1THEJAmMAGAZINE OF THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL YOUTH

Climate Change

Myth or Reality?

13

Democracy

Energy

VS Stability of

7

Energising

8Our World

FORUM OF EYP TURKEY

2CONTENTS4 PANACEA OR PANDEMONIUM? 6 BECAUSE THERE ISNT A PLANET B 7 DEMOCRACY VS STABILITY OF ENERGY 8 ENERGISING OUR WORLD 11 IMMINENT DESTRUCTION 12 CLIMATE CHANGE:MYTH OR REALITY 13 RESEARCH DEEMED POINTLESS 14 THE SI-LENCE PREVAILS 16 MACHIAVELLI ON NU-CLEAR ENERGY 17 DONT CROSS THE LINE

4PANACEA OR PANDEMONIUM?

8ENERGISING OUR WORLD

14THE SILENCE PREVAILS

17DONT CROSS THE LINE

3This is not journalism. Were not here to do the news; were not here to make the world better. The Jam is here to challenge and inspire you at the 8th Internation-al Istanbul Youth Forum.

The purpose of EYP press teams is often said to be creating the atmosphere of sessions and con-serving that atmosphere for long winter nights on Facebook. In our opinion, the pressroom has other functions, which relate closely to the existence of the EYP as a means of personal development. That development, be it social, intellectual, spiritual is achieved by challenging your deep-rooted

opinions and mindsets through discussion and debate.

We believe the key to a wider world lies in a balanced combi-nation of openness and critical thinking. Critical thinking is some-thing that doesnt come naturally. Its only developed through con-scious practice as well as desire for a deeper understanding of the world around you.

You may now congratulate your-self for reading this particular editorial, for the following pages contain strong personal opin-ions on your committee topics. The sole purpose of the writers

is to affect the way you think to mould your attitudes about these matters of grave impor-tance. Thus, the articles in this is-sue of The Jam can only be dealt with careful criticism we have reached our purpose if you are disturbed and annoyed by how easily we believe we can change your mindsets.

With these words we encourage you to turn the next page and to take a couple of steps on the road of conscious practice.

This is not the truth

With love, Jan, Alex, Hammu

Edito

rial

4TeamEditorial Board:

Jan Bubienczyk

Alex Proctor

Hammu Varjonen

Journalists:

Gizem Okumus

Onur Can Ucarer

Furkan Kavuncu

Krystyna Kotthaus

Tom Wagenhammer

Yagmur Ugur

Josephine Dattareya

Peyman Khaljani

Juan Camposeco

Tamer zgen

5Welcome to Istanbul!

6his is a quote from spokesman for the Marcellus shale coali-tion in Pennsylvania. Is fracking the magic cure to the oil and

gas demands or are we setting our en-vironment and even our lives at risk?

The hydraulic fracturing technology has been around for more than 60 years and has now exploded into a worldwide controversy. The process involves drilling horizontally to the shale reservoirs about one mile below the surface. A mixture of water, sand and chemicals is then pumped down with great speed and pressure, caus-ing the shale to fracture and release the oil and natural gasses trapped in pockets between the rocks. This oil and gas is pumped back up, taking between 15 and 50 per cent of the chemicals with it, thus still leaving a relevant amount in the ground.

At first, this technology was used on unoccupied plots of land. Then, the gas industry paid local landowners, such as farmers, to use their plots for building fracking pad sights. The lure of a new and efficient domestic energy source and the promise of new jobs seemed too powerful a combina-tion to oppose. After decades of ex-tracting natural gas and oil by frack-

panacea or pandemonium?

Gas extracted from fracking is a panacea for America, offering a fuel that is both cleaner and a more secure

choice than relying on foreign energy supplies.

TK

ryst

yn

a K

.

7ing, the locals now have to deal with the dramatic effects it has had on their lives. Fracking wells have proven a danger, as there have been multiple reports of the steel pipes cracking and leaking gas and oil into the ground water. Imagine turning on your tap for a glass of water and seeing a thick layer of oil swimming on the surface of your drink. Internet videos even show people setting the water coming out of their kitchen tap on fire.

What the lobbyists and shiny ad campaigns for shale gas ex-traction are also not telling the public, is that the fracking liquid includes carcinogenic chemi-cals, such as radium 226 which is linked to bone, liver and breast cancers, as well as development and nervous system disorders. Once the toxic chemicals con-taminate the water it is impossi-ble to reverse. We may pay lower oil prices but at the high cost of our health and environment.

One point I feel somewhat sceptical about is that the Eu-ropean Union has voted on two resolutions accepting hydraulic

fracturing in Europe. One of the regulations is that companies have to declare the chemicals used in the fracking process. There is, however, no mention of a body monitoring these proce-dures or what the consequences would be should companies fail to do so. How exactly would disclosing the toxic chemicals used, prevent them from possibly seeping through the steel pipes and contaminating our drinking water? People need to stop be-ing blinded by a plentiful supply of cheap fuel and more employ-ment and start thinking of long-term effects. Surely cheap fuel will not help us when were lying in hospital.

8hen looking at the current situation concerning global warming and short-

age of energy sources I couldnt agree more with Mr. Bowlin. The time has come for Europe and the world to make radical chang-es on how we use and generate energy. Concerning the use of en-ergy, its a fact that we cant keep up the speed of consumption that we have nowadays. Second, the way we generate energy; the EU Member States should follow Germany and its Energiewende to substitute nuclear for green energy. We shouldnt rely upon sources that create garbage with risks we cant oversee. Vari-ous human and nature disasters have shown us the horrors of the consequences of nuclear waste. Instead we should create our own energy and be independent from fossil fuels.

Furthermore we should make renewable energy sources (RES) cheaper by using the taxes from non-RES for funding and subsi-dies. Governments keep increas-ing the road taxes and other ex-penses on CO2-emitting vehicles, but that is not going to stop the problem we have and it is only putting the costs on citizens. When we invest more money in the development of RES, it will grow in share of the energy mar-ket. And in the best case it could possibly lead to more provid-ers of green energy joining the market and thereby create more

competition with lower prices for better use of energy as a result. This is necessary and beneficial because people are innovative, for example the research on the use of algae for oil production.Besides, the EU isnt called a Union for nothing. Countries with a high level of RES should help the countries with a low level so they can start up the market and grow by themselves in the fu-ture. In addition to this situation every country should use their own green-strengths e.g. Spain by using solar panels and the Netherlands by using wind- and watermills.

I specifically only name green RES methods because I cant fun-damentally agree on the innova-tive biofuels, made of seeds and grains that have the quality to make oil from them. Though for these seeds and grains we need fields and space. Space we also need for food. Its a controversial clinch between the rich (in favour of producing these grains for en-ergy purposes) and the poor (in need of food in hunger) I believe that we as strong, developed Europe should guard and care for the people that cant fend for themselves when they are in need.

Awaiting the future we should act as a union and come into action without fossil oils so we wont be left behind in the progression of the world. Lets keep trying and look for the plan B on energy.

Because there isnt a planet BJosephine D.

W

9ussia is a democratic state. Almost, that is: Russian government is constantly rigging

elections, violating human rights and censoring and re-pressing any dissenting move-ments. The case of Pussy Riot, a Russian all-female punk band which played a show in a church and whose members were arrested for their anti-Putin and democracy promot-ing songs, is just one example for this.Usually, the EU should at no cost tolerate nor support human rights violations like this. In this case, however, the EU is facing a dilemma: on one hand, they ought follow their own democratic guide-lines which prohibit any kind of human rights violations; on the other hand, they are dependent on Russian energy supplies such as oil, uranium, and coal. If they want to keep a consistent democratic line they might risking the col-lapse of the EUs energy sup-ply.So how should our strong-hold of democracy tackle this issue?

My opinion is that the EU should not let itself be over-powered by Russian depend-ency. Other ways to upkeep

European energy supplies exist, first and foremost green energy, which is, unfortunate-ly, still confronted by a slow growth of necessary technol-ogy.

Nevertheless, there are ways how the EU can foster and accelerate this process: 1) investing more into green en-ergy research; 2) promoting peoples awareness of these problems; 3) giving incentives to make energy engineering professions more attractive.

Research is probably the most effective solution in combating collapsing energy supplies by accelerating the implementation of new tech-nologies and thereby giving green energy a greater share of the EU energy cake.

Another way is improving awareness of these issues and making people think about where their energy comes from and what price we, as democratic citizens, pay for our universal access to en-ergy. Bigger transnational campaigns and smaller local projects could work together to achieve this.On a quite similar level, the EU could also put more effort into making careers in the

energy industry more attrac-tive to young Europeans. More easily accessible high-quality study programs and incen-tives and tax reductions for trainees in non-academic energy jobs could smooth out the path to a more independ-ent energy supply.

Ultimately, but most improb-ably, Norway becoming an EU member could also be a major step to independence in energy supplies. As it is one of the major energy export powers after Russia, it could (at least partially) solve the problem. I did not include it in the above list, however, since Norway is still opposed to be-coming a member of the EU, which makes this a utopian solution.To sum it all up, the EU should stop relying too much on almost-democratic energy suppliers like Russia since indirect support of human rights violations is still sup-port. I listed possible ways how this could be done but, needless to say, it is not in my power to do that. Still, every EU citizen should be aware of this problem and always par-ticipate actively in improving society.

Democracy Versus Stability of Energy

Tom

W.

R

10

EnergisingOur World

11

While recognising that according to the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative a quarter of the world popu-

lation still live in the dark

ach and every sec-ond of our lives is led by the force of energy. Not just our

bodies energies, but espe-cially the energy illustrated in mobile phones, bulbs, laptops, heating and many other things, which rule our everyday life. In our devel-oped world, energy be-came the matter of course par excellence from which nobody worries the exist-ence and the exact origin. On the opposite, according to the International En-ergy Agency (IEA), in 2010, 1,265 billion people living in developing countries in Africa and Asia did not have access to electric-ity. While both developing countries and the European Union show dependen-cies towards each other, it becomes more and more important to connect these two extremes and realise tangibility to energy for the laggards, from which also the European Union will profit in the future.

This high usage of energy within the European Un-ion requires many sources which, altogether, form the energy mix. Although nowadays many Europeans refuse nuclear energy as highly dangerous and en-vironmentally unfriendly, it still provides 22.6 per cent of the German electricity in order to keep costs at limits. The oil crisis in 1973 signalised that Europe is highly dependent on the

access to energy through oil providers, such as Russia and the Middle East. Dur-ing this time Europe had to notice high restrictions in its everyday consumption, for example no use of cars on Sundays, heating re-strictions and many others. While these supply stops could occur anytime again, the European Union should highly minimise its usage of nuclear energy and in that changing process make sure that the energy costs will not become too high.

While recognising that according to the Sustain-able Energy for All Initiative (SG4All) presented in 2011, a quarter of the world pop-ulation still live in the dark, it emphasises enormous backwardness in the ener-gy development of the third world countries. Missing energy has fatal outcomes for the populations of these developing countries. Through desperately using alternative energy sources, such as firing biomass in closed rooms, the illiterate population runs the gaunt-let. A basic education for the less developed coun-tries (LDCs) is essential, in order to achieve a general knowledge about the func-tions of energy, through the European Union.

Eventually, the European Union has to except its eco-nomic dependence on the LDCs, both in the importing and in the exporting sector.

The EU should highly con-centrate itself on especially two industries, the energy and, with the energy, the medical industry. Most of the LDCs have yet unex-plored potentials of provid-ing themselves with energy. Especially the solar energy would be very productive in the sunny regions of Asia and Africa, but also biomass and wind energy would highly flourish. Although the European Union itself is highly developed in pro-ducing solar cells and wind engines, it should equip LDCs, having regard that in the future the Union would economically profit from the sustainable growth of these countries.

Finally the EU should es-pecially invest in the en-ergy access in the medical industry. It is essential, that every hospital or doctors offices have access to elec-tricity. Officially, accord-ing to the UNESCO, every year 3.5 million people die in hospital because of the missing access to elec-tricity. Especially this is a reason why we all should feel responsible and do our best to provide the quar-ter, dark, part of the world more and more with energy and sustainability.

E

Peyman K.

12

13

imminentdestructiion

he way we take advantage of our planet nowadays is too much for it

to handle. People produce more, consume more and pollute more. Self-control mechanisms of our planet are not enough to deal with the peoples consumptions and pollutions any more. Thankfully, the EU has been planning how it will con-trol the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere.

The main plan of the EU to deal with big amounts of carbon emission is the Emissions Trading System (ETS). The aims of the ETS is to reduce the production of man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) and to prevent car-bon leakage.The functioning of the ETS is simple. The fac-tories or power plants, which produce GHG, have a limit for the amount of emissions they are allowed to produce. These places must monitor and report their carbon di-oxide emissions to show that they do not exceed their allowance limits. If they do, these companies must pur-chase more allowances from other companies. Here is an example to make it clear; company A produces ten tons of carbon dioxide each month but they are allowed to produce a maximum of

nine tons. There is also a company B, which produces six tons of emission while they are allowed to produce seven tons. If the Company A wants to continue exceed-ing their limit by one ton, they need to buy one ton of emission allowance from the Company B.

With this system, authori-ties can control the general carbon dioxide cap easily. There are also other ways of exceeding the limits, such as using their saved allowances from previous years or buy-ing credits from certain ap-proved emission-saving pro-jects around the world. Such choices makes this system flexible, thus the companies can choose the most effec-tive ways for themselves.

However, the approach of many people to this subject is hesitant. Some believe that the EU is already pre-cautious enough on environ-ment protection, some think that the costs of the low car-bon emission machines are so high that the ETS would be more expensive.

Another criticism is that the amount of emissions is al-ready lowering in which case such precautions are not necessary. Carbon emissions have been reduced in the last years, but it is because

of the economic crisis and thus numbers should not deceive the public. Once the European countries get over the economic crisis, once they gain their purchas-ing power back, the carbon emissions will continue to increase again.

I believe that for the pur-pose of saving our future, the ETS should and must be implanted in our economic system. I also believe that it should be taken even further. It is extremely important expand the control of the ETS by allowing tighter limits to the amount of emissions allowed and more impor-tantly, the extension of the ETS to other countries in the world. The world does not only consist of Europe and the biggest amounts of car-bon emission is produced by countries like the USA and China, which have not even signed the Kyoto protocol. They have their own policies but none match the high standards of the ETS. The EU should start spreading the ETS to other countries in or-der to fight the high amount of carbon emissions.The future of our world is in our hands and we need to be more careful with it than we have been in the last century.

Can Earth handle our living? Should we be concerned about it or is this just a dellusion

that globalisation brought upon us.

T

On

ur

U.

14

CLIMATE CHANGE,MYTH OR REALITY

Do we really do enough to combat climate change? In order to take whole-hearted action, a consesus should be made on

whether or not climate change is a global threat

ur generation has grown up with the idea that climate change will ruin the Earth. If we

try to remember the beginning of this century we will realise that the people were more anxious about the disasters that may occur, or about their future. But right now, we are getting used to this idea and also the harmful effects that climate change will have on us. Whilst we are try-ing to live with those effects in our everyday life, authorities put a lot of effort into handling the greatest problem of our era.

We have to admit that during the last twenty years we have been convinced that we are doing our best to fight against climate change; we are setting challenging targets and trying to implement those targets im-mediately. We believed the lies that we have been told. However, it has been proved that we are able to do more, and we should. As W. Clement Stone once said: we should aim for the moon. If we miss, we may hit a star.

There are a lot of myths about

climate change and unfortu-nately most of the people think that those myths are reality. For example, it is believed that the EUs 20 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020 is both an ambitious and challenging target the industry is working hard to achieve. On the contrary, the 20/20/20 targets set by the EU in 2007, are slow-ing down the efforts to reduce the emissions, they dont put the EU on track to reach the objec-tives mentioned in Roadmap 2050. Another example is the myth about the cost of low-car-bon energy: It is said that cli-mate action constrains economic growth, and the economic crisis has reduced the EUs capacity to act. These words keep ringing in our ears so loud that we ignored the fact that the economic crisis created an opportunity to speed up the transition to a low-carbon economy. In fact, it is the right time for the transition since the renewable energy sources are becoming cheaper thanks to growing investments.

Even though the situation seems extremely difficult to manage, we

should admit that some efficient steps are in fact taken in order to fight against climate change. At this point, the first thing that should be taken into account is Power Perspectives 2030. If fully implemented, Power Perspectives 2030 constitute an adequate first step to decarbonisation, but that the transition needs to accelerate towards 2030 in order to remain on track to the 2050 CO2 abatement goal for the power sector. Second, linking the Australian and the EU carbon markets should be welcomed as a first step to establish a global carbon market. But the last and the most important thing is the potential of young and innova-tive people finding concrete and sustainable solutions to climate change.

Last but not least, we should be aware of the fact that we are running out of time to change the situation. From now on what we need is not promises but some real action. And it is obvi-ous that young people are the only ones who can overcome this problem with their fresh ideas.

O

Giz

em

O.

15

Research Deemed pointless

The people need energy now and they dont have money which di-rects them to the usage of unsustainable energy resources, mostly

carbon. It creates the most controversial question for us: Less Money

fter 1980, a new concept called Global Warming appeared in the news-papers. Although it was

known that one day the earth was going to take its revenge from the humankind, nobody was expecting for it to come so early. After this shocking news, the governments decided to follow a more environmentally friendly path in order to apologise from the Mother Nature and extend their lifetimes. The sustainable energy sources like solar energy and wind power were started being developed together with the unsustainable ones like nu-clear and carbon energy. Even though some of the EU countries installed sustainable plants in the mainland, the high building cost, no benefit in short term and the weather conditions caused the governments to front to the unsustainable ones which provid-ed a short term solution for the energy need of the states.

Nonetheless, the world doesnt have endless resources too. Though it seems that our planet has enough raw materials for one hundred years more, we have to bear in mind that the

end is going to come eventually. I believe that is the reason for the most developed countries of Eu-rope to quit the usage of unsus-tainable resources one by one. Germany shut down all nuclear plants and fronted to the solar energy even it was one of the countries that see the sunlight least in a year. Unlike Germany, Ex-President of France Nicolas Sarkozy whose country produces its 70 per cent of energy from the nuclear plants, clearly stated there is no way that they could quit using nuclear. This is the point where the financial issues come into action. I think the main reason behind the former French Presidents comment is that he is aware of the fact of Europe being threatened by a monstrous crisis.In my opinion, the most vital is-sue for our committee to take into consideration is that we have to know the point where money and development are combined with each other, which is exactly here.

To convert nuclear energy to sustainable energy costs more than any country can afford in short term yet. In my opinion the short term shouldnt be the

solution that the governments look for when it comes to the development of energy re-sources. Because in short term, the earth is going to use most of its raw materials needed for the unsustainable ones whether the countries have a good economy or not. However, the people need energy now and they dont have money which directs them to the usage of unsustainable energy resources, mostly carbon. It cre-ates the most controversial ques-tion for us: Less Money and More damage or More Money and Less Damage?

To conclude, I would say so as to solve the further problems that the EU states can face in the future; the governments have to save as much money as they can for the researches on energy. The economic crisis shouldnt be a barrier in front of them to do so even though the money is so crucial for them. If we keep car-ing about the money and let the energy resources to propagate on its own in these conditions, we are going to have lots to regret when the time comes for our children to ask whats happened to Mother Nature.

A

Tam

er

.

16

he possibility of solar energy produced from the bright sunlight that shines upon the North

African deserts satisfying the energy needs of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, is too good to be true. The idea seems obvious being such a simple solution. Yet, such big a dream is not so easy to realise. The project has been hanging about for over three years. The situation is better understood from the words of Steven Teske, the director of renew-able energy at Greenpeace: Everybody is staring at each other and nobody moves. In this deadly, sometimes embar-rassing silence, everybody is praising the project. And then silence again.

There are many drawbacks in participating in the project. With only a few exceptions it can be said that most of these drawbacks are related to fund-ing. Since high-voltage lines between Morocco and Europe will need to be built, the pro-ject overall requires a budget of more than 400 billion. For a Europe that is still recovering from the recent economic cri-sis, fossil fuel energy is a much more affordable option. This draws us to the point made by a German parliamentarian, Michael Kauch: The rarest re-source in Europe is money; its even rarer than energy or rare earth minerals.

Spain, one of the countries that have been affected by the crisis the most, has refused to sign the deal to connect the

high-voltage lines due to the very same reason. It is also a fact that a continent so recent-ly out of crisis wants energy security and importing most of their energy from a politically unstable region raises doubt.

Europe being so ambivalent makes things even more com-plicated in North Africa. The region is still unstable after the Arab Spring. The govern-ments are dealing with groups that continuously demand higher living standards. That is why most governments have promised allocating more of the budget to social welfare. Though the solar energy pro-ject seems like it would have a major effect in the improve-ment of living standards in the long term, it still needs big investments. At this point

In a world where rapidly growing societies grow only to suffer from lack of energy solar power is a

candle lit in the dark

The

Silence

Prevails

TYa

gm

ur

U.

17

governments seem to prefer to make investments to projects that would pay off in a shorter term. In order to make up for the money they put in the pro-ject, North Africa would need to export 90 per cent of the energy produced to countries that are not willing to import much. Thus, the distrust be-tween the regions is inevitable.

As previously mentioned, the project is being praised. Most governments praise saying that it is a win-win partnership. However, local communities in North Africa view it as rather a win-lose one. The solar plants would need a great amount land and tons of water to func-tion, all supplied by the local communities which are al-ready dry.

All of these and many other setbacks for establishing the project show that perhaps it is not the right time or the right way to initiate it. There are two roads that can be taken. Either, the world waits for the right time to establish the project with metrics which may need to be revised and expanded after all the years of contribution to global warming or, the metrics and the means of the project are revised in terms of energy production and distribution, administrative framework, project size and locations, in order for them to serve the needs of local com-munities and both continents.

18

hernobyl, Fukushima or the nu-clear reactor thats 200 kilometres away from your house, what do the previously mentioned three have

in common? They were all built by mankind with the main objective of supplying us with one of our most basic needs electricity. The concept of a world without electricity is unimaginable today, to the point where it wouldnt be very mistaken to say that over the years weve become an electrocentric society. Despite that, we cant forget that one of our biggest challenges as Europeans is the one of satisfying our own needs while providing our descendants with a future in which they can still satisfy their needs as well. Having this in mind, is it then fair to say, that our current means are in harmony with our long term ends?

In a continent in which up to a little more than 50 per cent of its states energy sup-ply comes from nuclear energy, we have to accept that nuclear power is something that were still not ready to let go. By the way things roll, it also wouldnt be mistaken to say that unless things change drasti-cally or technology comes up with a fea-sible solution, well never be able to let go our nuclear addiction. A clear example of this is the case of France, which serves its energetic demands with up to 77 per cent coming from its 58 different nuclear power plants. We also have to remark the fact that France has the lowest CO2 emission rates

per capita in the world, as well as seventh cheapest electricity prices out of the 27 Member States. Does this mean that nuclear power is only Bruce Banner and not the big horrible green radioactive monster that its sometimes painted as? Well, not exactly.

The real controversy with nuclear energy comes from the experiences that weve had in the past. Two years ago Fukushima suf-fered a nuclear disaster only comparable to the one occurred in Chernobyl back in 1986. The first example ended up costing Japan approximately between 87,000 million and 166,000 million, 80,000 Japanese people having to leave their homes and ecological damages that will take decades or centuries to fix. This proves that even though nuclear power might seem a good alternative to fossil fuels, the dangers that it entails are far too big for us to ignore them. Yes, it solves our problem, but with a risk that once again enters in conflict with our sustainable devel-opment objective.

When Niccolo Machiavelli came up with the famous the end justifies the means, he was probably not thinking about the current energetic dilemma that Europe is facing today. Nevertheless, its our responsibility to look for new alternatives that prevent us from facing the same dramatic consequenc-es that weve lived through in the past. Is it then possible that in a future ends and means finally coexist together in harmony?

Machiavelli on nuclear energy

Ju

an

A.

C

19

ime is running out as we are running out of energy. The demand for a new energy infra-

structure is growing immense-ly day by day in Europe. After the oil crisis of 1973 and 1979, European energy policy has taken another path in order to reduce the EUs energy dependency on the other countries. However, today the growing energy dependency, more secured energy supplies and increasing level of energy consumption are remaining as the most popular headline themes that were used to seeing in European newspa-pers.

The EU has already taken some steps by setting the 20/20/20 targets set to reduce carbon dioxide emis-sions yet, while the efficiency of those projects are being discussed in so many ways the main question is this: Do European people have the energy in themselves to contribute to such long-term survival plan for Europe? The answer of the question will

lead us to tell how far could or should the EU go on public participation.

The consumer is playing a crucial role in energy efficien-cy as it was stressed out at the very first point of Rio Dec-laration on Environment and Development of 1992. The first principle says: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmo-ny with nature. In this con-text, evaluating the tension in the streets will provide solid, permanent solutions for the next ten years in which the level of dependency on gas will reach 8090 per cent and the level of energy consump-tion will increase one per cent per year. In this sombre scenario, discussion, adapta-tion and implementation will be needed quickly.

Fortunately, researches show us that the view isnt all that depressing and people arent that uncommitted to the challenges. A majority of EU

citizens believe that Europe is the best level for determin-ing energy challenges. Be-sides, European citizens do not prioritise the role of local authorities in energy policy, as only eight per cent con-sider it to be at an appropri-ate level of decision making which leaves a question mark in minds.

At the country level, greatest support for a European en-ergy policy is found in Cyprus, Greece and Italy, which is curious because these are the countries who have suffered most, in some degree, from the economic struggles in last years.

As seeking new technolo-gies and forms of energy is a developing area, the analysis of the effects of it represents also a young field. It may therefore require a lot of changes in legal, economical, technological or social as-pects to create a better future gained by clean and secure energy supply for the Euro-pean citizen.

To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. Barrack Obama

Furk

an

K.

T

Dont Cross the Line

20