was made. I am going to consider the price. Flippant? Maybe. Realistic? De"nitely.

People are scared that the world they live in will one day be entirely di%erent. We see it all the time with any issues in society: it is only when said issue has a direct impact of people that they care. Global warming will eventually throw the entire ecosystem out of balance, and people are terri"ed. It is mere sel"shness that people give a damn about global warming. Inside each and everyone of us, we don’t want life to be di$cult.

Imagining a world ravaged by global warming, people are lured to adopting a more environmentally friendly attitude. We can thank Al Gore for inducing fear and guilt into the hearts of society with impressive slideshows containing noth-ing more than vaguely accurate graphs and pictures of drowning Polar bears. People feel obligated to adapt and change their ways to be greener. How-ever, sustainably produced food, ener-gy-saving light bulbs and other green products are considerably

more expensive than your usual items. Bearing in mind the "nancial crisis, can people be expected to adapt systems and government buildings to be more eco-friendly? !ere is a ongoing battle between the reality of implementing a green lifestyle versus the repercussions of assuming that everything will be "ne.

You might think that the environmen-tal crisis is the most pressing issue of our generation. However, the fact re-mains that less than 20% of consumers

are willing to pay a signi"cantly higher price for “environmentally conscious” goods. !is doesn’t even take into ac-count the large proportion of people that simply can’t a%ord these goods. Being environmentally friendly might be hip, edgy and fashionable but at the end of the day, we don’t all have the choice to be actively environmen-tally conscious. !is is the problem that needs to be tackled – until the green lifestyle is accessible to all, change will never happen. –md

green light for great ideas > Considering a Day After Tomorrow scenario, concern for the environment can be brought to light in the majority of people. However, can this concern ever be really acted on? Marie Dromey asks whether we can a"ord to care.

The Cost ofConcern?

10 | Fahrenheit 4.51

Working together is a success. In EYP, creating the resolution is part of that success. !e resolution is indeed the only publicly visible part of the work-ing process of a committee, and at the same time the academic output of a ses-sion. !e resolution presents the com-mon agreements of the committee on the topic – agreements based on the knowledge of the delegates, as well as their discussions. A resolution however is not a report on the working process of the committee, and it doesn’t tell the reader much about the development of the group.

Resolutions and their impact are in-teresting question as we try to measure

the outreaching e%ect of sessions and the EYP. When was the last time you were content with a resolution and not only agreed on its points? In light of the importance of group development and teamwork in EYP, the opinions on whether a process-orientated or resolu-tion-orientated approach is more wel-comed go apart. How important is the academic quality of resolutions for the EYP itself?

Because the process matters

Investigating the path leading to a reso-lution is essential – it is the prerequi-site for the resolution. Teambuilding and committee work take most of the

time at any session. !e group gradu-ally transforms itself into a team, roles are taken, a secure environment is es-tablished, and a framework for fruitful discussions is set up. Minds have to be fed and developed step-by-step, so that we could come up with something new instead of focusing on already existing schemes.

Because the resolution matters

Academic quality of the resolutions is important, because we claim to have a say – and because we want to have a say – on European matters. Striving to use the “voice of Europe’s youth” is in vain, if it is not justi"ed with sharp rea-

european youth parliament > Continuing her musings on EYP, Schima Labitsch takes a stand on the age-old debate on the process and the product.

Wasteof the Feast?

Fahrenheit 4.51 | 11

soning. At the International Sessions of the EYP, the resolutions are sent to the European Commission and published on the website of the international EYP. !ere is therefore no need to la-bel resolutions as mere additions to the discussions or underestimate the public attention they get. Resolutions mat-ter because they are the only “written” voice we have.

Because the product has to justify the process

From an economic point of view, the input has to equal the output at the very least. Colloquially speaking, this means that the resolution has to be

“worth” the e%ort, and teambuilding and committee work have to aim at writing a good resolution. Resolutions are a vital part of our work and should be taken seriously. You may agree or disagree with that, but the whole work and passion put into building a team and development is not worth it if we lose that passion with resolutions. Not valuing the resolution means that the process that we undertake is not valu-able either.

At the International Session in Lille-hammer, 150 people will produce and debate 12 resolutions through a seven-day process. !ese resolutions are the voice of the youth of Europe, and if

written with their importance in mind, something one will value accordingly. –sl

“Academic quality is important,

because we claim to have say – and want to

have a say – on European matters.”


Energy saving light bulbs are a bit pointless. Assorted media outlets as well as governments, charities and the odd pretentious neighbours bombard us with tips on how we can save the planet with “little things”, from turn-ing down the fridge to taking a shower rather than a bath – with a “low-#ow” shower head, of course. Don’t ask me what that is.

By shaving a little o% our private con-sumption here and there, we hope to make a meaningful contribution to the looming energy crisis. Please. Us-ing them is an attractive sacri"ce to the altar of smug environmentalism, but it isn’t – pardon the expression – energy e$cient.

!e idea of collectively saving the world by making small changes is admittedly nice. Super"cially, it is also logically sound: many little steps amount to the same as a few drastic ones – and the for-mer seems easier. People seem more eas-ily convinced to shower instead of bath than to allow a wind farm to be built within a 10 km radius of their homes. But the “little things“ approach to the problems of energy consumption is at best naïve and at worst ridiculous. It doesn’t take an MSc in Anthropology to realise that people are sel"sh, apa-thetic and set in their ways. Likewise, the principle of incentive is patently ob-vious. When it comes to energy-saving at home, saving the planet comes in a slow second after keeping down the im-minent heating bill.

When swathes of the population don’t give a toss about environmentalism beyond reading which organic recy-cled wheat dress Gwyneth Paltrow has mentioned on her blog – the hideously named GOOP – cajoling a signi"cant amount of people to take the “little steps“ is simply not going to work. !e European Union made clear its faith in the population when it resorted to removing standard light bulbs com-pletely. Years of hope vested in ethical consumer decisions yielded absolutely nothing, and the only way to make people make this tiniest of changes was to remove their freedom to do anything else.

In fact, the putative strength of these measures – that they are small and easy

green light for great ideas > You are not going to save the world. Sophie Debrunner Hall sheds light – from an energy saving light bulb – on why the little things are just that.

Green Light Is No Great Idea


– will be the death of them. !at ease is fatal. It is just as easy to keep using non-recycled paper as it is to switch to something else. Our capacity for self-justi"cation is endless: surely it is OK not to bother this once – after all, what di%erence does this little change make? It is much more di$cult to argue a case for large-scale abuse of the environ-ment, from owning a Hummer to ob-scenely low aircraft fuel tax.

Short of such real political measures like the light bulb switch of the EU, the “little changes“ are simply not go-ing to happen. !e pretence that this approach re#ects upon our free society and the responsibilities held by each and every citizen of the world is the pathetic placeholder for inactive gov-

ernments, lobby-driven politicians and lazy policy-writing. Leaving matters to the freedoms of the individual citizen not only looks good on paper, but the day after tomorrow it is the people who are to blame, and politicians can hap-pily abdicate responsibility whilst Brus-sels is slowly submerged in water from the melting ice caps.

Back in the day, David Cameron would be seen in the paper from time to time, sporting a red anorak on his bike trip to work. Ostensibly to promote bicycles as the environmentally friendly alternative – let’s brush over his eco entourage and his briefcase in the car following him. Such farcical displays are symptomatic of politics which are sadly not limited to the question of energy consumption;

laziness and cowardice are masqueraded as respect for the freedom of the people and the validity of their choices.

I use energy saving bulbs. But they are not going to save the world. And they take forever to heat up. –sh


!e Samurai Man

Name: António Conduto OliveiraAge: 19 Nationality: PortugueseCommittee: IMCO

On hearing the rumour that there was a Samurai in our midst, we decided to investigate this seemingly ludicrous claim. However, we were both surprised to "nd and discover that this rumour was in fact true in every possible way. Since the age of thirteen, António has chosen to live by a clear set of rules called the Bushido. !ere are seven clear virtues: honour, respect, loyalty, sin-cerity – as for the rest, the facts given by our Portuguese friend were a little

ambiguous. Nonetheless, the sheer fact there was no attempt to cover this black hole proves the very point made – that the truth is the greatest virtue sought by this Samurai. As was made clear, “I never lie”. Having said this there still re-mained one key question: “What about the armour and sword of a Samurai?” In response to this, António once again assured us, by making it abundantly clear he is saving up for this gear – this does include a real sword. In the mean-time, he is making do with his wooden replica which he takes everywhere with him. We wish António ever success in his future endeavours along the path of a Samurai.

!e Human Calculator Name: Alessandro delle CeseAge: 18 Nationality: Italian Committee: ECON

If you are thinking that we are suggest-ing you hunt down Alessandro after this interview so you can ask him all of your mathematical problems then you would be very wrong. Not only because he probably has better ways of spending his time in Lillehammer than working on maths, but also be-cause his claim to fame arguably lies in something very simple which was overlooked by those before him. Dur-ing a homework assignment at the age

The Extraordinary Delegatespersonalities > Not all the 200 participants of Lillehammer 2010 are the same. Ben Brown and Zahra Runderkamp introduce to us three delegates who lead rather ex-traordinary lives.


of "fteen, he stumbled across what may become known internationally as the “delle Cese principle”. !e theory on triangles and identical volume is cur-rently being reviewed at the University of Pisa to check its legitimacy. On the theory itself, such humble mathemati-cians’ as ourselves would never attempt to simplify such a claim (even though is appears to be abundantly clear on explanation). Alessandro should be ex-ceedingly proud of his e%orts and may appear in hundreds of academic books in the future. !is bright mathemati-cal mind will however, be put to use in studying graphics for the foreseeable future and not maths.

My Dad, the Ma"a boss

Name: AnonymousAge: Adolescent Nationality: European

Whilst going about our interviews, a female delegate roughly around 5’6 ap-proached us secretly under the cover of the faulty Plan B lighting. Whilst sur-rounded by ever increasingly schizo-phrenic music choices she unveiled her deepest fears about her secretive father proclaiming him to be a ma"a boss. In the face of a highly sceptical tone she relayed how her father regularly disap-pears on “business” working as an of-"cial tax adviser, working on ways to dodge the tax law. !is was supported

by the fact she is self admittedly rich. Furthermore, every time they travel to the family stronghold they are greeted and protected by bodyguards, thought to be ex-agents if our contact’s reports are to be believed. She also explained to us that this Christmas, like every other, will be epitomized by the visit of her father’s business friends – several large lads who consume inordinate amounts of lash followed by caviar. On hearing this, we made a speedy get away, hop-ing that we made the right impression. However, if you never see us again, you will understand why. –bb & zr

antónio conduto oliveira alessandro delle cese


!e issue of climate change is one which we ignore at our own peril. De-scribed as the greatest challenge to ever face mankind, it is a problem requiring practical solutions. An issue of such im-portance has lead to increased dialogue worldwide in an attempt to "nd solu-tions to the problems resulting from reckless negligence and apathy with regard to climate change. It could be argued that fora such as the EYP and the UN Climate Change Conferences in Cancún and Copenhagen are con-structive steps in the right direction towards "nding e%ective solutions. !e harsh reality however is in fact quite the opposite.

A valid argument which has recently come to the fore is that conferences such as Copenhagen and Cancún are the opitimisation of the hypocrisy con-stituting a huge portion of the prob-lem concerning climate change. !e justi"cation for such an argument can "rstly be seen in the examples set by world leaders in attending the recent conferences. Many experts viewed the Cancún conference as an opportune event to lay the ghosts of Copenhagen to rest, a conference remembered for its lack of productivity. !e sad truth is that hypocrisy was alive and well at the Cancún conference, more so on this occasion than ever before.

Amidst a background of uncontrollable carbon emissions and global warming, the Cancún conference took place with a carbon footprint "ve times higher than that of any conference preceding it. With 140 private jets, 15,000 del-egates and 45,000 tons of carbon di-oxide, it is hard not to be amused by the irony in one of the main focuses of the conference being on reducing car-bon emissions by 20% by 2020. Fur-thermore, it is hard to ignore the e%ect these actions have on the e%orts made by the UN to have a coordinated global approach with regard to combating cli-mate change.

the Ghoststo Rest

Laying

green light for great ideas > From Copenhagen to Cancún, from Lviv to Lillehammer. Ben English explores the possibilities and hypocrisy of international climate summits and EYP sessions.


!e solutions to climate change do not lie in the rhetoric of 95 world lead-ers, but in the actions of the wider global community. One delegate at the Cancún conference even went so far as to say that the only climate friendly aspect of the conference was the inter-course provided by prostitutes in the locality, as this meant delegates didn’t necessarily have to travel if they wanted to avail of a friendly Mexican welcome. With this in mind, the hypocrisy sur-rounding these conferences, its motives and actions must be reviewed in order for “leaders” to set a su$cient example to a world that has a huge role in a cli-mate crisis.

!e issue of climate change is one which is certainly not new to EYP with it being mentioned in endless CLIM resolutions and taking a particularly prominent role in this session with the theme “Green Light for Great Ideas”. In contemplating the session theme and the ongoing problems of climate change, it is hard not to entertain the idea of our attendance at this session being hypocritical in itself. Despite the extraordinary nature of Lillehammer 2010, it is questionable that any great ideas concerning climate change will go beyond the usual “reduc-ing carbon emissions” or “starting an

even bigger media campaign than the one mentioned at previous sessions”. On this point, it is worth considering our own carbon footprint in travelling to this session and, more importantly, the e%ect this has had on e%orts to re-duce climate change. While this by no means constitutes a reason to boycott future international EYP events with the aim of saving a polar bear or two, it is always worth noting these aspects and bearing in mind that the solutions to climate change lie not only in what we say, but in what we do. –be

“The Cancún conference took

place with a carbon footprint five times higher

than that of any conference preceding it.”


We live in a world "lled with conspir-acy theories. Skeptics of all sorts make us question every piece of information the media serves us. Whether it is a question of the current "nancial crisis or global warming, there are endless opinions on all sides – constant de-bate is indeed something very human. Climate change is arguably one of the most controversial subjects the human-kind has dealt with in the past decades. Rather than getting slowly forgotten, the question of climate change tends to raise more and more controversies every year. However, the underlying debate remains the same: is the atmosphere of the Earth indeed getting warmer, and if it does, what is our part in it?

Even though scienti"c evidence seems to support both mainstream climate sci-ence and the so-called climate skeptics, there is a strong scienti"c consensus

that climate has been rapidly changing since the Industrial Revolution – and that human action plays a key part in that change. !us, we cannot but won-der: have climate skeptics developed any valid arguments over the years?

!ere are several schools of climate skepticism. Some doubt the e%ect car-bon dioxide has on the atmosphere, others deny the e%ect human action in creating harmful greenhouse gases. Most skeptics deny the severity of the potential catastrophe itself. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a plan-et substantially warmer than it is now,” says Freeman Dyson, a British-born American scientist and a renowned cli-mate skeptic. !e alarmists, taking the opposite route, have tried to scare the world and question all the methods used so far in the battle against climate change.

How do climate skeptics "nd audi-ence for their claims, even though there seems to be an overwhelming scien-ti"c consensus on the reality of climate change? !e parade of campaigns by the media and entertainment indus-try plays a key part in this: continu-ous controversies may a%ect even the most rational of minds. !e pendulum of mainstream theories and their crit-ics is indeed the basis of the scienti"c process. However, no matter what the underlying reason for climate change is, how harmful could it be to be more aware of the possible impacts we have on the environment? –sj

green light for great ideas > Climate skeptics try to convince us that global warm-ing is nothing more than falsified and exaggerated information. Sara Juricic explores the hows and whys of climate skepticism.

Going Skeptical





When you leave Lillehammer, are you going back to normal? Is EYP not part of your normal life – even if you are an active EYPer? !e starting point for this discussion is the uncertainty of whether or not we can imagine what our lives would be like if we had never entered the EYP world. If your mind boggles in the face of such a task, it is safe for us to assume that your participation in the EYP has had a signi"cant e%ect on you. What does this mean? People and their personalities are shaped in part by their memories. We can therefore argue that EYP is a bit everyday for you. For some, it has shaped their development to an extent. If something is such a large part of our life, why are we so quick to claim it is abnormal to us?

EYP is often identi"ed as a break from normal life. EYP events are indeed spe-cial – but are we really so desperate

to escape reality that we have to leave the country? Behaving as if taking part in EYP events were so magically and breathtakingly special is plain naïve. Attending a session does not mean that you are on some sort of a fantasy holiday which only occurs in a bubble. !ink of those on the boards of their National Committees, for instance, for whom EYP is constant. A huge number of sessions occur across Europe every year, and there is constant pre-session preparation to be completed, be it re-search, travel plans or Facebook stalk-ing your committee.

Furthermore, do you categorise your friends as being either “normal” or “EYP”? !is youth organisation is not an alternative world where you are dropped in, attend the session and then leave, never again to think about it, not be a%ected by it and not to have formed

friendships which also exist outside of that session. With all the means of communications available to us, it is relatively easy to stay in touch with your newfound friends. And on the contrary, you can hardly forget about those at home even when you are tak-ing part in a session.

It may be di$cult to explain what EYP is to friends without sounding either like an alcoholic or a nerd who likes wearing fancy clothes and playing poli-tics. However, this does not make EYP less normal for us. So what if my friends at home don’t understand the EYP talk – I don’t expect them to, and they have equally varied interests. EYP is normal for the simple reason that it is normal for us. All sessions eventually end and we will return to our other – perhaps less exciting – activities, but we will al-ways continue to be EYP Alumni. –md

european youth parliament > Refusing to believe that life outside the session is in the “real world”, Marie Dromey bursts the EYP bubble.

Bursting the Bubble





“!e time for action is now”. Since 1997, it has been time to react im-mediately and prevent the further ac-celeration of climate change. 13 years, and the motto stays the same – but has anything actually changed? !e "rst concerns on the ability of countries to meet the commitments under the UN Convention on Climate Change were voiced already in 1995, and the parties of the Convention have been meeting annually at the Conference of the Par-ties to assess the progress made in deal-ing with climate change.

!e Kyoto Protocol was initially adopt-ed on 11 December 1997 with the aim of creating a comprehensive global strategy for climate action. At the time, a global agreement on such a serious is-sue seemed revolutionary and indeed a possibility to prevent the escalation of the crisis. However, after being revised 16 times and with most of the signatory countries violating its terms, the Kyoto Protocol has ended up being a product with expiration date without any par-ticular cause of existence. After numer-ous discussions at the historic summit

in Copenhagen, leaders from 192 na-tions agreed to a provisional, non-bind-ing resolution declaring that the Earth does, according to the best available sci-enti"c evidence, have a climate. Eureka!

What is the reason for funding these an-nual 12-day conferences when the dip-lomats waste the "rst ten days arguing over the distinction between the words climate and weather – or spending their time lost in translation, "nding some enlightening language di%erences, such as that the Korean character for climate

green light for great ideas > The time for action is now. And now. And now. Lavrentia Christodoulou looks for reasons why climate change is still to be tackled.


KyotoUncovered

change is the same as the one for oppor-tunity? (!is might explain why North Koreans have signed the Kyoto Proto-col even though the environment min-ister of the country has clari"ed that the country will not accept a compul-sory greenhouse gas emission reduction plan.) Not that the summits wouldn’t be interesting and educational experiences for the participants, but why should we invest on conferences with no hope of concrete results, instead of spending the money in taking swift action?

Eco-tourism, eco-emissions, eco-life and eco-nomics would #ourish in a green world – a world with the Kyoto Protocol as the main constitution. Peo-ple would plant trees and conserve en-ergy by staying in bed the whole day. !ey would follow the instructions of Bill Gates, the man of eco-Microsoft, and they would not sacri"ce their health in the climate battle. !e Kyoto Protocol seems to be a well-constructed political game – a game where the win-ner is the one who will violate the most commitments, or the one who will

manage to scienti"cally explain even the most meaningless conditions. !e only thing that is not included in the Protocol is trying to persuade people to live in trees, move to another planet or transform themselves into wind and so-lar power generators to help their coun-try acquire energy independence. –lc


Within the last two decades, climate change has established itself as one of the leading elements of fear and sup-pression in our minds. Terrifying sce-narios have been drawn up: world tem-peratures rising by 6 degrees by 2100, rising sea levels obliterating the habitat of hundreds of millions of people and destroying thousands of major cit-ies worldwide, and the extermination of uncounted species on animals and plants. !ese threats have changed our thinking about the importance of na-ture and preservation forever. !ey have given rise to the dominance of concepts like energy e$ciency, carbon intensity and sustainability. Often abused by big business, the term sustainability is espe-cially pervasive in our lives. Everything just has to be “sustainable” to be good. !e public domain is entrenched with the idea of sustainability and we are made to feel bad when doing things not complying with them. Recently, this has spread to eating habits as well.

Jumping on the bandwagon, sustain-able restaurants are the new big thing among the common tree huggers and alternative yuppies. !eir concept is simple: you have had calorie, fat and sodium counts appended to your fast food choices. Now it is all about know-ing the carbon footprint of your – that is, the environmental impact of – your food. Otarian is a prime example of this kind of restaurant: a trendy chain originating from New York City of-fering somewhat more than the usual assemblage of ‘sustainable’ vegetarian food: this time you get to learn about the carbon emissions caused by your food. Recycling, composting, sustain-able building materials and no ingredi-ents that are shipped by air are Otarian’s rules. Carbon footprints are calculated according to standards set by the World Resources Institute, an environmental organisation. Not only can diners see the carbon "gures for each item listed on the menu, but foods that generate

too large of a footprint are simply not o%ered.

!is approach is aimed at tackling one of the most substantial sources of car-bon emissions out there – food produc-tion. Usually, debates about this topic take the form of blaming obvious sourc-es of carbon dioxide such as fuel com-bustion technologies used for private cars and airplane journeys. Consum-ers are made to feel really guilty about “wasting” fuel for unnecessary “travels”. Yet these kinds emission sources only constitute a small amount of all total consumption and – if calculated com-prehensively – the production of food dwarfs this easily. !at way the import and export of goods to, for instance, the UK alone in 2006 has been estimated to be over 83 billion ton-kilometres (unit of measurement that represents the transport of one ton of goods by a given transport mode) requiring 1.6 billion litres of fuel and resulting in 4.1

green light for great ideas > Justus Goettemann tells us not to worry about our carbon-intensive flights to Norway – but we could pay attention to what you actually eat here.

LegendsLunchtime


million tons of carbon dioxide emis-sions. Within the UK, the amount of food transported increased by 16% and the distances travelled by 50% between 1978 and 1999.

!e UK, of course, is only one out of many Western countries, which are very similar in the way they consume and the e$ciency of their production. Overall, food production for the EU alone accounted for about 29% of all consumption-derived GHG emissions. Everywhere, the food system today is even more reliant on cheap crude oil. Virtually all of the processes in the modern food system are dependent upon this "nite resource, which is near-ing its depletion phase. !is underlines the importance of initiatives like Otar-ian.

Not only is sustainability a concept worn out by business leaders and vari-ous phrasemongers. It is also one of the

vaguest ideas connected to the debate about green house gases. Sustainable restaurants like shops and clothing la-bels are some of the few possibilities to raise people’s awareness of the hidden statistics of their own existence – their own carbon “food-print”, if you allow the pun. Only if people feel it obvious to start cutting down on these extor-tionate amounts of emissions that are caused by their habits will they under-stand the necessity for other areas of their society and economy to behave similarly. Stores like Otarian are small islands of fear-free zones helping us to free ourselves from self-imposed imma-turity regarding our freedom to make considered decisions. It helps us to un-derstand the reasons behind concepts like sustainability and leaves us the choice to follow fear or independence.

Our modern lunch table is a graveyard of emission culprits. Unlike a war cem-etery it is not "lled with the former

heroes of famous battle"elds, but with the ashes of the useless smoking gener-als of modern industry. We don’t need the Pyrrhuses of our times sitting down on this table self-righteously munching dirty food, we need the conscious, un-derstanding, free consumers, the heroes of modern cuisine, the lunchtime leg-ends of our time to go out and spread Otarian’s word. !e world will be a freer place. –jg

To start your journey visit: Otarian, 181-183 Wardour Street, London W1F 8ZA, T 020 7734 0219


green light for great ideas > Ben English does his share for the globe by sending the Editor an email without the article attached and saving nothing but an empty template-on his computer – thus saving a significant amount of ink for the time being.


Ex LacinaDeus

profile > A Frenchman, a rugby player and the President of the Extraordinary International Session of the European Youth Parliament. Justus Goettemann and Sara Juricic set to reveal the true Lacina Koné.


KONÉEmerging through the raving crowds of delegates at Plan B, Lacina Koné shifts his imposing specimen towards the small booth, in which we are awaiting his arrival. !e President of Lilleham-mer 2010 has indeed a striking appear-ance: his tallness and "gure of a typical rugby player – a sport he passionately played until ruining his knee in action – are only underscored by the crutch that he needs to move around after an accident on the streets of his current home town Grenoble.

Mr President is certainly not your ste-reotypical Frenchman. He describes himself as “not romantic, but gentle”, which is certainly nothing you would expect of someone who used to play in the front row of his rugby team at uni-versity, a sport not known for its gentle sides. Contrary to the common mis-conception that condemns the players

of this traditional British sport as brain-less hammers, Lacina comes across as an extraordinarily structured and con-siderate man. His approach to most things in life seems to be deliberate, maybe sometimes even a bit less open-ly emotional than you would expect from a citizen of the country of love and romance. “I don’t believe in love at the "rst sight. For me, it is a learning process,” Lacina asserts with his calm, soothing voice. With the same voice he talks about the future and states that all he wants is to be happy, raise a family, and work as a civil servant after "nish-ing his studies in Public Policy at Sci-ences Po Grenoble he recently discon-tinued to head organise the upcoming 67th International Session of the EYP in Grenoble next summer.

!at he is now presiding the Extraor-dinary International Session in Lille-

hammer, "nishing his climb on the EYP “career ladder” is in line with this engagement and arises from his strong conviction that he can contribute better in other, more informal roles than being on the board of a session at this stage of his EYP life. “It all makes sense and closes like a nice circle as well: Stavan-ger was my "rst International Session, and I have always loved the Nordic ses-sions especially,” Lacina mentions with great admiration for the excellent ses-sions in the North.

Lacina’s philosophy on EYP isn’t com-plicated. Friends, passion, laughs – hu-man aspects dominate his view of EYP sessions. !us, though EYP gathers us in various exotic corners of Europe, Lacina isn’t here for the travelling, since he never actually gets to see the city he is visiting.


KONÉStarting with his "rst International Ses-sion in Stavanger in 2005, Lacina has been an EYPer for a fair amount of time, having attended over 30 sessions by now. Yet he still gladly remembers his "rst impressions, "rst moments spent as a delegate. Being a delegate, in his opinion, is the most important role you can take during a session. It is the only role within the organisation where you can e%ectively voice your opinions and have them being put into resolu-tions and debated in plenary. For Laci-na, EYP is about personal development and facing one’s own limits. ”Every new challenge as a delegate is a possibility to go forward and improve.” !e passion that people generate for EYP predomi-nantly arises from this aspect.

Lacina’s views on the most important aspects of EYP also make him immune against any sort of post-EYP depres-

sion. Sitting on the train back home, taking time to ponder about the session just gone by and re#ecting on what was learned makes one realise the session was only one of the many bricks in the large EYP wall of personal development you still need to build. “Other than that, it is mostly about looking forward to washing my dirty socks.”

Lacina Koné is an outstanding EYPer who thinks of EYP as something that helps you broaden your mind and look at problems from a di%erent perspec-tive – although he admits that a certain sense of elitism is in"ltrating the or-ganisation. “In essence, EYP is simply a bunch of privileged freaks travelling around Europe, trying to help each other.”

With Lacina Koné, Lillehammer 2010 is presided by one of the most experi-

enced and thoughtful EYPers in recent generations. His message to the del-egates is straightforward and powerful: “No matter what mistakes you make, you have to push ahead to learn from your mistakes.” In the words of Forrest Gump, Lacina’s favourite movie: “My Mama always said you’ve got to put the past behind you before you can move on.“ Mr President would surely agree. –jg & sr


One world. One climate. One change. Right now. Clash of the titans: nuclear energy versus renewable energy. !e energy debate stands in the centre of climate change and is increasingly a subject to illogical reasoning and wrong assumptions. It is likely you consider yourself a nuclear opponent. However, it is worth examining the seemingly bad energy resulting from nuclear fusion.

Nuclear power is currently accounting for a total of 14% of the world’s elec-tricity and is treated very di%erently between EU Member States. Whereas countries such as Germany or Sweden are already opting for a phase-out of nuclear power plants, others like France

and the UK are heavily relying on nu-clear "ssion, the "rst gaining 80% of its total energy supply out of it. Proponents of nuclear energy say that it represents a sustainable energy source for the next generation, a cheap way of producing energy – and is environmentally very friendly in terms of carbon emissions. Opponents of nuclear energy point out its incredibly high capital costs for the plant itself (6 to $10 billion), as well as the radioactive waste – which is to be stored up to 10,000 years until radia-tion vanishes. Moreover, nuclear energy always carries the risk of an accident, which can result in severe environ-mental disasters such as Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986.

Renewable energy is also an environ-mentally friendly and secure way to obtain energy, produced by natural re-sources, and transformed into energy by solar panels, windmills or similar facilities. !ey present an a%ordable and sustainable way to supply energy, especially in developing countries. Currently, renewables account for ap-proximately 19% of the global energy supply. Opponents of renewable energy criticise the dependency on weather and natural in#uences, which opposite to nuclear energy – highly predictable and constantly in production – presents a major disadvantage.

One DebateTwo Sources,

green light for great ideas > In the end, it is all about energy. Schima Labitsch on the question of nuclear energy.


!e energy debate is guided by the constant demand for a decreased use of nuclear energy, strongly supported by various non-governmental organi-sations. In terms of economic balance, the presence of nuclear energy is very important as it ensures a wider range of energy sources. Consumers can choose between nuclear and renewable en-ergy and the competitiveness between them stimulates the markets. Absolute scenarios of both groups, supporters of both nuclear and renewable energy, are simply not the future. !e need for both sources needs to be accepted by both parties. !e energy spent in e%orts to eliminate the one or the other is in vain.

Despite all the pragmatism we claim to possess, we are still an idealistic generation who continuously strives for a better, cleaner world by appar-ently very one-sided views. In view of our dependency of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal, it is more important than ever to have a variety of alterna-tive energy sources. However, there are still many areas in renewable as well as in the nuclear energy sector that need to be revised. It is essential to focus on improvement of already existing struc-tures and on the fruitful existence of both sources.

Nuclear and renewable energy are with-out doubt the main future issues in the

provision of energy. !e energy debate is still far from cooling down, and I can only encourage you to take part. Us-ing the words of Winston Churchill: “!ere’s always merit to having a de-bate.” Have this one. –sl

“Despite all the pragmatism we claim to possess,

we are still an idealistic generation who continuously strives

for a better, clearner world with apparently very one-sided views. “

!"#$%&'()*+,%"-$%.**/%01/2*2%.3%,"*%41'(&*-/%5(66#$$#(/7%!"#$%&1.8#+-,#(/%'*08*+,$%,"*%9#*:$%(/83%(0%,"*%-1,"(';%-/2%,"*%5(66#$$#(/%+-//(,%.*%"*82%'*$&(/$#.8*%0('%-/3%1$*%:"#+"%6-3%.*%6-2*%(0%,"*%#/0('6-,#(/%+(/,-#/*2%,"*'*#/7%

THE EXTRAORDINARY INTERNATIONAL SESSION IN LILLEHAMMER IS SUPPORTED BY:

THE LILLEHAMMER REGIONAL COUNCIL

INTERNATIONAL PARTNER

Fahrenheit - Issue 1

Documents

Transcript of Fahrenheit - Issue 1