I knew I had to post it when I found it:

Since this monday, we’ve been forced to vacate the flexplekken that have been my workspace ever since I started working on my thesis.
Now, we have moved to the first floor in the buidling, and have taken up residency in what is called a ‘loungespot’. Yes, productivity is as high as usual.

Take a look, and be amazed at the layout of the place. Newly created and very likely really trendy: my new space.

Also in the pics: Arjen van Oostrum and Gde Hardjosumarto; my fellow graduate students.

When reading the title, they could very well be the subjects of a new plotline of a thriller by Frederick Forsyth, but these are not.
I’m talking about the current controversy around two mishaps, two local PvdA politicians who have signed a rather dubious petition by an even more dubious and perhaps even mischievous group of radical mulims.

We’re discussing Hizb ut Tahrir, a soenni-islamic political organization, who are ultimately striving for the union of all muslims and muslim countries into a caliphate, or a large confederation of united muslims. This country would be lead by the Caliph who happens to be the leader of the islamic community, called Ummah. He also is the highest spiritual leader of the muslims, and this information combined makes up for a state without a separation between the state and the religion.
Not an ideal situation, in my view.

This organization has put up a petition to fight the calumniation of the Islam, although it is considered to be their fight against the upcoming release of an anti-koran film by Geert Wilders (PVV).
As we live in a free country, both expressions of free speech are tolerated and righteous, but that is not the issue here.
At least two local politicians of foreign descent have signed this petition. The petition itself is fairly moderated, yet it is the group behind it that is concerning. Hizb ut Tahrir is striving for their goals, not only with words but as expressed by one of their leaders, also with violence.

A recent interview with Okay Pala revealed a quote by an anonymous signer of the petition: "Wat jullie nodig hebben is een zware bomaanslag". *source*
Luckily, he did not say he agreed with this statement but warned ‘us’ of the things the signers of the petition could do. A very weak standpoint in my opinion. He added to that: "Wij zijn het niet eens met de vrijheid van meningsuiting, want we verwerpen de democratie! Ons alternatief is de islam. Er is geen tussenweg: wij kiezen voor de absolute waarheid, het woord van Allah."
A polarizing opionion at it’s best, an attempt to undermine our state at it’s worst.

This petition was also signed by some respected PvdA local politicians, of which one already had to put down all duties as ‘it was the last strike in a row‘. The other denied she signed it at first, but now had to admit she signed it after some pressure from within the party. I think it’s a bad thing that the party itself did nothing about it, as her individual standpoints clearly contradict not only the views of her own political party, but the organization behind the petition also has radical ideas.

I’m not sure what action should be taken regarding this subject, although I’m convinced a chosen political leader with affections beyond our knowledge at the time of election should not stay in the position, certainly not if the ideas concerned are of this nature.
But then again: that’s my opinion.

When you thought you knew it all, it hits you.
Green energy is, despite the obviously good looking color green which exerts a feeling of wellness and positive attitude, not only good anymore!

Minister Maria van der Hoeven (of Economics) received a list of good and bad biomass (of which green energy is made) from Mirjam de Rijk from Natuur en Milieu. This organization can best be described as a lobby-club, striving for more attention to our environment from the government. An admirable striving, yet the in-crowd attitude of such organizations is revolting. As this list has been compiled very recently, and the appointment to hand such an document to a minister can easily be made about 3 months in advance as miniters regularly are very busy people (on a sidenote: The Netherlands have sent  an ambassador to the state-funeral of Soeharto as all ministers were too busy); yet Natuur en Milieu handed the list to the minister on an appointment made within a week after the creation of the list.
It could be a coincidence, yet I don’t buy that.

Anyhow: after proclaiming energy from biomass is the future for decades on end, there suddenly are good and bad sources of biomass. Naturally, Wind, Light and Water are good, renewable sources but are not included in the list.
Bad biomass are: rapeseed, soy, palm- and sunflower oil, wheat, beet and manure. These generally produce more CO₂-gas than conventional sources of energy and should thus not be subsidized by our government.
Good biomass are: unusable wood from FSC-forests, mown grass from the side of the roads and unusable leftovers from the paper-making industry.
The entire list can be found here.

However true their conclusions, the mentioning of their previous mishap on proclaiming all biomass to be good for our world would be nice. I’m not telling them to be guiltful about the advancing insights: the mentioning of the fact that they were wrong in the past would be nice. The way it is proclaimed now is not nice: the introduction of good and bad into our terminology will lead to unneccessairy complicated conversations. Not to mention any new insights of the future, which might intruduce new categories: good bad biomass or even bad good biomass could be ahead!

I’m in favor of building some new nuclear powerplants in our country, instead of this fancy environmentalist green energy. It costs more, the creation is less efficient and we all can feel less guilty when our energy is indicated to be environment-friendly.
Minister van der Hoeven: build some new nuclear facilities instead of trying to look good with a green image.

Please note: this is my personal rant on the everlasting green-hype.
While this is a real-life scenario I’m not specifically targeting the persons in this post. They just happen to be the direct object of my disaffection.

We all know our world is dying, and we are to blame. Our rigourous spending and consuming behaviour has led to the demise of our ozone-layer and the process of global warming. As Al Gore told us: we’re doomed if we don’t do something about it.

In that light, our government has decided to heighten the taxes on all leased cars (22% to 25% ‘bijtelling’), and lower the taxes on specific car models which have lowest emissions (22% to 14%). Today, there’s 3 models that comply to the new strict rules and are eligible for the low taxing. Obviously, there’s a real hausse going on right now, as 2 of the three models are family-cars (and hybrids), the other is a very small 4-seater with a regular petrol-engine.
A couple of years ago, the tendency to see us as the major pollutors and killers of the world as we know it has lead to the infamous Kyoto Protocol.
Starting in 2005, emissions were to be regulated and more specifically administrated. All large companies had to keep track of the emissions, and had to keep them below a certain level.
Last week, the EU has decided to vote for a new plan: in 2020 a reduction in CO₂-emission of 20% compared to 1990. Note: Kyoto had the agreement to lower CO2 emissions to 5% below the level of 1990. Yes, that’s a 15% extra bonus on the decrease!

The worst part is: it is most likely going to be an EU-only agreement. This puts ‘us’ in a peculiar position: all european companies have to compete on the global market with at least one hand tied to their backs: by adhering to emission-quota which others do not is a competitive disadvantage that is not to be taken lightly. The new rules have the likeliness to cost vast amounts of money, yet the outcome is pretty much unclear.
The goal of the new regulations remain cloudy: what are the effects of ‘our’ reduction can be seen, and on what period in time?

Put shortly: I simply cannot see why rules like these have to be enforced in our economic area only. Global rules are fine by me, as the disadvantages are common among all competitors, and we all are helping the cause.
But why oh why, does the EU have to be, like The Netherlands, the best boy in class?