Worldlog Settimana 23 – 2012

Questa settimana la Camera è stata impegnata con l'accordo di Kunduz dei tre partiti che hanno offerto supporto alla presente coalizione per avere del potere nel governo. Noi riteniamo che l'accordo di Kunduz non sia nient'altro che il vecchio accordo del Catshuis con un piccolo tocco verde. Sembra bello parlare di tagli e cambiamenti, ma ovviamente si parla più che altro di aggravare ulteriormente il costo della vita. Nel posto sbagliato, senza scopo e senza sufficiente motivazioni.

Ad esempio è stato instaurato una tassa per il treno. Nei Paesi Bassi la gente che va avanti e dietro dalla casa al lavoro può detrarre questi costi dalle tasse tramite il datore di lavoro. Ora si pensa di cominciare a tassare questi costi per il viaggio; la gente che viaggia in treno viene colpita molto. Nei Paesi Bassi la gente che viaggia in treno da anni si è fatta trasportare come delle pecore in carrozze strapiene. La gente ha sempre accettato gli enesimi avvisi di ritardo. Ma hanno continuato a viaggiare in treno poiché pensavano di fare la cosa giusta, accettando nel frattempo degli inconvenienti. Ora devono pagare per il loro comportamento buono. La coalizione Kunduz dice che allora la gente deve andare a vivere più vicino al lavoro. Questa idea è completamente irreale in quanto il mercato dell'immobiliare nei Paesi Bassi è completamente fermo. Ho quindi proposto una mozione chiedendo al governo di abolire questa iniziativa di una tassa per il treno. Martedì il 5 giugno si voterà sull'argomento.

Last week the Lower House held its accountability debate. This debate, held each year in the third week of May, covers cabinet policy for the past year. But because the Rutte cabinet fell, this debate did not cover Rutte's policy, but rather the cuts announced by the Kunduz Accord. The debate was also overshadowed by all the developments in Europe, including the ESM Treaty (read more about the Kunduz Accord and the ESM Treaty in my previous WorldLog).

Below is a short extract from my contribution:
This debate is happening at a time where increasing numbers of people feel like they did when the Euro was to be introduced. No one is sure of anything anymore. That trust you had in your bank, your money, your employment, your mortgage, your future: that trust is on shaky ground. People are no longer sure that combining the political agendas of seventeen different countries will push growth and prosperity to unprecedented heights, despite all the beautiful promises. We need to be highly aware of the fact that citizen's trust in their leaders has sunk to a crashing low. We need to introduce extensive changes to regain that trust.

We often say here that we must not push the bill on to our children, but that is what is happening on a large scale, and it happened last year too. We use six times more foreign soil than we have ourselves, only to satisfy our enormous hunger for money, more luxury and more short-term pleasure. Look at it this way: We're first in line at the buffet, and we’re piling four plates high with food, knowing the people behind us will die of starvation. All this while we're saying to each other in the Accountability debate: we shouldn't pass the bill on to our children. How realistic is this attitude? We are behaving quite literally in an antisocial manner and are trying to hide that behind pretty words. We are not taking the actions needed to radically change course and make our planet habitable for future generations.

Finally, I ask everyone who is criticising the existing system: but what is it you want? We need to realise that the fairytale of unbridled global economic growth is at an end. We cannot realise more growth than the earth can sustain. We need to turn back and invest more intelligently in sustainability and green technology. The negative effects of what we do need to be factored in. Polluters must pay. The positive side of what we can do, such as organic agriculture and re-use, need stimulating now more than ever. We need to bring a direct end to subsidising activities that damage the environment. The negative effects of certain production methods, such as greenhouse gas emissions, species death, slash-and-burn agriculture and raw material wastage, should be fined. It is the producer and ultimately the consumer that should pay this price. This crisis should be a turning point.

The Sahel region in Africa (Burkina Faso and Chad) need more help. Thanks to a persistent drought, they have an increasing shortage of food. Click here to see why they need help: it is a moving photographic report on hunger in the Sahel.

The Financial Times has created a handy ‘decision tree’ that covers what it would mean for Greece to step out of the Euro zone. Look at the Financial Times website for their Chart of the Day: The Grexit Decision Tree.

One more interesting article: Bill Gates on why eating plants is good for the world!

See you next week, Marianne