We need to renew and revitalise Agenda 21, which aims to involve local communities to create change towards sustainable development.

It seems there are four areas of our lives that generate most of our overall impact on our environment - the food we at, our holidays, our transport and our homes.

We can start by switching to eating foods that are in season, turning off lights, or walking rather than driving.

The elephant in the room, is how do we influence behaviour of our fellow citizens and create the political spaces. We need to rethink our understanding of self-interest. Many of the important pleasures in life are being lost because of the negative aspects of our high speed, work dominated, materialistic life-style. Our affluent consumption has been compromised by its unpleasurable by-products – noise, pollution, danger, stress, health risks, excessive waste, and the aesthetic impact on the environment.

There are social movements that are influencing a change in this understanding, such as the Slow Food movement. It tries to preserve local food cultures, promote good living and the pleasure of eating, and challenge the power and influence of multinational food
producers.

I would like the PES to promote the introduction of healthy meals and sustainable, and where possible organic, foods into schools and hospitals, this would link in environmentally-friendly choices to public health.

Inspired by the Slow Food principles,the PES could be inspired to draft policies that mean the planning system can be used to ensure equitable access to fresh fruit and vegetables. To promote investment in organic agriculture and in developing sustainable rural economies. To promote food cooperatives which can provide good quality food at lower prices for people on low incomes.

Let's also tackle the debate on cutting carbon emissions on air travel. Many people say that if we tax carbon emissions on air travel, it will deprive the poorest of opportunity for a holiday abroad. In fact, at least in the UK, the poorest quarter of society took only 10 per cent of the flights in 2005. Maybe we could incentivise air companies to introduce good quality carbon offsetting on an opt-out basis. How does this compare to the rest of Europe?

But first let's stop the race to the bottom. How? We can keep making the case but I see no enthusiasm or willingness for international tax co-operation. I dont even see a willingness to clamp down on tax havens.  How do we make progress on this?  

I am sure that we as Europeans can do more when it comes to ecological initiatives, we can do better and we can do it as we promote economic growth. I want us all to strive towards a New Social and Ecological European Union. REACH is one way, but we also have to stimulate research and promote environmentally friendly technology within in European industries. I want a Pan-European initiative to reduce the air pollution due to transport of goods by road. What economical motivational instruments could help us pursue such a goal? Maybe an EU-sponsored extension plan for a European Union railroad along with tax legislation that cut costs for railroad freight goods in comparison to transport by road or by plane?

I am a firm believer in ceasing agricultural subsidies to EU-farmers and I wish that some of that money could be redistributed to an advanced research and investment program to promote a "Green EU".

Sincerely,

Jonas Ek, Västerås, Sweden

+46 70 232 95 00 

I would definately agree that there is a need of mentioning this point in the PES-manifesto. If I understand you correctly, then you are right: It is not only a question of official languages and translations, there has to be a general agreement on high-quality-communication in modern terms.

Since this is a translation of my German text (by the way: Thank you very much, translator ;-)) I would also like to mention a reaction on the German version on www.parteiblog.de:

parteiblog.de-user "Nils" wrote (my translation): Quite a lot of good observations. But there is a fact that is not mentioned often in the debate about EU-communication: EU is not a thing of it's own. It is a decision-making level. The EU is made either valuable or harmful by the political decisions that are made for our societies.

The people don't trust the EU because they are not taught why and how political decisions are made. That is why we need functioning political parties so badly. They can offer their concepts of civil society and their therefore resulting projects in the EU. As long as this does not work, the EU will stay a project for professional idiots (elites would be to nice a word).

Vous avez plus votre place chez les nazis que chez les socialistes.

However, I couldn't help noticing towards the end of your article that you seem to be calling for one type of social control to be replaced with another. Perhaps it's simply the way you've expressed an idea, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

You say:

"Permitting institutions that are not a marriage is to perpetuate the difference is to keep open the possibility of a discriminatory treatment"

But if people want to live within an institution that's not marriage, surely they should be permitted to do so? You're not calling for them to be prevented from exercising their choice?

And then: 

"It is a subject that has been debated on a lot of occasions but there is no room for this kind of discussions anymore."

The great thing about democracy is that it provides room for discussion of most things. I think it should not permit demagogues to destroy democracy, but most other things are up for debate.

Maybe you feel there should be no room for discussion of this topic among socialists? If so, that's fine; but I hope you won't mind if other people discuss it elsewhere!

Me han alegrado sus declaraciones, tan valientes, al poner en primer lugar la necesidad del COMERCIO JUSTO, que incluye, de hecho,  la de "AUMENTAR LA GENEROSIDAD", que cita en tercer lugar. Sin esa primera, no pueden crearse las bases, entiendo, para un desarrollo integrador y sostenible de los países deprimidos. Ciertamente: una brava empresa y un reto que daría CALIDAD y CREDIBILIDAD a la Ayuda al Desarrollo de esta nueva Europa.

El "control de la democracia" en esos países, sólo puede aportar beneficios a todos. Quizás lleve implícito un esfuerzo real de Europa en el control del "tráfico de armas" y el "control financiero y de capitales", que haga posible su estabilidad y desarrollo, que tan beneficioso ha de resultar para Europa.

¡Bona sort!

Ramon Márquez 

Your post calls for a more "social" Europe, presumably with the aim of driving down prices. But what, in practical terms, do you mean, and would your proposals pass any economic tests? Remember that state subsidies don't come from thin air - they represent money gathered from taxing people.

So it would be interesting to hear your proposals expressed as practical measures.

but the real figures always showed huge profits made by 1st world countries exploiting

the soil of 3rd world countries, huge profits of trade..  on top of that those countries are now forced to open up their boundaries for the purpose of globalization and still more profits to be made by the wealthy of this world.  Feeding, schooling and dispensing health services in the unfortunate countries is the least of our economic worries : the price of the crude oil,

the nuclear energy, the prices of copper, caltron, gold, zinc that is what worries us.

and of course the well being of the "elected" presidents of Congo, zimbabwe.. the weath of the Saudi Arabian King and his family, the various sultans is very important and interesting news.  

We will not make the millenium goals, we will not stop the climate change unless we honestly try to establish peace in belligerent regions, we export our best technology in order to enhance food-production.  

 All our energy goes for the moment in endeauvour to make the rich richer and keep up "our way of life" - we should divert this energy into making the homless and hungry wealthier.  The earea for solid qualitative high agriculture hasn't been exhausted yet :

we should subsidize the agriculture on these new lands !

(and please promote the use of Esperanto on international forums, for more equality and better understanding !)