EUOBSERVER / WEEKLY AGENDA (5 – 12 October) – This week will start with a meeting of the EU’s economy and finance ministers (ECOFIN) in Luxembourg on the need for a European response to the international financial crisis, just a day after the bloc’s four biggest states - Germany, France, Britain and Italy – hold emergency talks on the subject in Paris.

The ECOFIN meeting on Tuesday (7 October) is expected to highlight the need for co-operation and cohesion among EU states on the issue, as well as the necessity of constructing a “structural response” to the crisis, rather than taking ad hoc actions.

The ministers will also underline the need to respect the so-called Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) – the rules underpinning the euro, following comments coming from some EU capitals that tackling the crisis should take priority over keeping budget deficits in line with EU rules.

“[The SGP rules] are temporarily not the priority of priorities. The priority is to save the global banking system and the savings of citizens. There is no other choice,” Henri Guaino, a close adviser of French President Nicolas Sarkozy told French television channel Canal Plus on Thursday.

The meeting – which will be preceded on Monday by a meeting of the economy and finance ministers from EU countries using the euro – will also assess the impact of the crisis on banks and insurance companies, as well as on small and medium-sized enterprises.

===============

France believes EU-level measures may have to be cobbled together to aid banks in smaller member states, while denying rumours of a €300 billion package. But Germany has indicated it would not support any European “big-bang” deal.

“What happens if a smaller EU state is hit by a looming bank collapse? Maybe this country does not have the means to save the bank,” French finance minister Christine Lagarde told the Handelsblatt in an interview published on Thursday (2 October). “Therefore the question of a European safety net solution comes up.”

The safety package may be presented by French President Nicholas Sarkozy at a 4 October meeting between himself, the prime ministers of Germany, Italy and the UK, as well as Eurogroup chief Jean-Claude Juncker and European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet.

Reports have it that the Netherlands is the source of the €300 billion proposal. The country quickly denied this was the case.

But any suggestion of a European version of US treasury secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bail-out plan for Wall Street is being stiffly resisted by Berlin. In an interview with German daily Bild, Chancellor Angela Merkel said she opposed writing “blank cheques” for banks.

“The idea of applying one solution, one big bang … is not practicable and would create new, enormous problems,” German finance ministry spokesperson Torsten Albig told reporters yesterday in Berlin. “Germany does not think much of such a plan,” he said, according to AFP.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso on Thursday welcomed the approval of the package by the American Senate, which had enabled another attempt to hammer out the bill in the House of Representatives and described it as “a good step forward in the right direction.”

But after receiving negative signals from both Berlin and London on the idea of a similar emergency fund worth €300 billion for Europe’s banking sector, French president Nicolas Sarkozy distanced himself from the proposal.

A day later Sarkozy said: “I deny the sum and the principle,” according to media reports. And from Christine Lagarde’s office:  “there was an exchange of ideas but no French proposals. There was no French plan,” AFP says.

Asked by journalists about a possible EU version of the US banking rescue scheme on Thursday, the European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet - also to attend the Paris mini-summit together with commission chief Barroso - openly said it would not work for Europe. “We do not have a federal budget, so the idea that we could do the same as what is done on the other side of the Atlantic doesn’t fit with the political structure of Europe.”

Britain has suggested that solutions to the financial crisis need to be primarily sought by national authorities. “It is right that individual countries would want to take their own decisions, particularly when national taxpayers’ money is potentially at risk,” said spokesman of Gordon Brown, UK’s prime minister: “The purpose of the [Paris] meeting will be to discuss how each of the four major economies in Europe are responding to the global financial crisis,” he added, according to the BBC.

The Irish parliament on Thursday passed a bill fully guaranteeing all bank deposits, which has sparked a controversy in other European capitals about unfair advantage for Irish banks over foreign competitors.

British media reported a rising interest among Brits to switch from the UK’s to Ireland’s banks in a bid to secure their savings in a rising atmosphere of insecurity. Minister Lagarde said in a BBC live interview that better European co-ordination could prevent such cases, arguing that “a measure decided in one [EU] member state has to be shared in advance with other member states.”

EU competition spokesman Jonathan Todd said his department still hadn’t received any formal explanation from Ireland about how its bank insurance programme would work, meaning it was still uncertain whether or not the EU will even clear the Irish move as legal.

The Guardian says that Greece has followed Ireland in offering a guarantee on deposits in all banks operating in the country, after it says savers were getting restless. The paper goes on to say that it puts EU leaders in a difficult position ahead of an emergency summit in Paris on Saturday to find a common response to the crisis.

Meanwhile, Deutsche Welle says that on Thursday the European commission gave the go-ahead to Germany for a €35bn deal to bail out mortgage lender Hypo Real Estate.

And El País says that the EU is struggling to come up with a common response to the financial crisis, with individual member states taking unilateral action to save their own banks: the UK (Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock), France and Belgium (Dexia), and Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (Fortis).

****
France and Germany at odds over EU ‘Paulson Plan’ - 02.10.2008

—————————————————————————-
France believes EU-level measures may have to be cobbled together to aid
banks in smaller member states, while denying rumours of a €300 billion
package. But Germany has indicated it would not support any European
“big-bang” deal.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26851/?rk=1

****
EU big four gather for financial crisis talks - 03.10.2008

—————————————————————————-
The leaders of the EU’s four biggest states - Germany, France, Britain and
Italy - are gathering for emergency talks on the financial crisis in Paris
on Saturday, one day after US lawmakers are expected to vote on an amended
bail-out plan. But France says there will be no US-type rescue package for
the EU.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26857/?rk=1

Why doesn’t Greece like carbon capture?
LEIGH PHILLIPS, The EUobserver, September 23, 2008.

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - If Europe is to get serious on climate change, we have no choice but to embrace a controversial series of carbon emission mitigation technologies known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS.

Its proponents say without the technology, coal with continue to produce some 60 percent of Europe’s energy needs and all its carbon emissions will continue to enter the atmosphere.

Greece has worries about carbon capture technology similar to those of environmental groups.

***
However, within the Council of Ministers, Greece is one of the technologies biggest opponents, arguing that there are other environmental considerations.

The Balkan country’s concerns have been dismissed as worries about losing competitive advantage to other member states as they are most likely unable to deploy CCS due to earthquakes in the region.

But Greece’s concerns go much further.

The EUobserver recently sat down with Kyriakos Psychas, the Greek mission to the EU’s counselor on the environment to understand his country’s objections.

***

Not against CCS:

“It would not be true to say that we are against CCS,” inists the Greek diplomat, “or that we don’t want to see it developed. In the fight against climate change, we need every weapon available to us.

“But we have to be careful not to let these weapons backfire on us, our children or our children’s children,” he says, arguing that the burial of carbon has to be forever, and so future generations come into play.

He says that when the European Council first made a decision on CCS, it was to develop the technology in an environmentally safe way. “And this has been an on-going concern that we continue to raise. In order to be sustainable, it has to be environmentally friendly and safe.”

“We believe we’re going very, very fast with the wide deployment of this novel technology,” he warns. “The parliament is also in a hurry to implement this basically untested technology.”

“What about the precautionary principle?” he asks. “Environmentally safe application needs time and patience.

“In five years’ time, if there is a big accident, that would be the end of CCS … These people who are rushing this through, without ensuring safety and environmental safeguards, may actually harm what we want to achieve with CCS.”

***

Oil recovery:

“Why this rush? Is it the desire to fight climate change? Perhaps. Is it based on commercial strategies? Perhaps that is also true. Perhaps it is a combination of both,” he says, referring to the interests of oil firms in the technology.

The petrol giants such as Shell and BP are hoping to use a CCS-related process called “enhanced oil recovery” to inject CO2 into geological formations to achieve greater oil recovery.

CCS boosters say that this is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged, as the sale of recovered oil brings online supplementary revenue streams that can thus lower the overall cost of the process.

“All our experience [with CCS] so far has focussed on enhanced oil recovery by petrol companies,” he points out. “But the injection experience is not the same as a storage experience, it is different.”

And here, Mr Psychas points to worries both he and environmental groups have over the corrosive effects on storage sites, and the potential for leakage.

***

Acidic brine in our aquifers:

“If the carbon leaks, how are we going to trap it? How we are going to monitor a leakage if it’s small and far away from the storage site?

The Greek diplomat argues that in order to ensure that there is no potential leakage, implementation first requires at least two years’ worth of measurement of background data that can then be compared to monitoring data during operation of a storage site. Mr Psychas says that thus part of their main efforts in discussions on CCS is ensuring reliability of any monitoring systems.

“We should be very sure we can trust the data, so we need to be very strict with the whole monitoring scheme. We need concise standards and procedures, and a verification and validation process.” He also insists this be done by an independent body.

“Additionally CO2 is not like petrol, it can dissolve minerals. This has already been established by some North American studies. By dissolving the minerals, it can

create escape paths, and since it’s buoyant, it can also get into aquifers.”

Researchers performing a 2006 United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment on CCS in Texas found that in their location, buried CO2 dissolved large amounts of the surrounding minerals that were supposed to keep it locked away forever.

The CO2 reacted with salty water in the geological formation turning it as acidic as vinegar. The acidified brine then dissolved other minerals, including metals such as iron and manganese, and large amounts of carbonate materials. Carbonate are often used in the cement used to contain the CO2. If these are dissolved, the CO2 could leak into the atmosphere or the acidic brine into drinking water.

***

Freshwater use:

The diplomat is also concerned about problems that are specific to Greece and other Mediterranean countries.

“Carbon capture requires the use of 90 percent more freshwater than ordinary power stations. That might especially be a problem for areas in southern Europe.”

He also admits that earthquakes are indeed a concern.

“In an earthquake zone such as the south-east Mediterranean, the seismic activity of storing carbon dioxide underground might trigger earthquakes.

“So even if in the end CCS is shown to work, it might still leave some at a competitive disadvantage. We will have developed a technological tool that some countries will not be able to use due to earthquakes.”

Ultimately, like some environmental groups, he is worried that the very expensive process of developing CCS will result in monies being diverted from renewable energies, and allow the coal industry to carry on regardless.

“Of course we have to fight climate change fast, but in doing so, we might just end up burying our problems and not really facing them.

“Everyone is talking about reduction of CO2. This is not reduction – it’s removal.

“It’s like sweeping things under the rug. It’s out of sight and everything looks clean. But we all know the dangers of tripping over the lump. We cannot afford to create a situation that will cause future generations to fall over.”

——————-

Carbon capture in Europe can begin to make money by 2030, report says.

LEIGH PHILLIPS, The EUobserver, September 23, 2008.

A controversial and experimental technology that hopes to scrub coal-fired power production of its carbon emissions and store them underground could indeed be an affordable tool in the European Union’s toolbox of alternative energy systems that aim to fix our climate problems, according to a new report.

Carbon captured from coal plants and stored underground will become economically viable by 2030, according to a new report.

The technology - “carbon capture and storage” or CCS - is the main mechanism for improving the environmental impact of coal plants within a panoply of technologies that are often promoted as ‘clean coal’ by such politicians as George Bush and the coal industry.

The technology - which is actually three different technologies that are still very much under development, the most effective of which is yet to be established - involves ‘capturing’ the carbon from the burning of coal and ’storing’ this CO2 somewhere - perhaps in an exhausted oil field, deep underground or underwater - forever - so that the carbon does not enter the atmosphere.

Apart from environmental considerations, the main obstacle to its uptake is that CCS costs two or three times what conventional coal plants do, and so thus far, power companies have balked at developing the technology.

However, according to a new report from the business management consultancy McKinsey, the technology should be “economically viable” for the private sector by 2030, and so until then, it is essential that the public purse gets the ball rolling by subsidising 10 to 12 demonstration plants to be up and running by 2015.

Until 2030, the technology would add an extra €60 to €90 per tonne of carbon released to the cost of producing coal-powered energy, making the whole idea far too expensive.

But as the cost of buying carbon pollution permits rises under the EU’s emissions trading schemes, by 2030, CCS would cost only an extra €30 to €40 per tonne of CO2, a much more affordable figure, according to a range of calculations from Deutsche Bank, UBS and other institutions.

This figure could drop still further if the technology was adopted by coal plants everywhere around the world, say the McKinsey analysts.

***

Demonstration projects need funding soon:

However, if Europe does not get moving with funding such demonstration projects fairly soon, and if the first commercial projects do not start until well after the demonstration phase, “CCS could struggle to reach large scale in 2030″, says the report - and by then, it will be too late. Europe needs to make massive reductions in its carbon emissions now.

Energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs hailed the report for helping “to push the technology forward”.

His comments are unsurprising, as the European Commission strongly backs the development of CCS, and as part of its package on climate and energy unveiled in January, it proposed a regulatory framework that would enable monies from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to support CCS development.

With CCS currently under discussion in the European Parliament, Chris Davies, the British MEP responsible for steering the dossier through the parliament, has suggested that €10 billion from the ETS be set aside to finance demonstration projects.

Last March, European leaders also committed themselves to having 10 to 12 demonstration plants online by 2015.

However, despite this pledge, divisions on the technology within the council are substantial.

The UK and the Netherlands are strong backers, as carbon storage can also be used as a mechanism for pumping out extra oil from a dying oil field, something which the two countries believe can extend the life of their North Sea oil industries.

Before the recent change of government, Italy had strong oppositions, but the new Berlusconi administration has rallied behind the idea.

Germany meanwhile is wavering, while Greece is the most outspoken opponent, echoing the environmental criticisms of such groups as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and is afraid that because the country lies in an earthquake zone, it will not be able to deploy the technology anywhere in its territory and will be frozen out of any benefits from emissions reductions, meaning they will have to be made elsewhere in its economy.

***

No such thing as clean coal:

Most environmental groups are steadfastly opposed, saying there is no such thing as clean coal and worry that the manoeuvre will allow the coal industry to stay in business while genuine renewable sources of energy such as wind, geothermal and solar power are sidelined.

A number of diplomats also ask why a particular technology should be benefiting from subsidies, and not renewables.

Green groups say that in any case 2030 is not soon enough to deliver the emissions savings Europe needs to make.

“The report only proves that CCS cannot be delivered within the right time frame. Climate change scientists such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say emissions must peak before 2015,” said a campaigner with Greenpeace, Joris Den Blanken.

“It’s just too late. Better to start right away with investing in energy efficiency and technologies that are already proven such as renewables.”

They are also concerned that CCS wastes energy, with the technology itself requiring 10 to 40 percent of the energy produced by a power station.

Environmentalists also fear that storing carbon underground is not safe or permanent, and argue that the technology is incredibly water-intensive, adding extra pressure on the already limited water resources of southern EU member states.

Ecologists are not however of one mind on the subject.

Norwegian environmental group Bellona argues that whatever the demerits of CCS, governments must be realistic and recognise that if Europe does not take the lead in developing the technology, other jurisdictions, notably China, are moving ahead with building dozens of new coal plants that without CCS technology strapped on will wipe out all the other efforts of Western governments and industry at reducing carbon emissions.

The Worldwide Fund for Animals, or WWF, also feels that CCS is a necessary evil.

Mr Davies’ proposal is to be voted on by the parliament’s environment committee on 7 October.

To read an interview with the environment attache for Greece’s mission to the EU on his country’s opposition to the technology, please read this companion article.

Libya says Mediterranean Union will divide Africa: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi - the only one who was invited to the launching of the Mediterranean Union, but declined to attend - he prefers to see Arab dominance in Africa - not North Africa as part of a European Alliance.

RENATA GOLDIROVA for the EUobserver, August 5, 2008.

Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi has reaffirmed his critical stance towards the Union for the Mediterranean - the brainchild of French President Nicolas Sarkozy - saying it will divide the 53-nation African Union.

“We have good relations with European countries, with the European Union, but I do not accept integration into the Union for the Mediterranean,” Colonel Gaddafi said on Monday,   July 4, 2008, AFP reports.

Libya’s head of state - once isolated by the West - added he did not agree with “cutting up Africa for hypothetical prospects with Europe” referring to a possible split between north African countries and the rest of the African Union.

Muammar Gaddafi was the only leader who refused to attend the launch of the Mediterranean union in Paris in July.

Mr Sarkozy’s plan brings together 43 states - the 27-member EU as well as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Monaco and Mauritania.

The aim is to boost ties between the EU and its southern neighbours. At the moment, it is focussed on six specific projects, including the cleaning up of Mediterranean pollution, the development of maritime and land highways and the setting up of a joint civil protection programme on prevention and response to disasters.

But Muammar Gaddafi, who came to power in 1969 and has become the Arab world’s longest serving leader, has labelled the participation of African countries in the Mediterranean project a “violation” of resolutions by the African Union.

In addition, he has accused the EU of wanting to dominate its southern partners, once under European colonial rule.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Credit Sarkozy for working to revive a club - that is the Mediterranean Club.

By CHRIS PATTEN, OXFORD, England, and posted as http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/eo20…

Maybe it is time to be a bit more generous to French President Nicolas Sarkozy and look at the outcome of what he does rather than the way he does it.

The original launch of the Mediterranean Union almost sank the whole enterprise. Appearing to speak without giving the issue much thought, Sarkozy initially proposed a club of European and mostly Arab states along the Mediterranean’s shore. It would have been in essence a French-run enterprise that the rest of Europe would have paid for. This did not go down well, particularly with the Germans.

Suspicion was strong that the French were trying to find a way to buy off Turkey with a relationship falling well short of European Union membership.

So the auguries for an attempt to revitalize Europe’s relationship with its Mediterranean partners were not good. But by the time of this month’s grand Paris Summit to send the new club on its way, initial suspicions had largely dissipated.

Sarkozy bowed to his European critics and enjoyed a diplomatic triumph. We shall soon see whether there is substance to the initiative, or whether it is just a coat of fresh paint on an old and tired idea.

The original Barcelona Process, launched in 1995, was an excellent scheme. Intended to provide an economic and political backdrop to peacemaking through confidence-building in the Middle East, it was an admirable recognition of Europe’s historical, commercial, cultural and political ties with its neighbors south of the sea, which have brought us all together over the years.

There were aspirations for a free-trade area by 2010. There were pledges of political integration based on shared values. There were people-to-people links. There was a forum where Israelis and their long-term Arab foes could sit together and discuss other matters than the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Development projects were funded through grants or cheap loans, and these have probably played at least some part in increasing the attractiveness of the Maghreb and the Mashraq to foreign investors.

There was some lowering of agricultural and other tariffs by the EU. Dialogue on political reform, and the euros to support it, helped further the process in some countries, notably Morocco and Jordan. There was some cooperation on common problems like illegal drug use and immigration.

Yet, the successes of the Barcelona Process were modest: a great idea on the launchpad had difficulty getting off the ground. So Sarkozy deserves at least 2 1/2 cheers for trying to revitalize it. But if the Mediterranean Union is to achieve more than was managed in its first manifestation, a number of things will need to happen.

First, Europe is better at talking about free-trade areas than delivering free trade. For example, there are still too many barriers to agricultural trade between the north and the south. And guess which country leads the opposition to any significant opening up of European agriculture. France, take a bow.

Second, however slow we have been in opening up a real Mediterranean market, the barriers to freer trade between Arab League countries are just as great.

Third, it was excellent that, in Paris, Sarkozy began the process of bringing Syria in out of the diplomatic cold. Hopefully, his attempts to act as a peace broker between West Bank Palestinians and Israel are also blessed with success.

But the truth is that Europe, for all the gallant efforts of Javier Solana, has been absent from serious politics in the Middle East. We have not dared cross the absentee monopolists of policy in Washington.

Europe should get more seriously involved, even at the risk of occasionally irritating America, which may be less likely to happen once the Bush administration is history.

For a start, we should recognize that there will be no political settlement in Palestine without including Hamas. What would incredibly have been former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s first visit to Gaza in his first year of peacemaking had to be canceled recently because of security concerns. Enough said.

Europe must decide how serious it is about all the admirable stuff in the Barcelona Process regarding pluralism, civil society, the rule of law and democracy. Should a shared concept of human rights be one of the foundations of our Mediterranean partnership?

If so, what are we in Europe proposing to do about it? If this is just blah-blah, better not say it. We discredit ourselves and important principles when we say things we don’t mean.

————-

Lord Patten is a former governor of Hong Kong and European commissioner for external affairs. He is currently chancellor of Oxford University and co-chair of the International Crisis Group.  www.project-syndicate.org)

EU threatens obligatory visa for US diplomats: Travel between Europe and the US is set to remain a hot topic for the coming months.

HONOR MAHONY, for EUobserver.com July 23, 2008

The European Commission has raised the stakes in its tussle with Washington over visas by suggesting that from the beginning of next year US diplomats be required to apply for a visa for t ravel to the European Union.

Brussels’ move is prompting by frustration at the US government over the slow pace of talks on granting all EU citizens visa-free travel to the United States.

“No tangible progress has been made regarding the United States despite all efforts of the commission and individual member states,” the commission said on Wednesday (23 July).

“Therefore, the commission will propose retaliatory measures e.g. temporary restoration of the visa requirement for US nationals holding diplomatic and service or official passports as of 1 January, 2009 if no progress is achieved.”

At the moment, citizens from 12 of the 27 member states need a visa when travelling to the US – these include most of the ex-Communist countries that joined the bloc since 2004 as well as Greece.

The visa issue has bubbled below the surface continually since the EU’s major enlargement to the east four years ago.

The countries it took on included several very pro-US states – some of whom committed troops to Iraq – and they could not understand why their citizens were not being treated equally to citizens from western states such as Germany, France and the UK.

Earlier this year, Washington irritated Brussels by initiating air passenger data deals with individual eastern countries on the understanding that they in return would also become part of the US visa-waiver programme.

The Czech Republic reached a deal with Washington in spring, it was later followed by Hungary and Bulgaria.

The European Commission was annoyed at what it saw as Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics, especially as it believed the bloc’s data privacy laws would be undermined as a side effect.

Eastern member states have often raised the prospect of reciprocity on the visa issue but this is the first time that the commission has come with a concrete retaliatory suggestion.

“It is unacceptable that nationals from some third countries can benefit from visa-free travel to the EU whilst some of our fellow EU citizens cannot travel visa-free to those countries,” said EU justice commissioner Jacques Barrot.

The US visa waiver programme was set up in 1988 and originally focussed on restricting immigration, but the emphasis changed to a security issue after the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

Washington assess countries for inclusion in the programme on the basis of a number of criteria such as the number of visas that have been refused - however the EU would like the bloc to be treated as whole.

Travel arrangements between the two blocs is set to continue as a hot topic for the coming months.

The US has already announced plans to create an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation for all citizens travelling to the States, including Europeans, from January next year. It maintains it is not a disguised form of visa, but the Europe Commission has yet to establish whether it amounts to a visa policy or not.

July 3, 2008. Liberal leader expresses dismay at socialist populism over Lisbon Treaty.

On the margins of an ALDE Group meeting in Tallinn yesterday, European Liberal Democrat Leader, Graham Watson, met Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip to discuss the future of the Lisbon Treaty in light of the Irish referendum and recent unhelpful remarks by European socialists (notably PASOK President George A. Papandreou and Austrian Chancellor Gusenbauer) demanding referendums on changes to the Treaty.

“Recent moves by Socialist leaders to make all EU treaty changes dependent on national referenda is at best irresponsible and at worst - an ill-conceived bow to populist pressure. Pawning the solution to the treaty stalemate is a bid to court eurosceptic voters which makes us all hostages to fortune” said Watson after the meeting. “The Irish rejected the Treaty, so it is right that their Government be invited to come back with an alternative solution to the dilemma we now face. Their task will not be assisted by such unilateral declarations.”

Watson went on to praise Estonia’s constructive role in Europe and the country’s Liberal economic model combining a flexible labour market and strict fiscal policies.

Deutsche Welle says Ireland has dashed hopes of a quick fix to the uncertainty caused by the Lisbon treaty rejection, after Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin said that he didn’t think there would be any solution on the table by October.

Meanwhile, at a summit of EU leaders that kicked off last night, French president Nicolas Sarkozy accused the EU’s trade chief of causing the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, says the Telegraph.

Sarkozy said Peter Mandelson’s policies had alarmed Irish farmers and contributed to the no vote.

The Belfast Telegraph says that Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen is due to have more talks with his EU counterparts today as the summit continues, after EU countries agreed to give the Irish until October to come up with a solution to the impasse.

Meanwhile, the Irish Times reports that Sarkozy may visit Ireland in July to hear the Irish perspective on the no vote. France is keen to get the treaty ratified during their presidency of the EU, which is fast approaching.

And the Guardian says that Sarkozy has put pressure on the Irish to vote again on the treaty, and encouraged the other eight member states which have not ratified it yet to do so as swiftly as possible.

The Euobserver presents three different Commentaries on the subject:

[Comment A] A coalition of the willing has to bring Europe back on track - 19.06.2008 - 16:58
—————————————————————————-
The time is up for mini-compromises and mini-solutions. We need a coalition of the willing to get Europe back on track, argues Christoph Leitl, President of SME Union and Honorary President of
Eurochambres.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26359/?rk=1
[Comment B] The EU: reform or self destruct? - 19.06.2008 - 16:33
—————————————————————————-
The better way out would be to accept the Irish No vote for what it was – a rational rejection of deeper EU integration – and to carry out the reformsthat were promised in the Laeken Declaration, writes Open Europe Director Neil O’Brien.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26356/?rk=1

[Comment C] Democracy may be the price for securing a Lisbon agreement - 19.06.2008 - 09:51
—————————————————————————-
The EU’s democratic deficit has killed the Lisbon Treaty, argues Peter Sain ley Berry. Nevertheless, a non-treaty ‘Lisbon
Arrangement’ might succeed if a real extension of European democracy was on the agenda.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26355/?rk=1

This year’s Green Week will focus on efforts to live more sustainably, says Stavros Dimas

Mankind is consuming the Earth’s natural resources at an alarming rate, yet few people realise how fast this is happening. We produce more waste than we can recycle as a useful resource. Urgent action is needed to raise public and political awareness and to reverse these trends. Green Week 2008, which the European commission is hosting in Brussels from 3 to 6 June, will tackle this issue head on under the slogan ‘Only one world: Don’t waste it!’

Green Week is the biggest annual conference event dedicated to EU environment policy. It brings together some 3000 participants from policy-making, science, business and non-governmental groups, from all over Europe and beyond. Now in its eighth year, Green Week has established itself as a crucial forum for environmental dialogue and sharing of best practice. It provides an invaluable opportunity for the commission, parliament and other EU institutions not only to explain what they are doing but also to listen to and learn from a wide spectrum of stakeholders with considerable expertise to contribute. The ultimate objective is to find the most effective ways to protect and improve Europe’s environment, now and for the future.

The resource demands of today’s global population of 6.8 billion people – our ‘ecological footprint’ – already exceed the Earth’s biological capacity by over 25 per cent. This means we are depleting the planet’s ecological stocks faster than nature can regenerate them and eroding resources for future generations. Europe’s footprint surpasses our biological capacity by even more – if the rest of the world used as many resources as we do, we would need more than two Earths. Making our use of natural resources more sustainable is thus key to addressing the major environmental challenges that Europe and the world face. That is why Green Week 2008 will also focus on three environmental themes that are closely linked to the issue of resources use, as well as being major challenges in their own right: sustainable consumption and production, climate change, and nature and biodiversity.

This focus reflects the fact that climate change and loss of biodiversity are being driven in part by our growing hunger for energy and other natural resources. Current consumption and production patterns are a major contributor to this demand. At European level we are addressing the resources issue by implementing the commission’s strategy on sustainable use of natural resources, presented in late 2005, together with its complementary strategy on waste. These strategies will form the backdrop to several Green Week discussion sessions.

The resources strategy has helped to create momentum at international level, which has led to the establishment by the UN environment programme of the international panel for sustainable resource management, in which the European commission is closely involved. A session on the first day of Green Week will be devoted to the resource panel and its future work. As well as being central to efforts to achieve more sustainable use of resources, the sustainable consumption and production (SCP) theme is also highly topical: the commission is currently putting the final touches to an action plan on SCP and sustainable industrial policy, which I expect to come out either during Green Week itself or shortly afterwards. The action plan will be the focus of several discussion sessions.

Taken together, the programme of almost 40 individual sessions covers a very broad range of issues – from the commission’s plans to revise the EU emissions trading scheme to waste management in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, from the economic effects of biodiversity loss to the application of extended producer responsibility for products, and from water saving to the pros and cons of biofuels.

Green Week also has a lively side events programme and a highlight this year will be a ceremony on the evening of 3 June to announce the winners of the 2008 European business awards for the environment. These awards are one of the ways in which the commission encourages and rewards European companies that set an example to their peers by combining environmental concern, innovation and economic viability. Eleven companies from seven different EU countries are vying for awards in four categories: management practices, products, processes and international cooperation.

Stavros Dimas is European commissioner for environment