haguen-dazs: the issue

The Issue

CONTENTS:

HAGUEN-DAZS: Journalists:Alyona Vyshnevska (UA), Elsa Lund (DE), Erik Müürsepp (EE), George Ross (UK), Oliver Stenbom (SE), Rucsandra Pintea (RO), Siebe Geerts (BE), Yannick Louwerse (NL), Yiannos Vakis (CY), Zuzanna Gil (PL)

Video Editor:Matteo van Dijl (BE)

Editors:Beth Thayne (UK)Tom Wagenhammer (DE)

Editorial 3Why Wouldn’t Obama Tap Merkel? 4Zwarte Piet - Token of Racism? 6Building Blocks for an Energy-clever Europe 8Join the Club! 10Twerking for Energy 11Archaic or Adequate: On British Rail 12A Climate Coalition for Colossal Change 14Roșia Montană: A modern-day Gold Rush or the black hole of mining projects? 16Bottled Up Tolerance 18No Limits? 20Watt About the Price Tag? 22Grow Your Own Money 24My Place or Yours? 26Why Be Afraid? 28Are We Too Young? 29

Haguen-Dazs - Issue Two3

EDITORIALDear participants,

We’ve been in The Hague since Saturday, and it was absolutely delightful to have you join us yesterday. We hope your travels were as relaxed as possible and that you got enough rest last night after The Welcome Party. We had an incredible night, so a huge thanks to the organisers for putting on a fantastic party.

Special mentions go to Karim for his wonderful performance of “Let’s Have a Kiki” and the astonishing pole dancing skills from a certain Belgian delegate. We’re so proud that all of you have already taken the session theme, “Young Energy for Europe” on board, and we hope that you use the next few days to utilise a dif-ferent kind of energy – your mental energy.

Put all your efforts into the rest of teambuilding and Committee Work and we’re sure that you will get exceptional results by the end of the session.

We wish you the best of luck!

Beth & Tom

4Haguen-Dazs - Issue Two

WHY WOULDN’T OBAMA TAP

MERKEL? Is it not funny how easy it is to

relate international relations to the level of maturity found in chil-dren playing? Two children are playing ‘Battleships’. B5? Miss. C6? Miss. One of them secretly knows the other child’s positions, as a friend is sitting 50 meters behind him with a telescopic lens and radio, constantly updating his mate on current Battleship positions. Wait, that’s not how it’s meant to be played? That’s cheating! Funnily enough this ap-peared to be the case when Der Spiegel revealed that President Barack Obama had allegedly personally approved of tapping German chancellor Angela Mer-kel’s phone calls from the Ameri-can embassy in Berlin. What I ask myself, however, is why there was such a public outcry when spying is nowadays rather com-monplace? If you were in the same position as Obama, why would you not tap Ms Merkel?

After it was revealed that Presi-dent Obama had knowledge of Chancellor Merkel’s phone tap-ping, the main reason that the

media and the public reacted so strongly was the immorality of supposed friends spying on each other. That it was happening right under their noses in Berlin shows that, according to the public, Obama should have immediately rejected such a proposal for the reason that the act of spying on a friend is immoral and wrong, as a relationship as important as that of the one between two countries should be built on trust. However, it is quite hard to find a place where there is more spy-ing in a relationship than that of international relations, so why hide it?

If we instead look at the real-istic outcomes of this whole situ-ation from the standpoint of the US government, we can see that on one hand we have people and governments having a lesser opinion of the US because of the tapping, but on the other we can see years of successful relations between the US and Germany which may very well be the way they are because Obama had certain information beforehand. Perhaps the increase in this type of information eased relations, allowed trade and other agree-ments to be more beneficial for the American people and there-fore Obama’s tapping of Merkel may ensured better relations in years passed and that they would have continued in this way, had they not been found out, which


turned out to be the only real negative aspect of this. Relations may be damaged now because of this scandal and may never return completely to where they once were, but when any leader makes a decision such as this, all options must be considered and it appears that for Mr Obama, the benefits of spying outweighed the great deal of damage that could have and has been caused by this being unearthed.

If Obama made the decision of tapping Merkel’s calls, it may

be seen as an immoral one when considering the two children cheating in Battleships and the seeming immaturity of it all, but when we realise the real out-comes of this and that America may very well be better off be-cause of it, wouldn’t you have done the same?

Text: Oliver Stenbom


ZWARTE PIET - TOKEN OF RACISM?

The UN announcement to inves-tigate the allegedly racist charac-ter Zwarte Piet has caused huge uproar in the Netherlands recent-

ly. Dutch Sinterklaas’ black serv-ant has been a topic of controver-sy for years, but now things have gotten serious. To foreigners, the topic is quite confusing. Where did Zwarte Piet come from? It is obvious why people might be of-fended by his existence as it re-minds them of a history of slav-ery and racism. So then, what are the reasons people want to keep him? To find the answer, let


us now dive into a lesson on Dutch culture and tradition.

So, what does Zwarte Piet mean to Dutch people? To un-derstand this, we must look into the legend of Sinterklaas, who the rest of the world call Santa Claus. The Dutch celebrate his birthday on the fifth of Decem-ber, pretending that Sinterk-laas gives their kids presents in celebration of this. The first drawing of a black Piet dates a couple hundred years back at a time when racism was found acceptable. He is black, wears an afro wig, and speaks and acts in a childish, dumb man-ner. He also gives kids presents and originally (not anymore) threatened to punish their bad behaviour. It is easy to see how this can be seen as racist, and archaic too. But then, why are Dutch people so reluctant to give up on him?

The reason for people to try to hold on to Piet is probably twofold: They are not racist, and they love him. People love him because from the moment they were born until they were about eight years old, indeed a very sensitive time in one’s life, Piet gave them presents and candy. This makes them love him in the way people will always love their stuffed bear, as at this young age, the con-

nection that is created between Piet and receiving presents is a very strong one, lasting for the rest of your life.

The other reason is perhaps less obvious. Most people state they think it’s rubbish that Piet is a racist concept. I personally think the underlying reason for this is that they don’t want an institution to say that the tra-dition is racist, because they think that that would confirm their own racism. People don’t like to be called a racist. To il-lustrate how many people want to keep Piet, an online petition was signed by more than two million people. Note that these people are probably not them-selves racist, rather they want to keep a tradition they love without any racist intentions behind it.

In a nutshell, this is the case we’re faced with: A minority are offended by a tradition of millions. On top of this, the millions don’t want to suffer a blow to their childhood or the righteous image they have of themselves, making the Piet-problem an incredibly difficult one to deal with.

Text: Yannick Louwerse


BUILDING-BLOCKS FOR AN ENERGY-CLEVER

EUROPEWhat image first came to mind

when you read the title “Sustain-able Energy Week”? Are you picturing a clichéd awareness-raising campaign? Are you ask-ing yourselves to what extent could such an event be relevant to the current European context? For the moment, please drop any preconceptions you might have and embrace this innovative con-cept.

Under the motto “One small step from you, one giant leap for Europe”, the EU Sustainable En-ergy Week took place from the 24th - 28th June, 2013. This ambi-tious project was initiated by the European Commission in 2006 and has been an opportunity for

both entertainment and showcas-ing various activities committed to energy efficiency ever since.

Not only does this project pro-mote a healthy and efficient use of resources, but it contributes to implementing various strate-gies designed to set a good ex-ample and spread the best and most efficient practices. It might seem a bit Utopian, but the suc-cess achieved by previously rec-ommended schemes speaks for itself. From “EnergizAIR” and “Remember When?” Campaigns, both submitted in 2012, to “Let’s Live Warmer” and “Car-Sharing Bremen”, in 2013, all winning projects were a starting point for major stakeholders from the cor-porate and public sectors, as well as significantly contributors to achieving the Europe 2020 strat-egy for smart and sustainable growth. Divided into several cat-egories, the propounded plans managed to cover various fields, such as energy savings (consum-ing), educational programmes


(learning), energy-smart build-ings (living) and clean mobility schemes (travelling).

Overall, this initiative provides a vivid example of what public action is about and which meth-ods we should adopt in order to achieve an efficient energy use Europe-wide. A hands-on approach, “young” yet striving ideas and strong project propos-als are just a fraction of what this programme aims to bring about for a resourceful Europe. I can

only hope it will be taken to the actual working phase and that, since this is a call for involvement, people all over Europe engage themselves into fostering an en-ergy-clever future. As the motto affirms, it indeed requires “one small step” from the community to execute the “giant leap” that Europe needs for surpassing the current resource crisis.

Text: Rucsandra Pintea


JOIN THE CLUB!Sounds very promising, doesn’t

it? But where do we find young energy? And how do we even search for it? What actually rep-resents “Young Energy”?

The first thing that comes to my mind when considering this concept is the EYP itself: we are young, energetic and European. Nevertheless, another article at-tempting to justify the EYP as one of the most valuable initiatives for the future of Europe has the potential to bore you, therefore I’ll shift my perspective to an-other source of bright minds and promising ideas.

In the modern world, as we possess more opportunities than any of our ancestors ever before, bright minds tend to cooperate, rather than compete, in order to gather their ideas and work side-by-side. When people succeed to do so, they gain not only interest-ing opinions but also an opportu-nity to develop, question, argue as well as broaden their ideas. As far as I am concerned, student associations and organisations are truly an outstanding example of how to motivate young peo-ple to think, create, support and believe in their thoughts. It is the driving force for many.

For instance, when “The Young Biologists’ Club” of the Univer-

sity of Warsaw led by a friend of mine invited all the students to join them in a big international project carried out together with Red Cross, it fascinated me how valuable youth led organisations could be. On a personal level, every participant expands their own knowledge, experience and the ability to work in a team.

By and large, student organi-sations are led by inspired and motivated youngsters who cre-ate an environment for their fel-low students to develop their academic, scientific, artistic and social skills. Perhaps most impor-tantly they get students actually interested in what they are do-ing. When such dry, mundane theory lectures of first-year po-litical science could be combined with “Debating Club”, “Associa-tion of young neo-realists” or a “Machiavelli followers club” it could truly make a difference in both academic achievements and social engagement. After all, when one is excited, like we all are about this session, the eager-ness to make the best of it peaks.

Text: Alyona Vyshnevska


TWERKING FOR ENERGY

Have you ever stepped out of a club late at night, dripping with sweat from a wonderful night danced away on the dance floor? Have you ever thought about all those calories you burn after hours of dancing throughout the night? Well, imagine if the all those drops of sweat evaporated and litres of beer burned while Gangnam Style was on repeat, could be used to drive a car or charge your phone.

This was the aim of Club Watt in Rotterdam when they decided to install technology of the future in their club – The Energy Floor, which gathers vibrations caused by your epic moves and turns them into pure electricity which is then used to power the clubs light show.

This “piezoelectric” technology is also being looked into by the U.S army who plan on using it in soldier’s boots in order to charge radios and other equipment. The

technology, surprisingly, isn’t cheap though as Club Watt had to dish out $257,000 for their 270-square-foot floor, an invest-ment they will most probably nev-er regain, however it is another small step forward for the future of renewable energy.

When considering the theme “Young Energy for Europe”, The Energy Floor sprang to my mind not because of its break-through significance to the future of Europe, nor the opportunity to write about an interesting tech-nology, but for what the Energy Floor represents in correlation to the theme. It is a young, innova-tive, new energy source for the future of Europe. It is a new and creative idea for the next genera-tion of Europe. Put simply: it is the dance moves put in by tomor-row’s youth of europe to create the macarena of ideas for the fu-ture of a long lasting and sustain-able EU.

Text: Oliver Stenbom


ARCHAIC OR ADEQUATE: ON

BRITISH RAILTransport within the European

Union is one of the key features keeping our continent function-ing on a daily basis. Many of you have travelled hundreds of kilometres to get to this session departing from Austria, Switzer-land or Cyprus to name just a few. However, preferred modes of transport have varied drasti-cally ranging from 12 hour coach trips to 1 hour flights. Of course, many of you joined over 3.5 bil-lion other train passengers trav-elling within the Schengen Zone each year. One could easily be led to believe European rail standards are, for the most part, consistent due to the importance of this infrastructural keystone. The opposite is in fact true.

The disparity of high-speed rail lines throughout Europe is clear. France first adopted high speed rail links decades ago when LGV Sud-Est travelled its maiden voy-age from Paris to Lyon. Converse-ly, the United Kingdom has yet to adequately upgrade its archaic Victorian rail network with only one specifically designed high speed rail link, HS1, which spans just over 100km. Plans are only recently coming into fruition for

High Speed Two (HS2) projected to open to passengers in 2033 running from London to Manches-ter with potential plans to see the line extended as far as Glasgow.

However, the proposal is quite controversial in the UK due the lack of detail the public has been afforded with much of the policy being discussed behind closed doors coupled with the passing of a ‘vote for a unlimited blank cheque to spend on high speed rail’ in parliament. There are many advocates of a ‘no cam-paign’ protesting the construc-tion of this rail link. Stop HS2, a national grassroots campaign, claim ‘HS2 will increase carbon emissions, but the Government say the project is carbon neutral.’

This opposition is even despite rail travel often being economi-cally and environmentally more viable than other means of trans-portation. A train from Paris to Rome for example would cost around €40 less and have a se-verely reduced carbon footprint compared to the same journey in a small car. Go-HS2, the cam-paign in support of the project, claim the service would boost ‘the West Midlands’ economy by £4 billion per annum’ and deliver thousands of jobs to the area as well as a host of other benefits.

Whilst this fierce debate has been raging in the UK, the Neth-erlands continues to utilise its


vast network which, proportional to the country’s size, is far more expansive that Britain’s. Despite being a country roughly six times smaller than the United Kingdom its high-speed rail track is more expansive.

The crux of this issue is whether the UK should endeavour to keep up with its European neighbours

and make substantial improve-ments to its out-dated railway system, raising its standard to that of much of Europe or wheth-er the cost of these developments are simply too great?

Text: George Ross


A CLIMATE COALITION

FOR COLOSSAL CHANGE

A frequent plea of environmen-tal activists is for us to consider the kind of world we are leaving behind for our children. Well, for a lot of the target audience, their children are already old enough to be a part of the most envi-

ronmentally conscious and pas-sionate generation who really can tackle problems like climate change.

In the UK many of these young people have banded together and formed the UK Youth Cli-mate Coalition, a non-profit or-ganisation that aims to mobi-lise youngsters to fight climate change through the creation of more green jobs, increasing cov-erage of the topics in schools and achieving real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The activities are coordinated by a


team of volunteers and the Coali-tion boasts a membership of over 2,500 individuals, plus partner organisations like Friends of the Earth.

These guys are very much aware that change can be brought about on both a local and global scale and the organisation places em-phasis on both through their ini-tiatives. The Local Catalysts pro-gramme that they run encourages young people to take a leading role in their local communities to tackle climate change by running projects like guerrilla gardening to revitalise abandoned public land. But members also get to have a taste of climate politics at the highest level, as the Coalition sends delegations to the annual United Nations Climate Change Conferences. The opportunity to see the progress, or lack of it, in negotiating binding agreements for emission targets should mo-tivate the delegates to be even

more active in lobbying the politi-cians and seeking grassroots ac-tion.

In one of this year’s great achievements, one Coalition member succeeded in overturn-ing a controversial proposal to remove climate change from the geography curriculum for under 14s. Her petition on change.org gained more than 31 000 signa-tures and forced the government to reconsider their position. Just like all of us here at The Hague 2013, this organisation has de-cided to capitalise on their en-thusiasm and energy to come up with solutions that fly in the face of convention. Political coalitions may want to learn a thing or two from the way young people are handling matters.

Text: Erik Müürsepp


ROȘIA MONTANĂ:

A MODERN-DAY GOLD RUSH OR THE BLACK HOLE

OF MINING PROJECTS?

The Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta caused controversy this summer by passing a law intended to regulate mineral ex-ploitation, with regards to the Roșia Montană mining project. The government has been dis-cussing this issue for a while and,

in spite of the multiple protests that have been taking place in the over the past few months, the bill was secretly introduced in the general agenda. However, there have been multiple debates over the past few weeks and a follow-ing vote in both chambers of the Parliament is expected.

You might be asking yourselves what is this project? What is it about? And why was it so heavily covered by both Romanian and international media? The Roșia Montană Mining Project was ini-tiated in 1996 when a company called Roșia Montană Gold Cor-poration (RMGC) signed a con-tract with the Romanian state. Over the past years it has been continuously discussed, but only now has it attracted more atten-tion, since it aims to become the


largest open-pit gold mine. In clearer terms, the project entails demolishing four mountains, cre-ating four 8 kilometre-deep min-ing pits covering 205 hectares and digging a reservoir, filled with 214 million tons of cyanide. Specialists trust this would have a massive environmental impact on the surrounding areas, as cy-anide is known to be -although cheap and efficient - one of the most toxic substances.

Another question I considered while writing this article: how does this affect me, as an aver-age EU citizen? This has indeed a greater impact for the Roma-nian community, but in time, the destructive outcome of this pro-ject might affect other European countries. The international me-dia has covered this phenome-non from a different angle. One point which has been raised is whether this project would be as dangerous for the environment as presented. The European Un-ion has strict regulations regard-ing cyanide usage, and since the concentration will be attentively controlled, this plan would actu-ally have a beneficial, cleansing effect on the environment. Al-though an interesting theory, it has proven to be inaccurate. Not only would the cyanide destroy all ecosystems in surrounding areas but by contaminating the water it will affect many neigh-bouring countries. There are nu-

merous rivers crossing Romanian territory and flowing either into the Black Sea, affecting Bulgar-ia, Ukraine and Turkey, or into Western countries, such as Hun-gary.

The decisive argument in favour of this plan is the substantial rev-enues Romania would have from proceeding with this project. Adding an optimistic note to it, it has been estimated that the total income would be $7.5 billion. It seems a considerable profit, out of which 25% will be granted to the Romanian states as contribu-tion and 6% in royalties. Moreo-ver, this specific mining project would create hundreds of jobs, which in the current unemploy-ment situation, seems like it can only positive solution. So one might think the whole picture is not that bad, considering the significant financial benefits Ro-mania would come by. But then the questions remain: is all that money a good enough reason to risk triggering a natural catastro-phe? And should this issue even be discussed anymore? It’s clear that the Roșia Montană mine is an ecological time bomb about to explode, and by the time this happens, it will concern not only the Romanian population but the entirety of Europe’s environment.

Text: Rucsandra Pintea


BOTTLED UP TOLERANCE

Russia has a lot riding on the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games, with the entire world’s gaze on the country. Even though the nation, with President Putin at its helm, has taken strides forward it has taken a backwards view when it

comes to rights of LGBT individu-als. Laws passed this year crimi-nalise discussion of any LGBT-issues creating an environment of fear for the minority groups. Gay rights activists are now put-ting pressure on the major spon-sors of the Olympics to speak out against the legislation, an approach which may or may not yield results.


Over 350,000 signatures have been gathered for an online peti-tion directed at Coca-Cola, one of Sochi’s biggest sponsors, to issue an official statement con-demning Russia’s legislation. In combination with protests outside the corporation’s Atlanta head-quarters this has forced the long-time Olympic partner to post-pone making a definite decision on the issue. The activists hope that a harsh condemnation by Coke, a company priding itself on its non-discrimination policies, would result in other big spon-sors following suit.

With less than 100 days to go until the start of the games, LGBT groups have run out of most other options. The past year has seen suggestions to move the events to a previous host city and for boycotts by national delegations, both of which have been too un-realistic to yield results. By this point, a strong opposing stance by a corporation more rich and powerful than some of the par-ticipating countries would be the best outcome. A rainbow flag on each bottle of Coke sold during the games would be a slap in the face for anyone supporting the discriminatory laws.

On the other hand, sponsors such as Coca-Cola or Samsung might not lose much in terms of revenue if they don’t give in to the demands. The Beijing Summer

Games in 2008 were surround-ed by controversies over human rights in China, particularly re-garding Tibet. This did not lead to a worse market performance for the sponsors criticised for be-ing affiliated. However, one must remember that social media was not nearly as strong of a pres-ence in 2008 as it is now, and many of the current sponsorship battles are being fought on Face-book and Twitter.

Companies that have given their money and logos to Sochi 2014 find themselves in a far trickier position than they originally ex-pected. The frantic push by ac-tivists means they are the final battleground for the pre-games controversies. CEOs now need to weigh up if they care more about their human rights record and potential brand damage or maintaining good relations with the Kremlin. The outcome of the choice on sales figures is as hard to predict as the podium posi-tions for the cross-country skiing.

Text: Erik Müürsepp


NO LIMITS?When Kevin Carter’s photo

won the World Press Photo in 1993, it drew enormous atten-tion not only to the situation that it was concerning, but the mere act of portraying it. The photo-graph depicts a child on a verge of death, with a vulture watch-ing it from a distance. From that,

questions whether journalism has - or should have - any ethical boundaries have been raised. However, it remains one of the few professions that is excused and usually forgiven for what is normally considered shadowy.

If Carter had decided against pushing the shutter, he probably could have saved the child’s life. Or could he? Was it his responsi-bility? Many argue that the role


of the journalist is to be the in-visible observer that is to report the events as they are happening without any third-party interfer-ing.

But since journalism is the me-dium of enabling the flow of in-formation to a greater audience, journalists look - or rather inter-vene - for scoop material with whatever means possible. That firstly means breaking the shell of secrecy that has been grown in the heart of a society demand-ing clearness and openness, es-pecially among investigative me-dia. While it generally serves the public purpose, it usually exercis-es methods of spying, undercover journalism and anonymous sourc-es with the excuse of it acting on behalf of ‘the greater good’, with any of these methods being acceptable under normal circum-stances that none of us would like to be exposed to. But the hoaxes covered up for a reason have the prospect of being discovered by means less sneaky - to make the industry or politics more trans-parent to an extent.

Nevertheless, with constant push for more recent and thriv-ing information, the principles of accuracy or fairness could be violated, especially with the de-velopment of 24/7 television and internet journals. With almost im-mediate publication, both the via-bility and quality tend to decline,

especially among free-lance jour-nalists or less renowned publish-ers that still have an impact on readers.

Another reality-distorting fea-ture that comes as an extra in publishing is bias; almost impos-sible to avoid. If managed well, it remains a good platform for ide-as to collide and lure the reader into a mental activity: do I agree with the opinion presented? How -ever, examples such as Fox News stand as the best example of an information source that claims to be “a politically independ-ent” channel, while sticking to a very subjective version of current events.

Every writer has to ask them-selves if their work gives them the authority to bend what is con-sidered appropriate. With more freedom to inquire and have a wider impact on the public, they are charged with a greater re-sponsibility. Every reader has to read critically through their work, keeping in mind that it still is a product of another fallible human being. With more free-dom to investigate and have a wider impact on the public, they are faced with a difficult duty - both when it boils down to hon-esty, but also to uncovering the scandalous.

Text: Zuzanna Gil


WATT ABOUT THE PRICE TAG?The price tag of coal and nucle-

ar powered energy on June 16th in Germany: - €100 per mega-watt per hour. Yes, that is indeed a negative sign - as electricity from renewable resources surged during a breezy sunny summer day, non-renewable generating companies were forced to pay grid managers to run their elec-tricity. Promotion of renewable resources is a prevalent theme in EYP resolutions, and it is bound to surface commonly at this Interna-tional Forum. However in order for the European energy market to accommodate for those lovely green megawatts it must change – and fast.

Nonrenewable electricity ca-pacity constitutes a large propor-tion of electricity production in the EU, close to 50% in Germa-ny and 35% in Italy and Spain. However, actual output is in fact much lower at most times of the day and it varies significantly de-pending on weather conditions. This means that there is a con-stantly varying gap that must be covered by non-renewable sourc-es. Renewable electricity has “grid priority” and at the same time non-renewable production is virtually unstoppable as turning down coal and nuclear power

plants designed to work at full blast takes several days or weeks. This renders nonrenewable out-put inflexible and inefficient. The result: grid managers – buyers of electricity from generator compa-nies - are faced with the Hercu-lean task of striking the balance between over and under supply of electricity.

Increasing costs are borne both by companies as well as the government. The market capitali-sation of European utilities has fallen by an average of €100 billion per year in the past five years whilst simultaneously sub-sidies for renewable energy are currently running at a sizzling €60 billion per year and increas-ing – ironically enough installa-tion costs for renewable sources are at an all time low, with solar PV installation costing a third of what it was in 2007. In a capital-ist market – which is what the Eu-ropean energy market has devel-oped into over the last 30 years - producing nonrenewable elec-tricity under these circumstances makes no economic sense. Nei-ther does increasingly subsidis-ing a resource whose cost is con-stantly decreasing.

A potential solution to increase the responsiveness of non-renew-able generators at certain times of the day is to increase gas-powered generators, which can be turned on and off instantly


(the fact that they are a low car-bon emission source is a superb added benefit). Furthermore the E.U. must find ways to shift the large amounts of soon-to-be-lost capital and jobs from the nonre-newable to the renewable market efficiently.

During a session themed “Young energy for Europe”, we must not

sidestep the current state of the European energy market and its multiple pressing challenges. We may aspire for more renewable energy but do we really want it at this price tag?

Text: Yiannos Vakis


GROW YOUR OWN MONEYAs the world rapidly chang-

es and urbanisation constantly increases, urban poverty and food insecurity keep striking new heights. It is expected that by 2020 almost all countries in the world will be populated up to 75% with city-inhabitants. Tak-ing into account today’s unem-ployment rates, most of those cities will struggle to cope with such development as well as fail to provide enough employment

opportunities. Moreover, it will negatively impact the disposal systems of urban wastes.

Considering the problems men-tioned above, urban farming pro-vides a rational solution for them as well as enhances urban envi-ronmental management in gen-eral. The concept is fairly simple: it emphasises the role of a partic-ular city and urban residents as labourers with the efficient use of typical urban resources.

What it means for all of us, is food security and organic prod-ucts at an affordable price, re-duced due to the irrelevance of


the costs for supplying and dis-tributing food from rural areas to the urban, not to mention that those costs are rising continuous-ly. At the same time, urban farm-ing provides an adequate, reli-able and regular access to food, to the quality food, to be precise.

There is also an economic ad-vantage of growing your own food. People with low income normally spend a vast amount of money on food, therefore grow-ing relatively profitable veg-etables saves money as well as brings in cash from selling them. On the other hand, enterprises could be established and there-fore, new jobs would be created in areas of processing, packag-ing and marketing.

Furthermore, urban agriculture is a great way to make the cit-ies greener and cleaner. Farm-

ers usually use up the space that was vacant beforehand and turn it into productive green spaces, eliminating potential misuse and trashing empty territories.

To sum up, urban farming gives us an opportunity to build a com-munity that meets the ambitious goals of enhancing public health, nutrition, regional economies, the environment and society as a whole. It may seem unusual for the year 2013, although I strong-ly believe with the rising number of urban population, it is one of the most efficient ways to reduce the level of poverty, unemploy-ment, food insecurity and help solving the environmental issues.

Text: Alyona Vyshnevska


MY PLACE OR YOURS?

Roughly two months ago I re-ceived my letter of acceptance to my preferred university. I was thrilled and excited to finally start this new chapter of my life with new people, new challenges and a totally new environment. This meant that I would move out of my parents’ house and into my own four walls. At that time I would never have anticipated that I would be rejected from the student residence halls and there-fore would face a nerve-racking apartment search. Sadly I was not given the choice, but when it comes to choosing a place to live, many people are faced with the tough choice between a stu-dent hall or private flat, and it is often difficult to determine which is best.

As more and more students enter universities every year the need for affordable student ac-commodation is more urgent than ever. In Germany this has led to an extreme rise in rent and long waiting lists for the student halls, so that roughly two-thirds of all students end up living in private flats and lodgings. The lack of affordable housing has gone so far that in some cities students are forced to live in improvised accommodations. These range

from fitness studios to churches, where up to 30 students live until they are able to find their own place to live. It is a known fact that Germany does not have enough rooms in student halls and they can only accommodate a small percentage of students. Therefore students are forced to live in private flats and these are usually more expensive than the student halls. Since the demand for apartments is so high initially the rent in some larger university cities such as Freiburg or Frank-furt went up about 20% in the last five years. Besides paying a bit more and facing the possibil-ity of an anxious apartment hunt, there are of course advantages of living in a private flat. One is granted with privacy as one does not have to share the kitchen or bathroom with people one can-not initially choose.

While students in Germany, Finland or Norway primarily live in private flats, many other Eu-ropean countries clearly use the provision of student halls. Stu-dent residence halls provide dis-count accommodation away from home and the rent is often below market level as they are usually supported by the government or other organisations. Furthermore student halls are beneficial to the integration and orientation of students new to the town and university as these students get the chance to live with many dif-


ferent people from various every age groups and backgrounds, many of whom are in a similar situation to them. Many student halls also organise activities and parties in order to counterpart the academic side of studying.

It seems clear that the avail-ability and cost for student hous-ing varies from country to coun-try and the question remains how is this possible? Are the govern-ments held responsible for not providing the cities with enough money for the creation of new stu-dent halls or are universities re-sponsible for the provision of ac-commodation for their students. The state my university is located in will stop supporting the local organisation responsible for the student halls, which is then left to support itself. In my eyes the government should play a ma-

jor role when it comes to provid-ing the students with acceptable and affordable accommodation. The government should keep the financial situation of students in mind who usually cannot afford a private flat for an unreason-able price.

Of course money and availabil-ity also play a role when it comes to choosing a place to stay, but initially it is based on everyone’s personal preferences whether they prefer the privacy of a flat or the less expensive and more social alternative. And if you are still wondering what happened to me: After six weeks of search-ing, I finally found a lovely apart-ment.

Text: Elsa Lund


WHY BE AFRAID?

Fear is all around us. Everyone has something that makes the cold sweat burst out of their skin. Some avoid heights and others would never watch ‘shark attack’, that’s nothing to be ashamed of. But in the last few years tradi-tional anxieties have started to develop into less common ones. Fear of death changed to fear for bankruptcy and animals made room for foreigners. The old hor-rors are still there, but they are hidden somewhere beneath the surface.

A question you might ask your-self is why this is happening? Of course, there is no perfect an-swer to this question. However in my opinion, the media play a key role in this process. Seeing Muslim terrorists murdering in-nocent civilians on the news day after day can quickly evolve into Islamophobia, one of the big is-sues that the EU is dealing with at the moment.

But is this really the case? Is watching the news actually caus-ing one of Europe’s chief wor-ries? Well, if you only hear about Muslim terrorists or riots in the Middle East, it’s not that surpris-ing that people start worrying. It’s almost as if media channels

have nothing else to offer than the negative side of society. And those negative sides are exactly the reason why fears like Islamo-phobia are still in existence.

However, Islamophobia isn’t the only problem. Xenophobia in general is giving the EU a serious headache. People have devel-oped prejudice and are having reservations about people of dif-ferent nationalities or religions. Which is only getting worse due to the images the media are cir-culating day after day. Picture the news as a magnifyding glass. Everything caught in its lens ap-pears larger than it actually is. Therefore a minor conflict can quickly seem to be a national threat.

Luckily most people react in a normal way when seeing the news. Yet it is still difficult not to develop a certain point of view after repeatedly having seen im-ages that show the same stance, because soon you will start taking that point of view for the truth.

Sadly, the truth isn’t always to be found on television, or on the news in particular. And even though fear is a natural thing, often it’s based on nothing but prejudices and is therefore un-necessary. At the moment we are stuck in a vicious circle of fear and hate. It’s time to get out of it and to start moving forwards.Text: Siebe Geerts


ARE WE TOO YOUNG?

In 2007 Jeff Lakusta, a first year law student at Leeds Uni-versity in the UK, took a trip to South Africa which germi-nated in a great change in his life and eventually cultivated improvement in the lives of many others.

Soon after returning from Africa, Lakusta founded an organisation called “Eyes on Africa” and has since organ-ised multiple volunteer trips to South Africa and Namibia, given more than £100,000 to support AIDS affected children and their caregivers, brought clean water to communities in North Namibia, funded the expansion of a pre-school and donated a mobile HIV testing unit, increasing AIDS testing in that community by 700%. In fact, he started this fund from something we are very famil-iar with - Facebook. Lakusta attained the first substantial donation from a Facebook competition in which his char-ity raked in likes.

In a recent speech, Lakusta said that what inspired him to take action wasn’t seeing dis-

eases that could be prevented by clean water and sugar rav-aging entire communities nor seeing that £5 a week could allow someone to survive. Lakusta saw young people at the age of 14 and 15 being responsible for the welfare of youngers, bottle-feeding them and doing other such tasks that seem near impossible for people at the same age in Eu-rope.

Perhaps it takes such sights to make us realise that for us to move forward, to progress, or even to manage to survive, we must stop waiting for that how-to-do-everything manual to arrive at the mailbox and rather go out and pursue change ourselves, to face the imminent challenges straight in the eye and give them our best shots. And, to me, that is the very definition of young energy. It is realising that we are not too young to make a change, and rather that we are too young to sit here and do nothing about it.

Text: Yiannos Vakis

Main Partner

Partner s

Sponso r

Pr int P ar tner

The Hague 2013 - 2nd International Forum of EYP The Netherlandsis supported by:

haguen-dazs: the issue

Documents