Old blogs
The power of (blue) green roofs in Amsterdam
Last week, research by the Red Cross revealed that the Dutch are not well prepared for climate change and the extreme weather conditions it causes[1]. One precaution we can take is to install green roofs. These are roofs covered with moss, sedum or other plants. Green roofs not only brighten up the city but also retain precipitation. Blue-green roofs, also known as polder roofs, even retain extra water due to a special crate system under the plants[2]. On 10 October, Sustainability Day, it was announced that Amsterdam has been awarded a European grant of 4.8 million to build 10,000 square metres of blue-green roofs on housing association houses[3]. The RESILIO project, as it is called, is a collaboration between several organisations, including the municipality. It shows the power of local initiatives and demonstrates Amsterdam's commitment to climate adaptation. But what exactly is the RESILIO project and what is so beneficial about (blue) green roofs?
The RESILIO project is a collaboration between the municipality of Amsterdam, HvA, VU, Waternet, Polderdak, Rooftop Revolution, Consolidated, Stadgenoot, Ymere and De Key[4]. The project will install blue-green roofs on housing association houses in the Bellamy neighbourhood, Geuzenveld, Oosterpark and Kattenburg. These locations were chosen because they are vulnerable to flooding and because the roofs of these houses are in need of replacement anyway. Another advantage of these locations is that people with social housing can benefit from blue-green roofs thanks to this project. The project receives funding from the European 'Urban Innovative Actions' programme because it innovatively integrates technological innovations into local partnerships[5].
Project RESILIO is not the only thing the municipality is trying to encourage (blue) green roofs with. The Green Agenda sets out to create 50,000 square metres of 'green roof' between 2015 and 2018, taking the city to a total of around 200,000 square metres. That is an ambitious start, but with 12 square kilometres of bare flat roofs[6] Amsterdam has even more potential. To realise green roofs, we are working with housing associations, VvEs, businesses, schools and other organisations[7]. There is also a subsidy scheme where the municipality pays up to 50% of the cost of green roofs or facades[8]. Not only homeowners, but also tenants and businesses can claim the subsidy. But why are green roofs actually needed?
It is not only important for Amsterdam to counter climate change (mitigation), but also to adapt to its consequences (adaptation). An important aspect of climate adaptation in the Netherlands concerns water retention. Climate change will make the Netherlands (even) wetter and weather conditions more extreme.[9] Today, extreme rainfall events are already two to five times more common than in the 1950s, and are expected to be 10 times more by 2085[10]. Amsterdam is especially vulnerable to these showers because the city has a largely paved surface and is densely built up. As a result, rainwater cannot infiltrate the soil properly and ends up directly in the sewer system. The current sewer system is unable to collect the excess water, causing flooding[11]. A major advantage of green roofs is that they retain rainwater, preventing it from entering the street or sewers (directly). The thicker the soil of a green roof, the more water it retains. Green roofs with thin soils and small succulents already retain 40 to 50% of precipitation. Blue-green roofs even retain up to 95% of water in extreme rainstorms[12]. The blue-green roofs of project RESILIO are also equipped with sensors that can retain or discharge water based on the weather forecast[13].
However, water retention is not the only benefit of green roofs. They also contribute to urban heat resistance, another form of climate adaptation. Indeed, as a result of climate change, the Netherlands is not only getting wetter, but also warmer[14]. And that has problematic consequences. Heat waves like last summer's are 'underestimated assassins'[15], which cost many elderly people their lives[16]. Elderly people struggle to maintain their body temperature, with fatal consequences. Last summer, the heat led to about 100 extra deaths per week and in 2006, a heat wave caused as many as 400 extra deaths per week[17]. The effects of heat are even more intense in cities, as buildings and pavements trap heat[18]. As a result, Amsterdam is up to four degrees warmer than surrounding areas[19]. Green, and hence (blue) green roofs, absorb heat and thus help cool the city. They also absorb noise, reducing noise pollution from traffic, among other things[20]. But green roofs have benefits not only for the city as a collective, but also for the individual owner of the building they will be placed on. Indeed, green roofs double the lifespan of the roof covering[21]. They also improve the insulation of homes, reducing the need for air conditioning in summer and heating in winter. This reduces emissions and lowers energy bills, which is a big advantage, especially for residents of social housing.
So green and especially blue-green roofs have huge benefits for the city and its residents. Project-RESILIO demonstrates the innovative and green power of local cooperation. Hopefully, this project can become an example for more green initiatives, both inside and outside Amsterdam. After all, a green, healthy and resilient city, isn't that what we all want?
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Isha Groot
[1] https://www.nu.nl/klimaat/5620595/rode-kruis-nederlanders-slecht-voorbereid-klimaatveranderingen.html?redirect=1
[2] https://bodemambities.nl/sites/default/files/2018-04/bouw_groen_en_blauw_-_inspiratie_voor_rainproof_en_natuurinclusief_bouwen_op_centrumeiland_amsterdam.pdf
[3] https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/187136/amsterdam-wint-eu-subsidie-met-blauw-groene-daken-project
[4] https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/college/wethouder/laurens-ivens/persberichten/blauw-groene-daken/
[5] https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/news-events/discover-22-new-projects-3rd-uia-call-proposals
[6] https://www.trouw.nl/home/een-groene-stad-begint-op-het-dak~ac29e01b/
[7] Agenda Green: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/groen/
[8]https://kanadocumenten.amsterdam.nl/SRVS/Data/Amsterdam/KnowledgeBases/Kennisbank/document/Extern/Subsidiebureau/Toelichting-bij-de-Subsidieregeling-groene-daken-en-gevels-Amsterdam-2018.pdf
[9] http://www.klimaatscenarios.nl/images/Brochure_KNMI14_NL.pdf
[10] https://www.rainproof.nl/sites/default/files/def_katern_1_beleidskader_en_programma-klein.pdf
[11] https://www.rainproof.nl/sites/default/files/def_katern_1_beleidskader_en_programma-klein.pdf
[12] https://bodemambities.nl/sites/default/files/2018-04/bouw_groen_en_blauw_-_inspiratie_voor_rainproof_en_natuurinclusief_bouwen_op_centrumeiland_amsterdam.pdf
[13] https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/college/wethouder/laurens-ivens/persberichten/blauw-groene-daken/
[14] http://www.klimaatscenarios.nl/images/Brochure_KNMI14_NL.pdf
[15] https://www.gezondheidenco.nl/241102/zomerhitte-onderschatte-sluipmoordenaar-hoe-houd-huis-koel/
[16] https://www.rtlz.nl/algemeen/binnenland/artikel/4374541/hittegolven-eisen-hun-tol-wekelijks-100-doden-meer
[17] https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/4375301/doden-door-hitte-lichaamstemperatuur-moet-37-graden-blijven-oudere
[18] https://hitte-eilanden.nl/wat-is-een-hitte-eiland/
[19] Agenda Green: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/groen/
[20] Agenda Green: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/groen/
[21] https://www.trouw.nl/home/een-groene-stad-begint-op-het-dak~ac29e01b/
Amsterdam parade with soot-swept pete: how it can be done
5-12-2018
Late November, during the cold days of autumn, is a time of traditions in the Netherlands. Like the arrival of Sinterklaas, presents in a shoe and, since a few years: the Black Pete debate. In the weekend of 18 November, Saint Nicholas set foot in the Netherlands again - accompanied by much uproar. Several municipalities were unsure about how to dress the Pieten: 'just' black or sooty feathers? Municipalities were allowed to make their own choices. Demonstration groups against Black Pete would in all likelihood be present at many entries. This did not exactly go off without a hitch: in Eindhoven, things got out of hand with pro-Black Pieters making Hitler salutes to the demonstrators. In Amsterdam, the parade went a lot more peacefully. In 2014, the capital had opted to stage the soot-swept Pietpiet. GroenLinks has argued in favour of abolishing Black Pete many times during the Black Pete debate. Was this the reason der there were no violent scenes in 'leftist' Amsterdam like elsewhere in the country, or is there more behind the child-friendly entry?
Sinterklaas's black-shirted servant has been causing much emotional debate and controversy for several years. Although the figure had been debatable for some time, the bomb burst among Black Pete opponents in 2013. The 'Black Pete is Racism' campaign was launched and gained much support. The discussion has caused much division in the Netherlands in recent years. After all, surely a children's festival cannot be so harmful? However, the underlying idea and historical slant is also certainly important. The character of St Nicholas dates back to the nineteenth century, where from around 1850 he was also depicted with his black servant dressed as a page (squire). The nineteenth century is known as a period in the heyday of colonialism. With the slavery past of Dutch merchant shipping in mind, the depiction of a black servant can indeed be construed as racism. Arguing that the children's festival that resulted from it centuries later has no ill intent does not necessarily mean that the original meaning cannot be offensive.
Indeed, the paradox of traditions is that they are subject to change. Some phenomena are easily bombed into tradition, while other somewhat clumsy traditions are quickly forgotten. Nor has the feast of Sinterklaas been celebrated in the Netherlands since 'forever', but from around 1850 onwards. The thing that makes traditions so appealing is the we-feeling, belonging, togetherness. Often there are many aspects in a society that cause division, then it is nice to be able to fall back on traditions to create some legitimacy. In uncertain times, people are very afraid of losing the 'we' feeling and therefore cling to it frenetically - which paradoxically causes the very thing that tears them apart.
The Amsterdam municipality already opted for a Black Pete-less entry last year. The management of the entry is provided by the Stichting Sint in Amsterdam (SSIA). At the 2017 entry, the Pieten were given a real makeover, leaving out the black face paint, frizzy hair and golden rings. The new Pieten suits were inspired by Spanish costumes from the 16th century. There was a return to the figure of the page on which the original Piet was based. Amsterdam already made the decision to change the appearance of the Pieten during the entry in 2014. In 2017, the capital wanted to settle the debate once and for all: by purchasing instead of renting 400 suits, the city was very confident. Initially, when the all-new Pieten were introduced last year, there were also protests because the Pieten would be too reminiscent of Spanish noblemen. The Landelijk Platform Slaveryleden (LPS) found it very remarkable that a nobleman, a symbol of Spanish oppression, was chosen. Despite the outcry, the 2017 entry took place peacefully and without incident.
This trend continued in 2018. Other larger cities such as Utrecht and The Hague also abandoned Black Pete. The SSIA explained in a November 2017 statement why the city broke with the traditional Piet: "The Stichting Sint in Amsterdam has questioned whether it is socially acceptable that, white, native Dutch people, paint their faces brown or black and their lips red, wearing earrings and a black frizzy hair wig. Many people thus no longer feel that Zwarte Piet is a helper of Sinterklaas, but his slave. The period of slavery is, to put it mildly, a stain on Dutch history." The board also regretted that people were getting hurt by the appearance of the Pieten, so it saw reason enough to change it.
The main reason given by the board for the adjustment of the Pieten appearance was the cultural diversity in the city of Amsterdam. They stated, "The board is aware of the changing composition of the Amsterdam and Dutch population. Anno 2017, over 43.8 % of Amsterdam's inhabitants are non-Western immigrants, 13.5 % Western immigrants and 42.6% native Amsterdam. If we want all children to be able to join the celebration without any unpleasant feelings, we will have to look at how we will shape the implementation of Pete." From a social point of view, it is nicely said that a multicultural city like Amsterdam wants to celebrate a Sinterklaas party that is acceptable to all.
Anno 2018, the court in Haarlem would rule on the appearance of Pete at the national entry. Black Pete was not banned by the court, resulting in a mishmash of all-black face-dressing and soot-swept pete. So, in the end, municipalities could shape the entry themselves. 'It was not a weekend to be proud of, as a country,' wrote Roelf Jan Duin in the Parool. In municipalities including Eindhoven, Tilburg, Groningen, Hoorn and Rotterdam, the children's festival was dominated by right-wing radical groups and hooligans leading to displays of intimidation, violence and swearing in. Amsterdam played into feelings of multiculturalism which plays out in a big city. The choice of the soot-grey patron was rewarded with a pleasant entry. So it can be done - all together now?
Politics Amsterdam Commission Team
Sources:
https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/kamer-rutte-toon-leiderschap-in-zwarte-piet-discussie~a4607944/
https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/rutte-ik-heb-helemaal-niets-met-zwarte-piet-extremisten~a4607894/
https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/het-was-geen-weekeinde-om-trots-op-te-zijn-als-land~a4607879/
https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/geslaagde-intocht-is-beloning-voor-keuze-schoorsteenpiet~a4607844/
https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2812225/intocht-sinterklaas-in-amsterdam
https://www.nu.nl/sinterklaas/5571071/rechtbank-geen-aanpassing-uiterlijk-zwarte-piet-bij-landelijke-intocht.html?redirect=1
https://mensenrechten.nl/nl/toegelicht/zwarte-piethttps://www.sintinamsterdam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ssia_pietendiscusie171117.pdf
https://www.sintinamsterdam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ssia_pietendiscusie171117.pdfhttps://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/nederland/achtergrond/2017/09/groenlinks-amsterdam-wil-ban-op-autos-en-zwarte-piet-540873/
Closing mosques does not lead to a free society
24-10-2018
In her first ''Conversation with the Mayor' (AT5) last month, Femke Halsema said that in fighting fundamentalism, she wanted to close mosques "in the extreme". This fits a trend of previous statements in which she said she did not want to cooperate with Salafist organisations because they "do not take gender equality and homosexuals seriously" and are "anti-democratic".
While FvD, CDA and VVD celebrated, Halsema was taken to task by the rest of the city council after these statements. Sofyan Mbarki, who succeeded Marjolein Moorman as parliamentary party chair of the PvdA, and Reinier van Dantzig (D66) doubted the legal basis of the proposal. Criminal lawyer Anis Boumanjal also said the mayor's plans have little chance of success because of the right to freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of expression. He says the blockade by these three articles of the constitution only lapses "if there is structural (criminal) misconduct that threatens to disrupt society. And then there is also the requirement that this misconduct stems from the actions of the mosque itself, and therefore not those of individuals.' This while Halsema could already want to proceed to closure if the organisations have conservative ideas. Most coalition parties also did not think closing mosques was a good plan because, according to them, there are already enough ways to combat so-called 'hate preachers'.
In addition, PvdA MP Mbarki denounced that Halsema did not give any concrete examples, which, according to him, put away the entire Muslim community. Even 'youth imam' Yassin El Forkani could not live with it and called on Halsema to give "names and numbers". GroenLinks group chair Femke Roosma urged Halsema to refer to extremists and jihadists instead of Salafists in future. The former group wants to drastically change society and is more likely to seek violence in the process, while Salafism is an umbrella term for Koran-fearing Muslims, the vast majority of whom are peace-loving.
However, the language used is not the only thing that matters; Halsema is also making a policy shift here on anti-radicalisation, if you look at previous mayors. Under Job Cohen, after the murder of Theo van Gogh, a programme was launched with the slogan 'We Amsterdammers' to connect with the Islamic community. Among other things, it tried to prevent radicalisation of Muslim youth. Cohen saw it as his duty as mayor to "keep things together". Because of his choice to talk, the so-called 'tea-drinking', Cohen came into the news negatively. During the campaign for the 2010 parliamentary elections, he was criticised by opponents for being "too soft" on Islam and radicalisation. Given recent developments, he is now receiving a lot more praise for this.
His successor, Eberhard van der Laan, was a supporter of Irish 'radicalisation expert' David Kenning. Kenning argued that social and practical characteristics, such as poverty and a quest for adventure, were the main factors in combating radicalisation. This left out religious and ideological aspects. This choice did not appear to go down well with Islamic organisations. As a result, contact with the organisations, which had been less good anyway since Cohen's departure to The Hague, again encountered a barrier. An inventory of NRC in 2014 that many Moroccan organisations did not feel heard.
Beatrice De Graaf, terrorism expert, who investigated abuses within the Amsterdam anti-radicalisation service for the City of Amsterdam, posthumously criticised Van der Laan's policy. Partly because cuts had been made to the service since he took office, knowledge and experience on the religious impact in radicalisation was said to have been lost. When the rise of IS in 2014 made it another hot topic became, the organisation had to be rebuilt from scratch. Van der Laan engaged Kenning to set up a new radicalisation policy. Part of this policy was the so-called 'grey campaign', where an actor would be used to make vlogs showing him coming straight from jihadist tendencies. The city council and even the coalition were not informed about this. Instead, it came out through the media when Saadia T., Van der Laan's right-hand man, was sacked for an integrity violation. De Graaf criticised the fact that Van der Laan did not try to learn from other cities, but set up a relatively amateurish policy himself. Furthermore, there was criticism from other quarters of Van der Laan's trust in Kenning. Elsevier journalists could not find any publications concerning radicalisation from him, and unlike someone like De Graaf, Kenning, as a self-proclaimed psychoanalyst, does not seem to be able to present a convincing CV.
Jozias van Aartsen, as acting mayor, took De Graaf's criticism to heart and said he wanted to reach out to Muslim youth who seek "guidance and firmness" from Salafist mosques. Not by fighting Salafist views, but rather by engaging with Salafist mosques to prevent radicalisation. To reinforce his story, van Aartsen gave an example in the committee meeting where this topic was discussed; The as-Soennah mosque in The Hague was often mentioned in the same breath with Muslim extremism during his time as mayor there. When the leadership there was taken over by the young guard, the mosque remained orthodox but became one "that makes such a positive contribution within the Hague community. (...) The bulk of those people in more orthodox mosques are not inclined to radical acts," van Aartsen said.
Halsema chooses to break with Van Aartsen's policy and tilts rather towards the Van der Laan camp in its elaboration. Whereas the reduced contact between Van der Laan and Islamic organisations stemmed from a (in my view wrong) pragmatic policy choice within anti-radicalisation policy, Halsema's policy choice is rather principled. According to her, the municipality would legitimise organisations with extremist views by sitting down with them. This does combat radicalisation, but on the other hand it makes society less free; Salafists are then more likely to be able to impose their aversion to homosexuality, equal rights for women and the democratic rule of law on others.
In doing so, Halsema puts a free society above an effective radicalisation policy that, as de Graaf says, incorporates religious factors and manifests itself in reaching out to the Islamic community.
However, a free society and an effective radicalisation policy need not be mutually exclusive. On the contrary, you can engage with Salafists on radicalisation and at the same time condemn actions and sermons that undermine free society and, in extreme cases, prosecute imams. You don't have to close mosques to do that. However, Halsema's line puts a bomb under the municipality's nascent radicalisation policy and, due to the lack of adequate prevention, may lead to more radicalised youths and thus a more unsafe city.
A free Amsterdam is threatened less by Salafist organisations and more by Halsema's principled choices.
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Job Vermaas
Sources:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/10/11/de-eerste-drie-maanden-van-burgemeester-femke-halsema-a2417515
https://www.parool.nl/opinie/-halsema-s-zero-tolerance-kan-averechts-werken~a4605984/
https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2577124/halsema-onderzoekt-sluiting-gebedsruimten
https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/halsema-onderzoekt-ruimte-voor-actie-tegen-gebedshuizen~a4604762/
https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/amsterdam-haalt-band-met-moslimclubs-aan~a4600306/
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/02/22/van-aartsen-reik-salafistische-moslims-de-hand-a1593312
https://www.groene.nl/artikel/de-waarnemer
https://www.trouw.nl/home/de-pvda-gaat-weer-theedrinken~a24d2f20/
https://www.trouw.nl/home/job-cohen-ik-was-woedend-over-de-moord-~a8547ba2/
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/05/28/radicalisering-aanpakken-op-zn-nederlands-a1604546
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/11/02/goeroe-in-de-stopera-13815640-a1579686
Green you must do, but socially
10-10-2018
The tenth of the tenth: sustainability day. It is a day to reflect on the complex issue of climate change and its consequences. Last week, climate scientists from the IPCC announced that warming of more than 1.5 degrees may lead to an irreversible tipping point, after which ice sheets will not stop melting[1]. This also means that the Paris Agreement's 2-degree target is no longer sufficient. Since industrialisation, temperatures have already risen by 1 degree and if we continue at current rates, the rise in 2084 will be as much as 4 degrees[2]. A rapid and overall sustainable transition is therefore essential. This has far-reaching consequences, such as the insulation of homes, the greening of the energy sector, the transition to electric passenger and freight transport and the change in consumption patterns. The required transition affects the daily lives of many and involves high costs[3]. It is therefore necessary to take social aspects into account, including in Amsterdam.
Precisely because the transition to sustainability is so radical, it is important that it is equitable. Critics warn of the danger of an 'eco-elite', a wealthy educated group that can afford sustainable choices and force them on poorer groups[4]. We must prevent the creation of a divide between 'rich greens' and 'poor greys' from both social and green considerations. After all, the transition can only succeed if everyone participates. In a recently published report, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency also points this out: 'Support will not be forthcoming if citizens and businesses perceive that the bill for the climate transition is too high and, moreover, not fairly distributed'.[5]. We need a social transition, where the polluter pays and the strongest shoulders bear the heaviest burden. The national energy tax is an example of how not to do it; small consumers (such as households and SMEs) pay proportionally three times as much energy tax as big polluters[6].
The city council recognises the importance of a social transition in the coalition agreement: 'we consider support among Amsterdam residents for the energy transition essential', and 'inequality must not be increased by the transition'[7]. In doing so, thorough communication with residents and entrepreneurs is important to identify opportunities and concerns in time. Cost-sharing is also very important.
The energy and gas transition is one of the city's biggest challenges. The municipality must be completely natural gas-free by 2040, starting with three neighbourhoods in the current council term (until 2022). On 1 October, it was announced that the Van der Pek neighbourhood in Noord will be the first to go[8]. Communication and participation are important here, which is why local residents are actively involved. Marieke van Doorninck, alderman for spatial planning and sustainability, also indicated that residents "will be inconvenienced by this as little as possible and the costs [should] also not be higher than they are now with natural gas".[9]. Nevertheless, people are concerned; restaurant owners, for example, have to invest in electric ovens and grills. It is important that the municipality continues to communicate well to identify such concerns and address them where possible. The cost issue also requires attention. Because the Van der Pekbuurt is part of a national pilot programme, the municipality will receive extra money from the state, but this will probably not be the case for every neighbourhood. A fair distribution of costs and benefits will remain a challenge for the entire energy transition.
Social aspects also play a role in other sustainable developments, such as installing solar panels, recycling waste and creating a car-free city. For instance, solar panels should also be accessible to people with low incomes, and for people who depend on cars or taxis for mobility, an adequate alternative will have to be provided. It is now up to the municipality to get these transitions right without compromising its social promises and increasing inequality.
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Wouter Hillebrand & Isha Groot
[1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2252850-verschil-1-5-en-2-graden-opwarming-erg-groot-zeker-voor-nederland.html
[2] https://www.scientias.nl/aarde-is-rond-2084-al-4-graden-opgewarmd/
[3] https://nos.nl/artikel/2197398-klimaatbeleid-nederland-dat-gaat-geld-kosten-veel-geld.html
[4] https://www.trouw.nl/groen/een-groene-toekomst-is-er-alleen-voor-de-rijken-de-eco-elite~a4847e15/
[5] http://themasites.pbl.nl/balansvandeleefomgeving/wp-content/uploads/pbl-2018-balans-van-de-leefomgeving-2018-3160.pdf
[6] https://presspage-production-content.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/1289/onderzoekenergiebelastingvoorrechtvaardigeenergietransitie.pdf?10000
[7] https://amsterdam.groenlinks.nl/sites/groenlinks.nl/files/downloads/newsarticle/COALITIE_13JUNI18_DIGITAAL_v2.pdf
[8] https://www.amsterdam.nl/actueel/nieuws/pekbuurt-eerste/
[9] https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/bewoners-van-der-pek-ik-hoop-dat-we-niet-meer-gaan-betalen~a4605415/
No funding, no future?
2-10-2018
Last Friday afternoon, the P.C. Hoofthuis of the University of Amsterdam was occupied by a large group of disgruntled students. The chairman of the Executive Board and the mayor were not let into the building. The occupation ended with the M.E. having to carry off the last sitting students. Thirty of them were arrested. Amsterdam students were angry. Still angry. But where exactly did this anger come from?
Over three years ago, things were also well under way; the 2015 occupation of the Maagdenhuis will have escaped few people's notice. In the winter of 2015, the Maagdenhuis, the administrative headquarters of the University of Amsterdam, was occupied for almost six weeks. About 300 students had invaded the building after having to move out of their previous destination, the Bungehuis. The main demand of the students was more democracy and participation in the university from both students and lecturers. There was also talk of budget cuts, which would hit humanities faculty programmes the hardest. Partly because of this, the action group Humanities Rally came into being, which took the lead in the 2015 protests. The group denounced the UvA's 'profitability thinking', which, according to them, focused more on the university's financial picture than on investing in good education.
The 2015 occupation ended with the departure of board chair Louise Gunning. Students were also given the right of consent when it came to the budget of their college or university. After the Maagdenhuis occupation, there seemed to be hope among students that they would be taken seriously and relevant measures taken. Yet last Friday, there was cause for another protest. So where did things go wrong? In recent months, unrest bubbled up among Amsterdam students before: in June, Humanities Rally organised a 'tent protest' near Roeterseiland against the announced cuts to education. The UvA administration, which initially rallied behind the students, chose to break up this protest harshly - which stirred up a lot of resentment among the students. However, last Budget Day, government measures were announced that would hit students even harder. D66 minister Van Engelshoven came up with the plan to make students pay more interest on their student loans, which would mean that students would spend even more money on average for studying. This also meant that the promises made when the loan system was introduced would not be kept: it was said at the time that the money raised by the loan system would be invested in education. Also, students would not have to pay interest on their student debt and it was not taken into account when applying for mortgages. This now appears to be the case.
The students were not taking it anymore and as a result, a March for Education was organised last Friday which coincided with the occupation of the P.C. Hoofthuis. The occupiers renamed their protest ground the 'Autonomous University Post-Colonial House (PCH)'. They not only want the austerity measures to be addressed, but also advocate for more diversity in the university and the decolonisation of education. "The government's austerity drive has turned the university into a place of knowledge destruction," the protesters write in their manifesto. The bottom line is that students end up paying more for lower-quality education. "For the efficiency fetishism of government and governance turns us into docile, authority-believing subjects, and drives us out of awareness of the possibility of change," the manifesto said.
"We must get rid of the neo-liberal culture that has prevailed in recent years in government and education," believes Jan Daalder of New University Utrecht who is also active in DWARS. Jan has been active for some time with the Utrecht equivalent of Humanities Rally in Utrecht. He was also present at last Friday's protests and one of the initiators of the sit-in of the P.C. Hoofthuis. In Utrecht, they certainly support the Amsterdam students' demonstrations, but they feel that these protests can be carried out in a different way. "The 2015 occupation was accessible to other students, but also to the mayor. This was not the case with Friday's occupation. The open character of previous protests was missing," Jan said. According to Jan, the New University Utrecht prefers more accessible protests for better education, seeking debate. In terms of positions, they are a bit more concrete and radical in Utrecht when it comes to the cuts. For instance, a primary demand is to abolish the loan system and restore the basic scholarship.
What, then, is the students' ultimate goal? Jan's ideal society is one in which people would obviously not want to cut back on education and healthcare. To realise this ideal step by step, Jan says there are plans to set up a national action group with students from Utrecht, Amsterdam, Nijmegen and Groningen. Until then, protesting students will join several activities, such as the public sector demonstration on 2 October in The Hague.
It remains to be seen how politicians will react to last Friday's occupation. In the past, it has often been seen that cabinet members have intentions to improve the quality of education, but in practice it often does not happen. This in particular angers students. And rightly so.
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Eline Hoeneveld
https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/bezetters-p-c-hoofthuis-weigeren-gesprek-met-halsema~a4605245/
https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/186820/groep-studenten-uren-na-ontruiming-aangetroffen-in-pc-hoofthuis
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2031592-wat-heeft-het-amsterdamse-studentenprotest-opgeleverd.html
https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/instemmingsrecht-voor-studenten~a3884069/
https://www.trouw.nl/home/maagdenhuisbezetting-doemt-weer-op-als-studentenprotest~abb6b026/
Elected, formed and now moving on
25-05-2018
After eight weeks of formation, the coalition agreement for Amsterdam was presented yesterday. During the presentation of the agreement, the party representatives of Groenlinks, D66, PVDA and SP stressed that they were proud of the cooperation and the ambitious vision of the future they had formulated together. Amsterdam, in these times of division and as the capital of the Netherlands, should set a good example in dealing with problems in society. They would not have been afraid to examine problems raised by Amsterdammers, such as segregation, inequality of opportunity and a lack of citizen participation, and work towards a solution. Because we, as Amsterdammers, want to live in a city that offers us a bright future full of opportunities. But what does this college intend to do about it in the next four years?
This college does not want to make room for segregation in Amsterdam and wants to actively remedy it. Therefore, pre-school will remain accessible and affordable for everyone and schools where segregation is an issue will receive extra support from the municipality in order to guarantee the quality of education. In addition, the teacher shortage will also be addressed and classes will not be enlarged. There will be more internships and apprenticeships in the city to improve the connection from further education to the labour market. The municipality will also invest in more youth work to reduce the drop to crime. People with a disability, whether physical or mental, should not be left out of the picture and therefore their job opportunities will be looked at. Subsidised jobs will be provided if necessary.
Also, discrimination on any ground will not find breeding ground in this agreement. There will be a hotline for discrimination and racism. People will be actively encouraged to report offences. The college supports the creation of 'rainbow networks', especially in the police and in education. More attention will be paid in schools to themes such as polarisation, tolerance, LGBTQ people, religion and equality. There will also be a programme to improve the current position of these groups in society. This will be monitored by the municipality.
The neighbourhood you live in will have a more active role in society, by creating more space for get-togethers and empowering local residents. By creating these stronger social networks, the college aims to counter creeping problems such as radicalisation and extremism. There will also be more room for initiatives by neighbourhood residents to tackle local problems such as rubbish, home care and loneliness. There will be neighbourhood budgets to be spent by the district council in consultation with local residents to improve their neighbourhoods. Home care and informal care will also be given a greater role at the local level, by freeing up more money to combat shortages. This will make help more personalised.
The problems concerning housing and the housing market have also been given a clear plan. 7,500 houses will be added per year and the sale of social rented houses will be stopped immediately. Besides, the increase in the rent of social and middle rent will be limited. Students have not been left out either; a total of 10,500 houses will be made available for them until 2022. From now on, the percentage of social rented housing in neighbourhoods will be monitored and if it falls below 45%, interventions will be made. In new buildings, residents will be consulted in advance on the design and greening of the neighbourhood; this will create a sustainable housing policy.
Big plans have also been made for Amsterdam's city centre. Namely, it is to become car-free, creating more space and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. A parking-free canal belt, a reduction of at least 7,000 parking spaces in the city centre and higher parking fees for visitors are examples of this. The municipality will work on the accessibility and logistics of the city centre by, for instance, building new metro and light rail connections. To combat advertising nuisance in public spaces, the advertising tax will be reintroduced in 2020.
To keep the business climate in Amsterdam healthy, the municipality will tackle the monoculture in the retail offer. There will be more room for startups and the municipality will assume its role as a responsible and active shareholder by encouraging companies to make the right choices. It will also focus on international companies that have a positive impact on local employment. The municipality will no longer promote the 'minimum wage' but the 'living wage', which is 120% from the 'minimum wage'. There will be a rethink in hotel policy because Amsterdam is a city to live, live and do business. Only then is it a tourist destination. The tourist tax will be raised so that tourists and visitors start contributing fairly to our city.
Besides strengthening the business climate, this climate is also going green. The municipality will help entrepreneurs in this transition. The port will be transformed into a circular activity. It will play an important and efficient role in the distribution of goods to the city. Carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced substantially. By 2030, this should be reduced by 55% and by 95% by 2050. To achieve this, the municipality will invest in solar and wind energy. By 2020, the city must generate at least 250 MW. Amsterdam will also have to kick its natural gas addiction; to achieve this, an additional €150 million will be released. To get rid of gas by 2040, all new buildings will be disconnected from gas and three more neighbourhoods will be disconnected before the end of this council.
In our Amsterdam, there will also be more room for residents' participation. More say will be given to the various district councils, giving residents a direct influence on the governance of their neighbourhood. To increase citizen participation, the Amsterdam municipality will go through a digital transformation to make it easier to participate. Through this increased participation, Amsterdam will become a city that represents its residents.
And next? Ambition is indeed not lacking in this agreement and real 'Amsterdam' problems are addressed. However, one question remains; that is how are we going to solve it concretely? Some concrete solutions are given, but many questions remain unanswered. Here it is up to us, as residents of Amsterdam, to come up with a solution together with this college, and we are given the opportunity to do so.
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Wouter Hillebrand
Amsterdam seeks mayor: application process launched
23-04-2018
It has now been more than six months since Eberhard van der Laan passed away on 5 October. Although it will not be easy to follow in his footsteps, someone has to take over his job as mayor. On 12 April, the Amsterdam City Council therefore approved the profile for the new mayor[1]. It sets out requirements that the new mayor must meet; he or she must be heroic, determined and compassionate. In addition, the mayor father (or mother) must dare to act to protect the rule of law and must possess vision and persuasiveness[2]. Humour and ability to put things into perspective are also appreciated[3].
Currently acting mayor is Jozias van Aartsen, a VVD man with a lot of administrative experience who has been mayor of The Hague, among others[4]. When he took office in December, he already indicated that his successor should be installed by July. Now that the municipal elections are over and the profile is known, the application process has officially started. An application committee will be set up, including councillors from all parties. King's Commissioner Johan Remkes invites the best candidates for an interview with the application committee. The committee then nominates two candidates to the municipal council, which secretly chooses the new mayor from among them. He or she is appointed by the king and remains mayor for six years[5].
The procedure is strictly confidential and it remains secret who applies. This procedure is sometimes criticised for being insufficiently democratic and transparent. There was even a petition for a mayor elected by referendum, but this proved legally unfeasible[6]. Confidentiality is important to ensure candidates' privacy and not to jeopardise their position with their current employer. Johan Remkes therefore says confidentiality is strictly controlled and violation has criminal consequences.
Amsterdam has never had a female mayor and many people hope that will change[7]. Bij1 even suggested including the desire for a woman in the profile, but this proposal was not adopted. Forming parties GroenLinks, D66, PvdA and SP, however, see the added value of a female mayor. In addition, Rutger Groot Wassink indicated that he would appreciate GroenLinks delivering the new mayor as the largest party. Femke Halsema is therefore seen as a potential candidate[8]. Other names doing the rounds include Wouter Bos and Janine Hennis Plasschaert. For now, however, it remains speculation until Van der Laan's successor is sworn in on 5 July.
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Isha Groot
[1] http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/180767/burgemeester-mv-gezocht-fulltime-vanaf-5-juli-met-optionele-ambtswoning
[2] www.at5.nl/artikelen/180644/profielschets-burgemeester-uitgelekt-heldhaftig-vastberaden-barmhartig-en-humor-
[3] http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/180770/johan-remkes-gaat-humor-kandidaat-burgemeesters-testen
[4] http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/174891/even-voorstellen-dit-is-waarnemend-burgemeester-jozias-van-aartsen
[5] www.at5.nl/artikelen/180644/profielschets-burgemeester-uitgelekt-heldhaftig-vastberaden-barmhartig-en-humor-
[6] http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/179330/gekozen-burgemeester-juridisch-niet-haalbaar
[7] www.at5.nl/specials/de_schets/177572/als-het-een-vrouw-zou-kunnen-worden-dan-graag
[8] http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/180560/femke-halsema-ik-loop-te-piekeren-over-mogelijk-burgemeesterschap
Rush course on 'Drag Act'
20-03-2018
Besides being able to vote for the municipal council tomorrow, you will also have the chance to give your opinion on the new Intelligence and Security Services Act (WIV) during the advisory referendum. Or as many people are now calling it: the 'Sleep Act'.
Last year, the government made amendments to the existing 2002 law for the secret services (WIV). This was necessary because the old law no longer took into account the technological innovations developed over the past 16 years. A change in the law was badly needed, according to the AIVD and MIVD services, to increase the security of the Netherlands. The Upper and Lower Houses approved this new law. However, five students disagreed and successfully applied for a consultative referendum. According to them, the people need a chance to have their say on the new law, as in their view it compromises privacy.
Since cybersecurity is quite complicated and not everyone knows much about it, I would recommend watching the following video where the AIVD briefly explains in two minutes what is changing and what they promise to do, and not to do.
Now that you have a possible idea of what the law a entails, you can look at what the opinions on this law are and what you find yourself most comfortable with:
Why should you for be the law?
It could be argued that, simply put, those in favour value security more than privacy. They hope that with this new law, a lot of relevant data can be brought in within a short time. With more access to, say, meta-data on phone traffic, the intelligence community could better identify terrorist networks. This could prevent terrorist attacks. There are also supporters, such as General-Major Eichelsheim, who are convinced that the new law could save lives of military personnel abroad. Here, he used the imaginary example from Afghanistan: "I know a roadside bomb factory there. Through that bulk interception, I see that there are all kinds of links to individuals. Who calls to it? Who emails to? With that meta-data, I end up creating a group of people who I think: they have to do with that roadside bomb." [1]With this information, you could then prevent such a roadside bomb and save soldiers' lives. Home Affairs Minister Kasja Ollogren believes voters should not fear the new intelligence law: "This law defines when a service may use special powers. The minister and an independent review committee of two judges and a technical specialist must first give permission. That committee is an extra lock on the door, an extra guarantee that the service is doing its job properly.''[2] So, according to Ollogren, there are enough safety measures built in.
Why should you at be the law?
While there are naysayers who consider privacy more important than security, there is also a large group who consider security very important but do not believe this law contributes to it. Other naysayers feel the privacy they have to give up is too great for what they get in return in terms of security. There are also many concerns about data sharing with foreign countries. For instance, a group of cybersecurity researchers expressed their concerns about the new law in an open letter. They believe that when the new WIV collects and stores citizens' data on a large scale, a huge risk of hacks grows. This would put many, sensitive data on the street. This would become especially dangerous if this data is shared with US and UK security services. In their letter, the group of cybersecurity researchers therefore states the following: "Both countries have a rich history of government data breaches."[3] This could therefore put Dutch information in the wrong hands.
Theologian Alain Verheij argued that you should ask yourself the following questions before the referendum: ''Do you trust the competence and integrity of all security service officials? Do you trust all security services of countries the Netherlands considers an 'ally'? Are you very sure that in 20, 50 AND 100 years we will have a government that uses this drag law without ulterior motives? ''[4]
GroenLinks is part of the opposition and has drafted an alternative law in response. If you want to know more about this, here is a speech by Kathalijne Buitenweg where she talks about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJRBuS7g_iE
Hopefully you have become somewhat wiser about this tricky referendum and know what to vote for on 21 March, good luck!
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
June Timmer
[1] https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nederland/baas-mivd-nieuwe-wet-geheime-diensten-redt-levens
[2] https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/minister-ollongren-heb-vertrouwen-bij-dreiging-is-aftappen-nodig~a4581336/
[3] https://veiligheid-en-de-wiv.nl/index.html?_sp=938d6d26-c66a-4f04-9fe6-67583ee50e8d.1521561244975
[4] https://blendle.com/i/reporters-online/wat-je-te-verliezen-hebt-als-de-sleepwet-toch-doorgaat/bnl-tpomagazine-20180318-136094?sharer=eyJ2ZXJzaW9uIjoiMSIsInVpZCI6ImFkZGlldGltbWVyIiwiaXRlbV9pZCI6ImJubC10cG9tYWdhemluZS0yMDE4MDMxOC0xMzYwOTQifQ%3D%3D
Amsterdam takes the lead: ambitious Climate Initiative adopted
19-03-2018
On 14 February, the Amsterdam City Council adopted the Climate Initiative of GroenLinks, PvdA and PvdD.[1] This sets ambitious climate targets: 55% less CO2-emissions in 2030, 95% less CO2-emissions by 2050 and 100% of renewable energy by 2050. The climate initiative provides a framework within which policy plans must be formed to meet the targets. With the Climate Initiative, Amsterdam can start making the transition to sustainability and contribute to the global fight against climate change. But why is a Climate Initiative at municipal level actually necessary and what exactly does it entail? Commission PACT found out.
Why a municipal Climate Initiative?
Everyone knows them: the pictures of polar bears desperately trying to keep their balance on a last unmelted ice floe. Climate change is causing not only melting ice caps, but also rising sea levels, floods, droughts, forest fires and extreme weather events. Water and food shortages will occur, which in turn will lead to large groups of climate refugees[2]. Amsterdam will also start to feel the effects of climate change. Compared to 1950, the number of days with extreme precipitation has already doubled[3]. In the future, it will rain even more often and harder, especially in summer. The sewer system often cannot cope with this, resulting in flooded streets and basements[4]. Climate change is also leading to sea level rise and high water levels in rivers in the Netherlands. Another major problem in Amsterdam is air pollution; it is the most polluted city in the Netherlands[5]. Air pollution leads to lung, heart and vascular diseases, making it the third (!) cause of death in the Netherlands[6]. It is most severe on Stadhouderskade and is mainly caused by traffic.
The scale and urgency of the climate problem was recognised globally in the Paris Agreement in 2015, where all countries (except the US) committed to a maximum warming of 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Netherlands is one of those countries and must therefore start implementing climate policies to meet the targets. However, climate change cannot be tackled only at the national level; municipalities and cities also play an important role[7]. Due to high population density and activity, cities have high consumption and emissions. They are therefore largely responsible for climate change. At the same time, cities are more efficient in energy use than rural areas and nevertheless grow faster. So cities are largely responsible for the climate problem, but they can also play a major role in solving it. The air pollution plaguing many cities, including Amsterdam, provides a local incentive for sustainable measures. In addition, the relative smallness of cities offers an advantage over the national government.
Research by Bureau de Helling (scientific bureau of GroenLinks) shows that municipal policies account for 34.7% of the Netherlands' CO2-can affect emissions[8]. Municipalities can make homes more sustainable, for instance by encouraging insulation and the installation of solar panels with favourable loans for residents. They can also stipulate that new buildings must be natural gas-free[9]. Besides homes, the municipality can make businesses more sustainable, partly by better enforcing the Environmental Management Act. This law requires businesses to take energy-saving measures that they can pay back within five years. However, municipalities lag behind in enforcing the law[10] and many companies do not take the necessary measures[11]. There are also numerous opportunities for the municipality in terms of infrastructure and traffic, from investing in public transport to introducing environmental zones and encouraging bicycle use.
As a municipality, Amsterdam can therefore make an important contribution. The city not only has a great responsibility for climate change, but also many opportunities to solve it. With sustainable climate policy, Amsterdam can make the necessary contribution and, moreover, as the capital, serve as an example to other municipalities and the national government. The Amsterdam Climate Initiative forms a framework within which this climate policy can be implemented.
What is the Amsterdam Climate Initiative?
The Amsterdam Climate Initiative builds on the Climate Bill proposed by Klaver and Samsom. A majority for the proposal by GroenLinks and PvdA has not yet been reached. The Amsterdam Climate Initiative is therefore a great example of how cities can take the lead when the national government lags behind. The Climate Initiative does not concern specific policies, but provides a framework within which climate policy should be shaped. It charts the path towards an end point with concrete targets in 2050, with intermediate targets in 2030[12]. The objectives are as follows:
- 55% less CO2- emissions by 2030.
- 100% climate-neutral municipal organisation by 2030.
- 95% less CO2-emissions by 2050.
- 100% renewable energy in 2050.
To meet these targets, five-year climate plans are drawn up, setting targets and plans for the next five years. These plans are synchronised with the five-year reporting of the Paris Agreement. Within the five-year plans, annual climate budgets are made, where targets are elaborated for each policy area. Currently, there is a 'Sustainability Agenda' in Amsterdam, in which the concrete climate plans for the current college period are worked out[13]. This 'Agenda for Sustainability' will be adapted and then seen as the first five-year plan until 2020.
With the new Climate Initiative, the transition to sustainability becomes the responsibility of all aldermen, not just the sustainability alderman. Every alderman will receive CO2-targets and must report on progress within his or her portfolio. The sustainability councillor will have a coordinating role in this and will prepare the annual climate budget, which will be submitted to the city council like the financial budget.
Finally, the municipal organisation should be completely emission-free by 2030, even earlier if possible. Since the municipality is entirely in charge of this on its own, it is easier to set ambitious targets for the municipal organisation. With the Climate Initiative, this is therefore happening, which also sends a positive signal to citizens, companies and other municipalities.
The adoption of the Climate Initiative is a very good start. The targets set are taken from GroenLinks and PvdA's proposed national Climate Act, making it more ambitious than the current coalition agreement. With this initiative, climate policy becomes the responsibility of all councillors and is included in every portfolio. The annual climate budget will be scrutinised in detail by the city council to monitor the progress of the transition. The climate initiative thus obliges the city council to take action; words must be followed by deeds. The climate initiative sets a nice end goal and also outlines the way towards it. It is then up to the new city council to colour that road with concrete plans. That leaves the question of how big the new college's green ambitions will be, which of course depends on the parties that enter it. So vote on 21 March for a green future for Amsterdam!
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Isha Groot
[1] https://amsterdam.groenlinks.nl/nieuws/amsterdam-neemt-ambitieus-klimaatinitiatief-aan
[2] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
[3] https://www.rainproof.nl/klimaat-extreme-regenval
[4] https://www.rainproof.nl/de-weg-van-de-druppel
[5] https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/amsterdam-meest-vervuilde-stad-van-nederland~a4298283/
[6] https://milieudefensie.nl/luchtkwaliteit/hoe-vervuild-is-de-lucht-in-mijn-straat
[7]https://blendle.com/i/het-parool/een-beter-klimaat-begint-in-de-stad/bnl-par-20151128-5474528?verified=true&sharer=eyJ2ZXJzaW9uIjoiMSIsInVpZCI6ImlzaGFncm9vdCIsIml0ZW1faWQiOiJibmwtcGFyLTIwMTUxMTI4LTU0NzQ1MjgifQ%3D%3D
[8]https://groenlinks.nl/sites/groenlinks.nl/files/Quickscan%20gemeentelijke%20invloed%20op%20de%20CO2-uitstoot.pdf
[9] https://nos.nl/artikel/2220692-groenlinks-gemeenten-kunnen-veel-meer-doen-voor-klimaat.html
[10] http://www.energieoverheid.nl/2013/07/16/energieakkoord-controle-op-naleving-wet-milieubeheer/
[11] https://nos.nl/artikel/2209512-bedrijven-verplicht-om-nu-echt-werk-te-maken-van-energiebesparing.html
[12] https://amsterdam.raadsinformatie.nl/document/6170626/1/09012f97822c1b79
[13] file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/agenda_duurzaamheid%20(1).pdf
PACT Committee: Government lags behind on climate goals: Then the cities should do it themselves!
16-03-2018
With Trump's arrival, politicians, scientists and citizens feared for the climate; and rightly so. Trump called climate change a "hoax of the Chinese" and proclaimed that the US would pull out of the Paris Agreement.[0] However, Trump's election also shook up the world. Now that it had been made crystal clear that necessary climate policies would fail to materialise in Washington, it was time for US cities to take matters into their own hands. A counter-movement against Trump's policies emerged with more than 50 mayors of US cities jointly signing the Chicago Climate Charter,[1] which contains goals in line with the Paris Agreement. The message was as follows: If the government is not going to try to meet the Paris goals, we will do it ourselves.
The cities agree on the following[2]:
The clearest commitment in the Climate Charter is to reduce CO2 emissions by a percentage equal to or higher than what the US had pledged under Obama. This amounts to a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2025 relative to 2005 emissions.[3] An important addition to this pledge is to accurately and transparently track progress on this. This will allow cities to check among themselves whether policies are in line with the Climate Charter. If not, where a city falls short can now be clearly identified. This makes it much easier for citizens, scientists and NGOs, for example, to give well-reasoned criticism and demand concrete measures.
They also agreed to reflect the reality of climate change in their policies. The Climate Charter is little comprehensive on this point. The commitment is given a little more substance by combining it with the agreement to work with scientists, climate groups, local organisations and business. Collaboration with business may raise alarm bells with some. The fossil industry likes to get involved in climate policy, and it could be argued that in doing so, they still think of their own profits rather than the common good (but let's save this discussion for another time). On the one hand, the Climate Charter says it considers the financial and social costs of CO2. On the other hand, the Climate Charter says it seeks a just transition for those affected by the transition to a new economy. The latter point might indicate that the fossil industry will be compensated. The Climate Charter does not go into detail on this, so no judgement can be made. However, it is a point to watch out for.
An impressive commitment in the Climate Charter is the agreement to give a voice to groups previously excluded from the discussion. The Charter refers to women, ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, disabled people and socially and economically disadvantaged communities. This commitment is very important in light of an emerging call for 'climate justice'. Climate change affects first those who are the worst at defending themselves against it or speaking out. The Netherlands has the money and expertise to raise its dykes, but developing countries are much less prepared for floods.[4] During the storm season last year, some wealthy citizens posed tough. 'Bring on Irma' someone had written on his barricaded house before moving to safer territory.[5] The urban poor had ramshackle houses that were unlikely to survive the storm and, moreover, sometimes could not afford to leave the city.[5] Last year too, ING, among others, was fiercely criticised for investing in a pipeline that went right through indigenous territory (ING eventually invested the shares in the project). [6] Indigenous people feared pollution of their habitat and sacred ground (the pipe ran along a cemetery).[7] Protests ended in violent actions, fires by activists and pepper spray and water cannons by police. There was talk of human rights violations and some expressed that the conditions were only possible because people simply cared less about indigenous people.[8]
Finally, the cities agree to work for more local authority on climate policy and an economy that takes climate change into account. Americans with their love of freedom value local autonomy. This gives them the ability to decide locally.
However, this is not a privilege of US cities. The Hague also falls short in the Netherlands, and a huge amount can be achieved locally too. When the central government falls short, cities can stand up and take the lead themselves. Trump has woken up some of us, but our central government does not seem to be fully awake yet. What are the possibilities of Amsterdam? What are the possibilities of Dutch cities among themselves? Isha and I hope to discover this together over the next few months. In a series of articles, we will describe what kind of local initiatives already exist and which ones we could possibly learn from when it comes to sustainability and the fight against climate change. A great first example of this is Isha's piece on the Amsterdam climate initiative that you can expect soon.
Rosa Tibosch
[0]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/climate-change-mayors-chicago.html
[3]https://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges
[4]https://knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/ipcc-ii-gevolgen-klimaatverandering-duidelijk-zichtbaar
[5]https://nos.nl/artikel/2192114-miami-beach-houdt-even-op-met-swingen-en-wacht-gespannen-af.html
[7]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37863955
[8]https://www.ft.com/content/e3588510-28fe-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c
PACT Committee: New student housing in North: an example of how not to do it
08-03-2018
6 January 2018, the Parool newspaper published an article stating that a record number of migrants came to Amsterdam last year. The group of 38000 consists mainly of expats and students from England, India and the United States (Couzy, 2018). To this, refugees make up a smaller group of 2,600, half of whom are from Syria. The construction of new districts such as Zeeburgereiland, Houthavens, Amstelkwartier and Buiksloterham will partly meet the growing demand, but the housing shortage among students remains a problem.
CBS also announced on 25 January that fewer and fewer students are moving out each time since the introduction of the loan system (RTL News, 2018). In 2014, 4138 students settled in Amsterdam; in 2017, only 2563 new students moved in. The combination of the loan system and the aggressive rental climate makes living in Amsterdam hard to afford for students and others. On 14 November, the aldermen of 12 student cities sent a fire letter to minister Ollongren to take action against the exploitation of students by landlords.
An interesting example that clearly illustrates the problem are the 'NorthOrleans' - flats in North, on Spijkerhaven. According to the building permit, these were supposed to be flats for students. Of course, the final 30-square-metre flats for 1250 euros a month are far too expensive for a 'normal' student. How is this possible?
The agreements made between the municipality and the builder of the studios appear to have no legal value. This is due to two different things:
- The target group 'students' has not been specified. As a result, 'relatively cheap houses' are now being built. The Council of State ruled on a similar case in New West; the term 'student housing' in a permit is something that cannot be enforced.
- Second, there is a point system, which allowed the municipality to 'protect' the maximum rent. However, the rules of the point system have been changed in The Hague, allowing these rents of 1250 euros per month exclusively for 30 square metres.
Based on this data, they concluded that the municipality is powerless when it comes to these situations (Van der Meijden, 2017).
GroenLinks
What is GroenLinks's role within this issue? How do they want to solve it? Where do they want to go?
GroenLinks's programme stresses that the market has had free rein for too long and that the municipality needs to intervene effectively in the housing market. 'Unorthodox measures' are not avoided in this regard. However, these measures are not specified. However, several action points are mentioned, including:
- In new construction, the ratio of social rent, medium rent/buy and more expensive rent/buy is 40-40-20.
- There will be a municipal housing corporation to provide more affordable housing for vulnerable groups and low- and middle-income households.
- We are committed to providing more housing for working or studying young people, for instance through accelerated transformation of vacant offices. We are also committed to improving the flow from youth to starter homes.
- 10000 student houses will be added in the next 10 years.
The last two points in particular hold great promise for students. The big challenge becomes the maze of rules, the influence of national politics and the power of big companies. How do you protect groups if agreements made with companies are not legally binding? Are they legally binding? And if so, will GroenLinks get companies to legally bind these agreements? In any case, the motivation to strive for equality and accessibility to and in the housing market is there. I will be following this topic more closely in the coming weeks, so I can keep you updated.
Daniel
PACT Committee: Municipal council and administrative system
01-02-2018
The municipal elections are just around the corner: 21 March is the day everyone can go to the polls again! But what do you actually vote for, and what influence does your vote have? Since there is also a new administrative system from this year, here is a little overview to see through the trees, the forest again.
The city council and the municipal executive together form the central administration; they make the plans and rules for the city. When you vote on 21 March you will vote for members of the city council. The largest parties after the elections then combine to form the coalition. This coalition appoints the aldermen and they, together with the mayor, form the college of mayor and aldermen (aka college of B&W called). Besides the central city government, you have (in Amsterdam) seven city districts, which are divided into 22 areas. The governance of the city districts is set to change from 21 March, as a new administrative system will take effect. But what exactly will change?
In the old system, each district had its own administrative committee, a kind of small city council with its own budget that was allowed to make independent decisions[1]. Those democratically elected board committees will be replaced by a district committee and an executive board as of 21 March 2018. The daily management of the city districts is no longer democratically elected, but appointed by the College of B&W[2]. This board consists of three people and has its own duties and powers.
In addition, each district will have a district committee with four to six members per area, elected at the same time as municipal elections. Members of the district committees need not be members of a political party, but they may. Active local residents not affiliated with any party can therefore also stand as candidates under the new system. The district committees are tasked with advising the daily administration on the future and layout of their district, and on the implementation of work. They consult twice a month with the executive committee of the city districts and also have the possibility to put topics on the city council's agenda [3]. District committees thus act as the eyes and ears of the city districts and have an advisory and agenda-setting role. However, the advice they give is not binding, and the daily administration of the city districts can disregard it, provided they explain why.
The new administrative system is an initiative of Alderman Choho with portfolio Administrative System. The reason for a new system is a report by the Brenninkmeijer Commission, which stated that the administrative system had shortcomings that needed to be revamped[4]. D66 spokesperson Ten Bruggencate argues that the new system "removes a major flaw from the current system, the so-called double mandate. The current board committee members are elected by residents, but at the same time have to implement the policies of the board. This will become clearer in the new system'[5].
However, the new system has been widely criticised. The entire opposition supported a motion of censure initiated by GroenLinks against councillor Choho[6]. The main criticism is that the new system would detract from the level of democracy and thus trust in local politics, because district committees have only an advisory role[7]. Rutger Groot Wassink (GroenLinks) even talks about the 'abolition of democracy'[8]. Secondly, the new system would play into the hands of large political parties, although Amsterdammers who are not members of a political party are now also allowed to stand as candidates. This is because the introduction of constituencies within city districts ensures that a larger percentage of votes is needed to be elected. Het Parool calculated that before, only 7% of votes were needed to get into a district committee, while now it is about 25%[9]. Larger, established parties therefore have a better chance. A third criticism is that the new district commissions would not be given sufficient resources to do their job properly. Although committee members receive compensation, more people, more time and more money would be needed to create successful district committees with sufficient social support[10].
Despite criticism, the new system has been adopted and will take effect from 21 March. For most political parties, the candidates for the district committees are now known, but even without being a member of a party, you can still stand as a candidate until 5 February. To do so, you must have at least ten declarations of support and meet the following conditions[11]:
- You have lived in the Netherlands for at least three years
- You are 18 years or older
- You live in the area of the district committee you want to be a member of
So when you vote on 21 March, you will vote for a councillor and a member of the district committee. Read up carefully, because the council can do a lot for you. Whether that is that you want more student housing, later closing times of your favourite pub, or that you simply want us to keep Amsterdam the sweet city we promised Van der Laan.
June Timmer & Isha Groot
[1]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/175837/wethouder-choho-onder-vuur-motie-van-afkeuring
[2]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/175200/grote-partijen-komen-makkelijker-in-stadsdeelcommissie-door-nieuw-stelsel
[3]https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/bestuurscommissies/nieuw-bestuurlijk/stadsdeelcommissie/#hf6c6523d-bde6-4ad9-8a77-66ce5b848fa3
[4]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/175792/d66-pareert-kritiek-op-nieuw-bestuurlijk-stelsel-brenninkmeijer-doet-zelf-aan-politiek-spel
[5]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/165796/oppositie_laaiend_over_afschaffen_gekozen_stadsdelen_een_regelrechte_schande_
[6]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/175837/wethouder-choho-onder-vuur-motie-van-afkeuring
[7]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/165796/oppositie_laaiend_over_afschaffen_gekozen_stadsdelen_een_regelrechte_schande_
[8]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/165796/oppositie_laaiend_over_afschaffen_gekozen_stadsdelen_een_regelrechte_schande_
[9]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/175200/grote-partijen-komen-makkelijker-in-stadsdeelcommissie-door-nieuw-stelsel
[10]http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/174438/betrokken-buurtbewoners-kunnen-de-politiek-in-maar-ze-hebben-niks-te-zeggen
[11]https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/bestuurscommissies/nieuw-bestuurlijk/registratie/
PACT Committee: Housing according to D66 & GroenLinks
24-11-2017
On 16 November, Reinier van Dantzig, list leader of the Amsterdam municipal council group, presented D66's new housing programme for the next decade. A remarkable programme, which seems mainly focused on increasing the housing supply for middle-income earners. How does D66 want to do this and what does GroenLinks think about it? The new PACT committee chimed in for you!
The Amsterdam housing market is a market like no other. In the free sector, more and more homes are being bought up under the buy-to-let motive. Investors buy relatively cheap houses, refurbish them and then rent them out for sky-high rents in the exploding Amsterdam housing market. Every time an occupant moves out, these investors have the chance to raise the rent to capture fat profits, which can then be used to buy up even more homes. Opposite this free sector is the social rent, houses with a set maximum rent that are only accessible to people with an income below a certain level. Currently, the maximum rent is around 710 euros p.m. and the maximum annual income just over 36,000 euros. D66 sees this dichotomy in the housing market as a danger. In the future, Amsterdam will only be a city for the poorest and richest, while middle-income households (families in particular) will have to leave the city because they cannot afford the free sector and do not qualify for social rent. This is the result of housing policies of coalition parties SP and VVD.
D66 comes up with a two-part solution to this problem. On the one hand, the party wants to build many more houses over the next 10 years, 40% of which will be earmarked for middle rent, on the other hand, D66 wants to transfer existing social rented houses to the free sector so that they become available for middle-income households. In time, this will also ensure that the current 'skewed tenants' (people with an annual income of more than 36,000 who do live in social rented housing) will move to housing that better suits their income, so that more social rented housing will become available for the people who are truly entitled to it. All this should ultimately lead to four times as much supply of medium-rent by 2028.
However, D66's plans are misguided and have provoked a multitude of critical reactions, especially from the left. PACT contacted GL councillor Jorrit Nuijens, whose portfolio responsibility is 'housing', to ask what is wrong with D66's housing programme and what alternative policies GroenLinks proposes.
When D66 proposes freeing up more housing for middle-income earners, the party completely misses the point. These will be homes close to a thousand euros a month, which the municipality has no control over because this falls outside social renting. Most middle-income earners in Amsterdam live in social housing, these are the so-called skewed tenants. However, they do not earn much more than 36,000. The difference between middle incomes and the 'low' incomes (who are now entitled to social rent) is much smaller than D66 seems to believe. In fact, what D66 proposes amounts to handing these people over to the free sector. The consequence? These people will have to leave the city or end up paying way too much. D66's housing programme does not stand up for middle-income people, but for people earning 70,000 euros or more a year. These are not the people GroenLinks wants to stand up for. GroenLinks wants to ensure that the real middle-income earners, such as teachers, nurses and many more, are no longer stuck in skewed rents or paying way too much in the free sector, but that they are allowed to continue living in social housing in accordance with the rules. GroenLinks does this by increasing the maximum annual wage to qualify for social rent, accompanied by a small increase in the maximum rent. Social rent is not just for the poor, it is an essential tool of the municipality to keep the city habitable on which an awful lot of average citizens depend.
GroenLinks sees Amsterdam as an emancipation machine. People come here from all sorts of backgrounds and it is the city's job to give these people the chance to develop and emancipate here. But then they have to be able to live here.
Another exciting idea for the future: GroenLinks is considering the possibility of the municipality entering the housing market as a player. The municipality has enough capital at its disposal to start buying up substantial real estate combined with loans from the bank. This the municipality can start renting out at socially desirable rents. In this way, the municipality can keep the housing market more under control and also earn money from it.
Roeland Voorbergen
Where do you really come from?
18-11-2017
This question seems, to people to whom it is never asked, one of the most normal questions to ask someone you are just getting to know. Nothing wrong is ever meant by it and the question is asked mainly to show interest. It falls under the heading: "What do you do in daily life?", "How old are you anyway?" and "Are you a cat or dog person?". Of course, you don't immediately go into depth with people you've just met, hence these superficial questions that keep getting asked. Instead, you start with the 'easy' questions to get a general idea of someone, to discover common ground in conversation, to get to the next stage of the conversation. But for me, the question "Where are you really from?" is not a superficial question, and, moreover, totally irrelevant to getting a general picture of your interlocutor.
'Where are you from?' he asked interestedly. 'From Eindhoven!' I replied, smiling proudly. 'No, where are you really from?' he said. One sentence that instantly made my smile disappear. 'I'm from the Netherlands,' I said rather cheerfully. This is also the only correct answer I could have given to his question. I really am from the Netherlands, I have even lived there longer than he has; after all, I am several years older. 'Come on, you know what I mean. Where are your parents from?" he asked, a little irritated. 'My mother is from Eindhoven and my father is French,' I lied.
My father fled Syria when he was 17 because, from an ideological point of view, he did not want to go into military service. He ended up in Paris at 18, where he lived for decades. That way, I have French nationality as well as Dutch. I have never spoken a single word of Arabic, I have never been to Syria, and until it was in the news daily, I did not even know exactly how to point out that country on a map. I feel as Chinese as I do Syrian. Even France, whose nationality I have and in which I can sort of make myself understood, I don't see as a part of myself. I am fully Dutch and even more specifically, I am an Eindhoven native.
It is not problematic to ask someone where he or she is from, with the expectation that the person will give a country other than the Netherlands as an answer. It often enough leads to interesting conversations when the person asked does indeed identify with another country and is eager to talk about it. But when someone clearly answers with "the Netherlands" or a village, city or province from it, it can be annoying when asked further.
When someone asks me where I am from, I am happy to talk about Eindhoven for a while. At least the fact that I am from Eindhoven has some relevance to the image others create of me. From the fact that I answer the question with "Eindhoven" and nothing else, someone can easily infer that I identify more with the Netherlands than with any other country.
The question "Where are you from?" is fine. But "Where are you really from?" is rude. That's not a question you ask someone you're just getting to know. What are my options? Saying I don't want to talk about it is not nice and makes for an uncomfortable situation. If I answer again that I am from the Netherlands, the other person gets angry. But when I say I am from Syria, it is simultaneously true and false. While it is what they are referring to with that question, it is not where I am from. Indeed, it is not part of my identity at all. If I wanted to make that clear, I would have to go into depth about my personal situation, while I have absolutely no desire to explain that to someone I have just met. Hence, continuing to ask where someone is 'really' from, when you have just met them, is indecent.
Fabrice Kanounji
Shopping in statistics
08-11-2017
Every campaign is a combination of numbers and stories. Stories of individuals, illustrating what the "hard numbers" show. The personal experiences grab you, the figures make it clear that this is not a unique case. We at BKB know this, journalists know this but politicians know this too.
For instance, you combine a personal story of a student sitting at home with burnout with the fact that one in three students has an increased risk of burnout. Or you take the number of traffic fatalities, which has fallen by 47% since 2000, and link that to a car accident victim. And tada, you have a convincing and substantiated story. The numbers are the hard reality and you use the experience to give it a personal touch. You see this combination, of figure and experience, come by very often.
You would say: facts and statistics are neutral, they are objective. Someone went to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and looked at what stood out. Nice right? However, there are two problems with statistics.First, the fact an sich may be neutral, however, its use never is. It is always subjective. I notice different things in the lists of figures on the CBS site than my neighbour, colleague or friend. I cannot look at that with a neutral, objective view. Secondly, in practice it works the other way round. People experience or observe something and then go fact shopping.
Not reality but experience is taken as the starting point. And then it suddenly becomes easy to find a basis for that, through statistics. Take those road accidents; I said earlier that the number of road fatalities has fallen drastically since 2000. But the fact that that number has increased since 2014 paints a very different picture. So there is always an agenda behind statistics; sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously.
Statistics is perhaps the biggest and best weapon in your arsenal. This is not because it is now such a good tool for describing reality, it is mainly because of its supposed neutrality. When confronted with an unknown statistic in the heat of the moment, the only reaction is "You can't do that, can you?" or "you paint a picture that a lot of people do not identify with."
What next? Should we just banish statistics and numbers? Or disbelieve them a priori? To properly scrutinise politicians, journalists should adopt a skeptical attitude towards flaunting figures and statistics. Figures belong in reports and policy plans where they can be provided with context and where the opponent has time to check them. Context cannot be provided in soundbites of a few seconds so we show the figure for what it is: a thoroughly coloured political tool. We don't see that one run-over cyclist as a valid argument in a debate, let's also take those 629 road deaths from 2016 with a grain of salt.
Jan Daalder
This article previously appeared on the blog BKB Campaign Watch, part of campaign agency BKB.
Growing inequality
07-10-2017
More and more inequality, that is a movement going on in our world.
The cabinet in the making is not going to tackle this problem. Corporate tax cuts and increases in taxes on consumption are what the new cabinet is expected to push for. This increasingly encourages rich people to stay rich and poor people to get poorer.
The Netherlands is a prosperous country; poverty like people in parts of Africa do not exist here. But even in our own country, people live below the poverty line. Experiencing for yourself what it is like to live on the poverty line in our country shows what poverty really does to people. These people do not have a life with a good education, a well-paid job and a stable family to take care of them. An uncertain future, that's what they have.
Oxfam Novib has launched a campaign: the 'Live Below The Line Challenge'. This action is about letting people experience for themselves what it is like to live on a basic amount of €1.75. This is the level of the poverty line. The aim is for participants to spend no more than the said amount on food, per person, per day, for one week. With the challenge, we hope to raise awareness about the inequality that exists in the world.
As mentioned, inequality in the world is still growing. Therefore, we hope that as many people as possible will sign up for our action, to experience for themselves what it is like to live on little money.
Participating with a whole group of friends or with your whole family is of course also possible. How fun it is to take up the challenge together and encourage each other! Anyone can participate by signing up with an individual e-mail address.
You can sign up until 21 October! The action is immediately following, as mentioned above, for a week.
See herewith the link to the action (signing up for the action can also be done here): https://collaction.org/Projects/Details/45
If you like the challenge, apply now!
Malou Bruijn, campaign & communications intern Oxfam Novib
Journalism/VVD in crisis
25-04-2017
Is journalism in crisis? It has been shouted since the 1980s, although in recent years, with the rise of the internet and recently the much-discussed "fake news", it has been widely discussed. Based on a piece of in-depth investigative journalism by Follow the Money (ftm.nl), I argue first that this crisis is not that bad and then how one can indeed speak of a crisis.Last weekend, it published Follow The Money a reconstruction of a business transaction by Henry Keizer, party chairman of the VVD, called "The 'ruthless self-enrichment' of a political heavyweight". Keizer allegedly bought for a pittance a multi-million dollar company called The Facultatieve have taken over. The transaction was approved by "independent commissioners" Loek Hermans and Anne-Wil Duthler, both first MPs for, surprise, the VVD. For this piece, Kim van Keken and Eric Smit of Follow The Money a series of (former) members of the board and members' council but also a number of independent experts (an analyst, a tax expert, a financial law lawyer and a former KPMG board member) who unanimously disapproved of the transaction. They also used a variety of documents, including annual accounts and annual reports, and described, somewhat narratively, the history of the company in question.In many ways, the piece fits into the tradition of American investigative journalism, also known as "muckraking". That tradition began with the book The History of the Standard Oil Company (1904) by Ida Tarbell that described the monopolistic, aggressive market strategies of the company of John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937). In that book, the abuses of Rockefeller and his were described in detail and provided with a social and historical context. Van Keken and Smit of FTM do the same. The company's history, called The Facultatieve dates back to 1874 and is taken as the starting point for this piece of investigative journalism. And it is not only the context created through that narrative that is copied from Tarbell: the subjects, Keizer and Rockefeller respectively, were at the top of organisations tainted by scandals but to which they themselves could not be linked. In fact, last March Keizer was the only VVD prominent who wanted to speak to the journalists of the programme Politicologica in the broadcast VVD, integrity or not? where he argued that the VVD took scandals and conflicts of interest very seriously (watch the broadcast back here: https://www.human.nl/politicologica/kijk/afleveringen/vvd.html). Now, roughly a month later, Keizer himself is heavily targeted by FTM. The controlling function of journalism works well here: these journalists have been digging, calling and interviewing and if their findings turn out to be true then Keizer has a big problem with perhaps Loek Hermans and Anne-Wil Duthler as "collateral damage". And this snowball has already started to roll: the NRC and the Telegraaf have already devoted a short report to the scandal, and AD asked Keizer for comment. Out of that came this gem:
''I am extremely bummed about this,'' Keizer said in a comment to this newspaper [AD]. ''We were supposed to have a meeting on Tuesday, during which I would give FTM an explanation. I don't understand why they didn't wait for this.''
AD merely provides a stage for Keizer to spin, spin and in doing so gives him the chance to portray himself as a sympathetic, cooperative participant rather than the greedy bagger who is FTM of him. In that respect, FTM it very well: they are close to those in power and act critically but fair. However, based on this story, there are also two possible arguments to argue that journalism is indeed in crisis. First, I noticed all too well that I took only three years of economics in high school. The financial and organisational structures that Keizer allegedly built and exploited are quite complicated. That is certainly another reason why this story is only now, after much digging of FTM, emerges. While it is noticeable that a lot of hard work has gone into making this story insightful as well as easy to read, in my opinion it is not entirely successful. This is partly because a clear red narrative line is missing. Is this due to the complex nature of the story (misuse of financial/organisational constructions), to a lack of literary talent on the part of FTM, or something else? In any case, what is certain is that I came across this story on Facebook. There, of course, this article is in the middle of cat pictures and at best a free article from NOS, nu.nl or de Volkskrant. Those articles can be read or even scanned in minutes. So does it go wrong with the translation to comprehensible terms or does the article lose its power because of the context in which it is read? Or perhaps both?A second argument revolves around the effectiveness of this piece muckraking. Although Rockefeller came away well from Ida Tarbell's research at the time, there is a significant difference between this piece and Tarbell's work. This is because Tarbell did not write primarily about Rockefeller but about Standard Oil, its business and its position in society. Kim van Keken and Eric Smit of FTM writing primarily about Henry Keizer. Hester Bais, lawyer financial law, who is quoted as an expert says:
"[...] this is greed and greed. A striking example of greed culture."
Here, she leaves open whether this is about the gravy culture within the business world or within the VVD. The writers of the article do the same. The question is: why? That such a culture exists within the business world has probably already been described in detail, by Joris Luyendijk among others. A reference or repetition of this would have been very much in order. However, the culture within the VVD has for years been described only on the surface (one of the few exceptions in this area is Mark Chavannes, 'What kind of country do we want to be, Mark Rutte? One in which lying is normal?' The Correspondent, 25 January 2017). Teeven, Opstelten, Van der Steur have been in the news extensively. And Mark Rutte, Loek Hermans and last but not least, Henry Keizer were then all allowed to point out how bad it all wasn't and how the VVD was working hard to improve its life. However, the underlying greed culture thrives: Keizer will at best be just the next in the line of resigned VVDers and his successors will not change a bit.So while FTM is conducting a thorough investigation into Keizer's financial misconduct, they are leaving out the bigger picture. Their site states the following:
"We investigate people, systems and organisations that misbehave (financially and economically) and thereby potentially harm groups in society."
Pay particular attention to the term "financial-economic". Investigative journalism, "muckraking", is more than that. Investigative journalism should focus not only on financial-economic misconduct but also on the social context of that misconduct. In the end, of course, I have a lot of respect for the digging work of FTM And by no means do I want to downplay that away. It is certainly good that this kind of research is done and that it has impact is nice. Still, the investigative journalist should not lose sight of the bigger picture. What is the importance of this research? What can we do with it? What should we do with it? Why is it mentioned that Keizer, Hermans and Duthler are VVD members, but this thought is not carried through?Perhaps because the story then has its punch loses. Perhaps because it then becomes too broad and too long and too vague. Perhaps it is impossible or impracticable. But that is what the crisis is for.
This article is a rewritten version of an essay for the course De Pers Onder Druk at the University of Amsterdam.
Read the original article in FTM, very worthwhile: https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/de-rucksichtslose-zelfverrijking-van-een-politiek-zwaargewicht?share=1
Read Keizer's reaction in the AD here: http://www.ad.nl/politiek/vvd-partijvoorzitter-baalt-ontzettend-van-bericht-over-zelfverrijking~a69b603d/
Science as religion
The danger of science atheism
18-03-2017
About a year ago, US Republican Ben Carson that Charles Darwin was under the influence of the devil and evolutionary theory is wrong. When the press pointed out to him the implausibility of this point, he replied that "he does not criticise the religion of scientists either, so they -the press- should not attack his religious views either. Ortewell, Carson made the comparison between science and religion, a comparison that can be found more often these days. Another claim you often hear these days, mainly from the populist right, is that science isap is 'also just an opinion'. This dismissing science as opinion is, of course, most clearly seen with Donald Trump, who, among other things, does not "believe" in climate change, even though an awful lot of scientific research shows that it is the biggest problem of our time. For example, he stated Trump In an interview with the Miami Herald: "I am not a big believer in man-made climate change. It could be of some impact, but I don't believe it's a devastating impact." The word 'believe' seems to suggest that Trump thinks climate change is something you may or may not believe in. In doing so, he dismisses scientific evidence of climate change caused by humans as merely a "belief.
Although religious people's faithsobriety often not see religion as something they have chosen to do, but regard as the truth, I think there is a clear difference between religion and science. Where in religion it is not so much is about proof (what is proof that God exists?), burden of proof and truth-telling in science precisely crucial. Science gives us true knowledge and comparing this science to religion is a dangerous development. Among others demonstrable climate change becomes so trivialised, making joint action beneededd to solve this problem is getting harder and harder. After all, the United States, with Trump in chief, could instead play a pioneering role in climate change mitigation, partly because of their powerful position in the Western world politically and culturally.
The problem of science as religion does not only occur in the United States; it exists just as much here in the Netherlands. The Party for Freedom attaches little value to scientific development and states in its election manifesto that, if it were up to them, there would be helemaal no more money to innovation goes. Interestingly, Geert Wilders research in some cases, such as on the success of the euro, does deploy selectively, but to other scientific discoveries that do not fit into his political programme. In other words, when it suits him and his views, research is suddenly allowed to serve as the basis for his argument.
The point is that politicians like Trump and Wilders have a large constituency that they can influence, giving science its legitimacy among a large group threatens to losszen. One of the important tasks for science, however, is hhe control of politics. After all, scientific research allows political statements to be checked, and certain statements cannot be once be done, because research has already the facts has demonstrated. A loss of legitimacy of science may have the effect of making it easier for politicians to make untrue statements.
It is important to state that the scientific research I have been talking about so far is mainly scientific, or at least positivist, quantitative research. According to these scientific paradigms, 'facts' can be found out through research, such as the fact that the earth is warming. However, it is the case that much research within the social sciences and humanities is based on a more constructivist perspective. This kind of research does not claim to be factual, but highlights precisely the differences in thoughts and experiences between people. Thoughts and experiences that are constructed by ourselves. It is therefore more difficult to explain the direct 'usefulness' of this scientific research than that of research that claims to present factual facts. By politicians like Wilders and Trump therefore, this kind of science will not receive any attention at all. Of course, within the scientific literature there is also the necessary debate between positivist and constructivist scientists. At the moment, I think it is easier to convince people of the truth of positivist scientific research and we should start with that first.
Worldwide scientists watch in horror at what is happening with the knowledge in the United States. On 22 April, US scientists will walk in the March for Science, in which she Trumps attempt to ridicule science want to give a counter voice. The Dutch version of the march will be organised on the same day at Museumplein. Clearly, wetenscdo not give up sit and fight for thegeen they love -the scientific pursuit of truth. This gives me hope. After all, science, along with journalism, has such an important function: controlling politics. The criticism from the science indicates that they take this function very seriouslyemt. Let us hope that science will always believe in itself, and itself simultaneously manages to detach from the current tendency for her to compare with religion. The danger of scienceatheism lurks, after all.
This article also appeared in Sociologisch Mokum, the journal of sociology at the UvA
Chris van Kalkeren
'Mummy for president':
Why having a full-time job and being a parent should not be mutually exclusive
It is so cliché, but to this day the Netherlands is still struggling with an age-old emancipation problem. CBS research shows that more than half of Dutch women are still economically dependent on their partners. They sit at home (part-time) to take care of household chores and motherhood so that their partners can continue working1. The big difference between men and women, that women can have children, pushes Dutch women into a bad habit that is long out of our time.
But times are changing. Fantastic examples like Angela Merkel and Khadija Arib inspire our society to open the doors of top jobs to women as well. They show us that there is no job that cannot be done by both sexes. Working, competing, taking risks, running for the US presidency: no task today is gender-specific. Inspired by these women, our jobs will change, we will be expected to be able to work long hours as steadfastly as our predecessor. Fantastic, because this is what many women can and want. But on the other hand, no thought is given to how we should combine this with the household or having children. Figures show that the high workload of dual or single earners conflicts with raising children, increasingly leading to serious forms of stress among both parent and child2. In response, women are virtually forced to choose between or children or that top job. Highly problematic, as this is how we as the Netherlands miss out on a large part of our talented leaders, two-income earners and taxpayers of the future, namely children.
That is why the Netherlands benefits from giving every parent the opportunity to continue their job independently if they want to, regardless of their desire to have children. By making free professional crèches available to anyone who wants them and doing something about our relatively short paternity leave3, the government could accommodate the working Dutch parent. Since the first year of life is best developed cognitively at home4, it should be made possible to educate children at home for a time first, until mum and dad can simply return to work with peace of mind. Education-focused before- and after-school crèches have repeatedly been shown to be more effective for cognitive development than staying at home5. An effect that is even stronger for children from ethnic minorities, who, thanks to the extra supplementary education, are taught both the language but also typical Dutch norms and values. What makes the Netherlands so successful and strong: that every talent can flourish and get the most out of itself, starts with catching up on these differences. And where can this be done more effectively than from an early age?
This is why I advocate a society where every individual is given the opportunity to raise his or her offspring without losing a job or having to turn down a job. From such a society, the barrier to having children is lowered for parents who aspire to both hold down their full-time jobs, and be parents. This is also good for the children, as this way no child has to fall short of education and has the chance to catch up with possible cognitive disadvantages. Our children are the future of the Netherlands, and if they find it normal to live in a society where women are given as many career opportunities as men, one day the women's emancipation of the Netherlands will finally truly be realised. That is the society I would like to wish the Netherlands. Free education and free opportunities, for every child and every parent.
References
Go Scientific Evidence 4 all! Remember that science is also there for you to back up your opinions with facts. Don't be afraid of detail and check out Google Scholar if you are curious about research on something that affects you personally. Feel free to send me an email if you don't have access to certain articles, or if you want to read the scientific exposure of a contemporary political issue that sits you DWARS.
1Van den Brakel, M. 2015. Working, but not economically independent. Central Bureau of Statistics, Socio-economic trends, 08: 1-19.
2Grant-Vallone E. J. & Donaldson, S. I. (2010). Consequences of work-family conflict on employee well-being over time. Work and Stress, 15: 214-226.
3Overview of paternity leave: www.rijksoverheid.nl
4Waldfogel, J. (2006). What children need. Harvard University Press.
5Burger, K. 2010. How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25: 140-165.
The knighthood of food
Genetically modified food. Yuck. On almost every package in Ekoplaza, I see a label "only natural resources used" to reassure the crowd of compulsively conscious eaters. I am one of these. As a vegetarian and a nutrient label reader, I have a natural aversion to the idea of genetically modifying food, whatever that means. An evolutionarily grown, soil-stained potato is what I prefer to see on my plate.
The difference between primal food and genetically modified food is that the latter is tailor-made for humans and production. Examples include soya and maize, the shadow kings of our food empire. Our cows are stuffed with it like foie gras and at every processed meal it is sprinkled on top like cheese.
In Michael Pollan's book, "Plea for Real Food", he mentions the only food we should eat is food our grandmother would still recognise as such. No microwave lasagne in silver container with whitish cheese jelly on top. But spelt pasta with vegetables from the farmers' market. Furthermore, avoid products with nutrients that could come straight out of a Star Trek comic book, the E612 spaceships.
Fat belly
I was convinced of my "back-to-basics" diet. Eating only what nature gave birth to, how could that go wrong? Until my father said, "Do you think nature was made for you?". As if every grain can't wait to be eaten by us. As if a melon deliberately lets itself go a bit so we can enjoy its fat belly. Food has not adapted to our diet, our diet has adapted to food.
Soy and maize, for instance, are less fragile and free of substances to which one can be allergic, according to the nutrition centre. They are like the knights of old, inside still the same strong person, outside an extra layer of protection by some iron plating. Either food becomes more reliable and better to grow. With our overpopulation and increasing food shortage, it doesn't sound bad to me.
Genetically modified food still offers a lot of room for innovation mainly in the short term. Counting on evolution, we will have to wait a few more decades before the potato becomes a meat substitute. While in laboratories they can already grow cultured meat without animal suffering. With our growing demand for meat, this, again, does not sound bad to our ears.
Yet the stigmas surrounding GM food seem to be emerging everywhere. If we want to make our food more nutritious, safe and sustainable, waiting for evolution is an impossibility. Maybe a clean, nutrient-rich, genetically modified potato is worth my plate after all.
Jonas van Oenen
'Then why are you in favour of DWARS?'
"My mother votes D66. Personally, I think DENK is a good party," says Mohammed on the second day of teaching the Politics subject at the IMC Weekend School in Amsterdam-Noord. While laughing and pointing to my DWARS shirt, "Why are you for DWARS then!"
Along with Mohammed, over 25 Group 8 pupils were guided for three Sundays last month by DWARS'ers Charlotte, Lara, Daniel and ourselves (Suzanne and Mark), plus GroenLinks member Servaz van Berkum and several Young Socialists and other volunteers. The IMC Weekend School provides supplementary education for motivated children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods in seven major Dutch cities, aimed at developing broad general knowledge and discovering individual interests. What was striking about our group was that it consisted exclusively of children from non-western backgrounds.
A week later, the pupils went to make plans for the Noorderpark. After a brief introduction on exerting influence through local politics by me (Mark) and a presentation by Elien van Helden of Noorderpark Trust, the pupils and their supervisors went to the Noorderpark to ask park visitors what could be improved and get their own ideas about it. My group, with a contrary boy who refused to participate for a long time, plunged into the park's dog policy. "How would you feel about a field with a fence specifically for dogs, and that dogs would then not be allowed to run loose anywhere else?" was the question posed to park visitors. "Seems absolutely great to me" was then the answer almost every time, including from dog owners themselves. After the groups had gathered after an hour, politics was put aside for a while and the children went off in the playground. Half an hour later, calm had returned and we evaluated our dog plan. Soon after, all students in the Noorderparkkammer proudly and sometimes nervously told about their park plans for dogs, safety, the elderly, children and more. From DENK fan Mohammed, I received the artwork below afterwards.
Jonas ponders King's Day
Je maintiendrai
It is almost here again, the day of hysteria over the glorification of an archaic power structure. Let us delve briefly into the birth of this bank holidays. King's Day once started in 1885 as Princess Day, hereafter in 1891 it became Queen's Day and since 2014 it has been King's Day. It started as a way to emphasise national connection, an interesting initiative it seems to me. So I wonder to what extent Koningsdag still serves that purpose now, isn't this a day when we should honour our country and live up to our coat of arms? I feel that the Dutch motto of arms "Je maintiendrai", or "I will maintain", is very much present on our King's Day. Unfortunately, it is mainly used by policemen to control the hordes of drunken people, for whom the only goal seems to be to destroy Amsterdam. Kings Day seems to be mainly an excuse to have a out-of-body experience cause by watching how many times you can reach the bottom of a beer can. The number of tourists during King's Day also continues to grow exponentially, once again giving the impression that the day has lost its original charms.
Connection
All this nevertheless begs the question: what is King's Day still for? Asking people around me, I don't get very unambiguous answers. Some end up arguing about the illegitimate oppression by the royal house, others in a woodwind story ending with "but it's just fun anyway". In this process, I do realise one thing: everyone I ask is well aware of Koningsdag. This probably applies to every Dutch person I would talk to, everyone knows what Koningsdag is, a large proportion probably even have traditions on Koningsdag. Maybe this is what Koningsdag is still for, an implicit connection between all Dutch people purely because it is a collective concept we are all aware of. So maybe it's time to grab a beer and start feeling implicitly connected to my fellow man after all.
Jonas van Oenen