http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/06/06greenwire-utilities-learning-to-mind-the-gap-between-sma-24987.html

The "smart meter" is no panda.

Just as the bamboo-munching bears put a cute face on the campaign for endangered species, the digital devices known as smart meters have been hailed by experts as the interface to educating consumers about their electricity use as the nation aims to overhaul its grid and energy use.

But the smart meter has not been the cuddly and beneficial device smart-grid enthusiasts promised, or need, to win public interest.

And recent lawsuits and complaints about smart meters being responsible for higher electricity bills in early-mover programs in California and Texas have exposed a major problem in experts' assumptions about the meters: Having energy usage information is not the same as understanding it or being able to act upon it.

If a consumer did not understand how weather, fuel prices or inefficient water heaters affected their electricity before the new meter was installed, they won't understand after it is installed either without additional educational efforts. And any changes that occur in their bill will be blamed on the tangible, newfangled element in the equation: the smart meter.

"The value of the smart meter is not immediately recognizable by the consumer, and that's a problem," said Eric Dresselhuys, executive vice president and chief marketing officer for Silver Spring Networks. Silver Spring is one of the leading providers of the software and hardware platform that connects smart meters and other equipment to utilities.

Silver Spring and other companies working in the smart-grid industry are quickly coalescing to address this gap in consumers' understanding of electricity use and the smart meter. Silver Spring, General Electric Co., the GridWise Alliance, Best Buy Co. Inc., the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and several other companies unveiled the SmartGrid Consumer Collaborative last month. The collaborative's mission is to research consumers' concerns and develop a message to engage the consumer to understand the benefits of the smart grid.

The companies are hoping to quickly stymie a growing belief among consumers that smart meters are just another way for utilities to make money.

"We have a lot to do to begin informing consumers and a lot to do to market differently with consumers," Bob Gilligan, vice president of GE's Transmission and Distribution Business, said in an interview before the coalition was announced. "I think it's really not out there yet for most consumers; there is a lot more to be done."

"The smart grid is not smart until the consumer is actually engaged," added Katherine Hamilton, president of the GridWise Alliance.

But Ralph Izzo, chairman and CEO of New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group, said better marketing may not be the answer to addressing the gap in consumer understanding of electricity use or changing consumer behavior.

"I think we tend to overstate the contribution that sophisticated technology can and should make," Izzo said.

"I feel like just shouting, 'Stop. Apply some common sense,'" he said. "Before we start championing multibillion-dollar investments in smart grids that control set-back temperatures on refrigerators because there is or isn't going to be a Super Bowl ... we need to get folks to caulk around their windows," he said.

Advanced technology and smart meters should be available to gadget-hungry consumers who will engage with the technology, Izzo said. But at the same time, regulators should enable utilities to do more basic weatherization and other energy saving measures.

Mutiny on the bounty

Recent lawsuits filed by customers against PG&E Corp. in Bakersfield, Calif., and Oncor in Dallas, Texas, accusing the meters of inflating electricity bills have introduced a considerable chill among the industry in the past few months.

The suits and other complaints involve some of the biggest players in the smart-grid and smart-meter space -- including Silver Spring, Landis+Gyr and IBM Corp. -- and could have significant implications on how quickly utilities and state regulators move forward with meter installation programs.

The utilities and companies involved say there is no problem with the meters or the data communication. Instead, unusual weather and other circumstances have caused users' bills to increase.

But the companies acknowledge PG&E, Oncor and the industry probably did not adequately communicate and educate their customers about what the smart meter would and would not do. Promises and reality could cause significant issues down the road if better communication about the smart grid is not developed, Malcolm Unsworth, president and CEO of Itron Inc. said at the EnergyBiz Leadership Forum last month. Itron is a leading manufacturer of meters.

"The hype must be replaced by smart strategy and results," Unsworth said.

GE's Gilligan agrees. "I think we have to be careful not to set too high an expectation in the near term in terms of differences they will see," he said. "I think we need them to see why there is need a for change. ... We have to keep building the message we are positioning for a 21st century America."

The "why" is key, according to Nancy Brockway, principal of NBrockway & Associates, a utility and electricity consultant. The industry and regulators must change their message and "spinach" attitude regarding smart meters, she told the National Electricity Delivery Forum in February.

"The problem that I see from the consumer perspective is we are not sure if the consumer wants it, and we don't know if consumers want to pay for it," she said. "One thing that will turn off the ability to get from here to there is the 'eat your spinach' mentality -- it's good for you, it will be good for you ... so eat your spinach."

"The more these enormous costs are shoved down these people's throats, the more they may turn on this thing that they might like," Brockway said.

Plugging consumers into the equation

The firms behind the SmartGrid Consumer Collaborative want to change that mentality by reaching out to consumers and attempting to understand them better through research.

"We can't get buy-in until we educate," said John McDonald, general manager of marketing for GE's digital energy business, during a teleconference announcing the collaborative.

Guido Bartels, general manager of energy and utilities at IBM, said the education must reach beyond the technology to the "foundational layer" of electricity in society. "Not everyone realizes how fundamental electricity is" to the economy, Bartels said.

The simple problem of consumer ignorance about electricity and the solutions needed to address it has been underestimated by many companies, Bartels said. "One of the things IBM is learning, is that these are complex projects; they need careful planning ... and some of these [meter] roll-outs lacked that."

The collaborative is not the only effort moving forward on the issue. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is also working on a national plan to develop an educational campaign on energy use as part of efforts to promote "demand response" -- a voluntary decrease in energy use at peak use times -- activity usually enabled in part by a smart meter (Greenwire, Nov. 5, 2009).

Dan Delurey, executive director for the Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition, said the two efforts could work in collaboration, especially on consumer research.

"We need it all," Delurey said. "There is a lot of suffering going on right now from substance having gotten out ahead of communications."

PSEG's Izzo said stepping back and slowing down a bit on the massive roll out of smart meters could be beneficial for everyone. Focusing on straightforward changes such as weatherization and lighting would likely do a lot more toward benefiting and informing consumers about the electricity use of various appliances and drafty houses than devices that "you have to ping 14 places around the planet to control," he said.

To be fair, Izzo said, sophisticated, programmable technology was very beneficial for customers willing to participate in PSEG pilot projects.

"But the attraction to most customers is low, and penetration rates are very, very low," Izzo said. "That resulted in many of our regulators saying, 'Wait a minute, so we are going to do this ubiquitous change out in technology for all customers and then watch only a handful of customers take advantage of that? That doesn't make a lot of sense.'"

Instead PSEG is taking a two-pronged approach that targets customers interested in smart meter and other high-tech devices but does the simple "low tech" fixes of insulation and light bulb switching -- for which New Jersey regulators have allowed the utility to earn some revenue -- with the majority of other customers.

"If I would have to say what one area would have the greatest impact right now it would be the low-tech, bread-and-butter programs," Izzo said.

13-05-2010 om 21:44 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Wat Vandenbroucke kan bewijzen

Een jaar na zijn liquidatie als Vlaams minister is Frank Vandenbroucke (sp.a) terug als lijstduwer voor de Senaat. Brigitte Raskin reageert verheugd. Brigitte Raskin is schrijfster, onder andere van Het koekoeksjong en De gestolen prinses.

Ik heb de tiende plaats aanvaard op de Senaatslijst van de SP.a. In gangbare termen is dat geen ‘verkiesbare’ plaats, tenzij we 60.000 Vlamingen verzamelen die er anders over denken.


Waarom dan toch meedoen?

Ten eerste omdat we uitzonderlijke tijden beleven. De wereld wordt overspoeld door de tweede financieel-economische tsunami in twee jaar tijd. Er dreigt een sociaal bloedbad in heel Europa. Griekenland is daar de voorafspiegeling van. In die context ga ik écht niet te lang stilstaan bij mijn eigen plekje op de lijst. Minder dan ooit kan de linkerzijde het zich veroorloven om in verspreide slagorde naar de verkiezingen te trekken. Dit geldt a fortiori voor België en Vlaanderen, waar de rechterzijde meer dan ooit aan zet is. Rechts tracht zich bovendien nog te versterken door om communautaire thema’s naar de kiezer te trekken. Maar de contouren van de sociale strijd tekenen zich op de achtergrond duidelijk af. Er is een links bruggenhoofd in het parlement nodig. Maar niet alleen dat: het overheersende discours over economie moet doorbroken worden. Het moet weer naar links. Socialistische verkozenen met een ruggengraat zijn daarbij essentieel.

Ten tweede kwamen deze verkiezingen halsoverkop. Minder dan ooit had de partijbasis daarbij de kans om haar stempel te drukken op de lijstvorming. Dat is dan maar zo. Ik zal roeien met de riemen die men mij geeft. De tijden zijn er niet naar om van een verkiezing weg te lopen.

De kiezer beslist

Ten derde staat Rudi Kennes op een verkiesbare vierde plaats op de Kamerlijst in Antwerpen. Voor het eerst in jaren opent zich het perspectief om een socialist met een uitgesproken links en syndicaal profiel verkozen te krijgen in het parlement. Voorwaar geen overbodige luxe in deze turbulente tijden. Rudi kan daarbij een ondersteunende campagne van op de Senaatslijst gebruiken. Hij moet niet enkel verkozen worden, hij moet met zoveel mogelijk voorkeurstemmen verkozen geraken.

Ten vierde is geen enkele plaats op de lijst onverkiesbaar. Ook niet de tiende plaats op de Senaatslijst. Wie van elf naar vier kan springen zoals ik vorig jaar deed kan ook van tien naar drie springen en verkozen geraken. De kiezer beslist. Voor de Stijn Meurissen van deze wereld luidt de boodschap: we snappen jullie ongenoegen, maar doorbreek de particratie en herstel de democratie, in plaats van op 13 juni in je bed te blijven liggen! Hetzelfde geldt voor de kiezers van Vlaams Belang en Lijst De Decker: we snappen ook jullie ongenoegen, maar de tijd van die demagogen is gelukkig voorbij. Zij vielen door de mand.Doe dus iets nuttigs met je stem! Welkom terug bij de SP.a, maar schud mijn partij maar eens goed wakker.

De missing links

Voor de kiezers van de PVDA geldt een variant op deze boodschap: minder nog dan voor de Kamer is het realistisch dat de PVDA een verkozene zou hebben in de Senaat. Wie de SP.a niet links genoeg vindt maar voor wie linkse verkozenen geen overbodige luxe zijn vindt op plaats tien van de Senaatslijst van de SP.a de missing links tussen linkser en links. Op het sociaal-economische vlak staat SP.a Rood trouwens voor een financiële- en een energiesector in openbare handen, een onvervalste vermogensbelasting en de afschaffing van de notionele intrestaftrek.

Laat je niet verWeven

Sedert begin mei is het verschil tussen de Belgische en Duitse rentes op staatsobligaties aan het toenemen. Is dat omdat de macro-economische parameters voor België slecht zijn? Integendeel: de groei in ons land is nog steeds hoger dan in de rest van de Eurozone, terwijl ons begrotingstekort lager is dan het gemiddelde. De financiële markten ruiken echter een institutionele crisis en politieke instabiliteit. Met andere woorden: de communautaire crisis begint ons pakken geld te kosten.

Terwijl de N-VA met behulp van Siegfried Bracke Vlaanderen tracht te verstrikken, heb ik daarom een andere boodschap: laat je niet verWeven in het communautaire spinnenweb! Voor Vlaams Belang, N-VA en LDD zijn vormen de communautaire problemen een politiek handelsfonds. Zij hebben geen baat bij een oplossing. Ze zijn een deel van het probleem. Zij zullen de communautaire stem misbruiken om een sociaal bloedbad à la Griekenland aan te richten. Een disciplinering van het overheidsbudget om de schulden af te bouwen en de rentesneeuwbal te doorbreken op vraag van "de markten" (lees: de speculanten en bankiers), niet door linkse voorstellen als een vermogensbelasting, het aanpakken van belastingsontduiking of een wet tegen ontslagen bij winstgevende bedrijven, maar wel door loonbevriezing en het in vraag stellen van onze sociale zekerheid. Splits B-H-V voor mijn part, maar begrijp dan dat dit enkel kan via een onderhandelde oplossing. Maar los vooral de sociale problemen in Brussel en de rand op! Zorg voor de heropbouw van de Brusselse infrastructuur, voor sociale woningbouw in Brussel én in Halle-Vilvoorde zodat de sociale verdringing die vaak onder het taalprobleem schuilgaat bestreden wordt. Bouw scholen in de hoofdstad, bouw een gewestoverschrijdend openbaar vervoersnet uit. Investeer en werk samen in een Marshallplan voor Brussel. Werk aan de inbreiding van Brussel. De tewerkstelling in de bouwsector van Brussel, Vlaanderen en Wallonië zal er wel bij varen!

Leve de republiek

Samen met de SP.a ben ik voor een grote staatshervorming. Samen met de SP.a vind ik dat die staatshervorming sociaal moet zijn. Ik verschil echter grondig van mening met de partij over het arbeidsmarktbeleid. Dat is zeker niet de spil van een sociale, laat staan socialistische staatshervorming. De arbeidsmarkt verder splitsen betekent sociale concurrentie in het leven roepen tussen de gewesten. Bovendien levert een gesplitste arbeidsmarkt in en rond Brussel en op de taalgrens operationele problemen op. De grenzen van de regionalisering zijn bereikt en zelfs overschreden. Hetzelfde kan worden gezegd van het milieubeleid, het wetenschapsbeleid of onze vertegenwoordiging in het buitenland. Waarom eigen Vlaamse Huizen of aparte Vlaamse hulpmissies naar Haïti?

Een sociale staatshervorming moet België democratischer, transparanter en efficiënter maken. Het kan beter en goedkoper. Het herfederaliseren van bevoegdheden mag geen taboe zijn. Het afschaffen van het Koningshuis evenmin. Socialisten zijn republikeinen, geen oudbakken Belgicisten: Vive la république/leve de republiek! Er moet één federale kieskring komen voor het federaal parlement. De kiesdrempels moeten worden afgeschaft

Kwelgeesten

De afgelopen jaren bewezen heb ik bewezen geen politiek mandaat nodig te hebben om aan politiek te doen. In Antwerpen vocht ik samen met Ademloos en Straten-Generaal tegen de Lange Wapper, bewerkstelligde ik een ‘bocht’ van de SP.a in dit dossier en redde ik mijn woonplaats Deurne van een kathedraalbrede autosnelweg. De strijd werd dus deels met succes bekroond maar is nog niet gestreden. Net zoals de legendarische Antwerpse kwelgeest dreigt ook de Lange Wapper bij nacht en ontij terug te keren.

Ik zette ook de solidariteitscampagne Zomer van Opel op poten. Om samen met Rudi Kennes de kwelgeest van de werkloosheid op een afstand te houden, en omdat een sociale en ecologische auto-industrie in ons land mogelijk is.

Ik had geen politiek mandaat ter beschikking om deze gevechten te leveren. Ik leverde ze in mijn schaarse vrije tijd en op eigen kosten. In tegenstelling tot veel andere politici beloofde ik dus niet, maar handelde ik in de plaats. Wie zegt ‘eerst zien en dan geloven’ heeft dus al kunnen zien. Maar deze manier van werken heeft natuurlijk zijn grenzen. Een verkozen mandaat zou me toelaten de belangen van werkende mensen veel beter te verdedigen. Daarom reken ik ook op uw steun op 13 juni.

Erik De Bruyn

11-05-2010 om 22:52 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

KEA Comes Clean: Worker Rights “Not Applicable”

by Jeff Ballinger | Thu, 05/06/2010 - 7:42am

IKEA has admitted that freedom of association is “not applicable” in China. Even in the “land of the free,” a union campaign at an IKEA supply plant makes Danville, Virginia, sound like an export processing zone in Bangladesh. Photo: yarnzombie.

After three decades of footloose production driven by the outsource-everything imperative, the storyline is familiar: an image-conscious brand operating in a repressive environment seeks to downplay workers’ complaints with assurances that all the local rules are being followed.

This particular story has a couple of twists, however. The repressive environment is the state of Virginia, where union organizers have labored mightily to get a mere 4.7 percent of Virginians protected by union contracts.

Moreover, the brand is the Swedish home-supply megastore IKEA—hailing from a land of social-democratic harmony—which boasts in its annual reports about strong and long-standing ties to the global woodworkers’ union, BWI.

And on top of it all, the $281 million factory in Virginia (known as “Swedwood”) is an actual IKEA subsidiary, not the typical supplier factory with an arms-length relationship to the brand that buys its goods.

So one might think that honoring workers’ right to organize in the “land of the free” should be a simple matter of “Just ask Kjell to phone up Bengt and Anders, OK?”

In reality, a labor journalist from the Swedish metalworkers union magazine had to jump through hoops just to pose a few questions to the Virginia factory’s manager, Bengt Lundgren. The resulting article recounts the struggle of the Machinists (IAM) union in terms that make Danville, Virginia, sound more like an export processing zone in Bangladesh or the Dominican Republic: workers terrified to meet, racial discrimination and favoritism, a worker humiliated by urinating on himself after being denied a bathroom break.

Here’s a quote from Lundgren: “I have absolutely no dialogue with the union. That's how the American system works.”

What about that much-vaunted relationship with BWI, the global union federation? The article continues: “When BWI general secretary Anita Normark visited Danville along with some of her colleagues, she had to wait two days before they let her in. Kjell Dahlström, former chairman of the union Skogs- och Träfacket, had the same problem, even though he is a member of IKEA's team for monitoring IKEA manufacturers around the world.”

Unions’ cooperation in monitoring foreign factories is a net negative. What may be won in a few cases—getting some workers back pay or a few union activists rehired—is far outweighed by the public relations benefit to the companies, who can claim they are partnering with progressive forces.

NO RIGHTS IN CHINA

In IKEA’s just-released sustainability report, the company is obviously at a loss to explain how workers in an un-free nation can organize resistance to a brutal boss. The report says the right to freedom of association is “not applicable” in China, which is IKEA’s largest source of products.

Compared to the mental gymnastics engaged in by other companies addressing this issue, this is a refreshingly honest appraisal. It should be the starting point for anyone working to improve conditions for workers anywhere—since all the world’s workers compete with China’s $3-a-day wage, party-controlled unions, and low environmental standards.

Most of the report, however, is boilerplate “corporate social responsibility” language with pseudo-scientific measurements of everything from wages and benefits to “harassment, abuse and disciplinary actions.”

Especially dubious is the 99.2 percent freedom of association ranking that IKEA gives itself for its Asian production occurring outside China (which includes fellow union-crushing states like Vietnam)—and, of course, the 100 percent score for North America, which includes Danville, Virginia.

USA: Union refused access to IKEA plant In Danville, USA IKEA's subsidiary breaks a number of its own rules. The union is not allowed in here. Swedwood is bitterly criticized by its employees. When it comes to responsibility for the persecution, fingers point all the way up to the Swedish top executive. “I'll be happy if five show up,” says Bill Street while the steakhouse staff sets a long table. Ten show up. Hesitantly and dubiously, they take a seat; six men and four women. They all work at Swedwood furniture factory and they are all black. They don't want to give their name and they absolutely don't want to be photographed. They are afraid; afraid of their employer, Afraid of their Swedish employer, Swedwood and IKEA. “If they find out that we came here, we'll get fired,” they say. The city is Danville – a sleepy rural town in the American south with its golden days behind it. Once upon a time, there used to be a gigantic textile factory here that employed more than 3,000 people and thousands of workers worked their fingers to the bone in the flourishing tobacco industry. Those days are gone. Danville is no longer a success story. It is a town on the skids. This is the location IKEA chose for its production of "Expedit" bookcases, "Pax" wardrobes and "Lack" side tables. The company was lured by various subsidies from the state of Virginia and the city of Danville along with a number of different funds and programmes as well as cheap labour. Bill Street is in charge of the wood division of the American union IAMAW. For the past year and a half, he has been trying to organise the workers at Swedwood which is not easy. He's not even allowed to visit the factory. “If they let me in, they'd be unionized within a week,” says Bill Street with confidence. Backed by American law, the Swedish management has banned him from coming closer than a couple hundred metres to the facility. That's where he can stand and pass out his flyers. The only way he can actually talk to the workers is to knock on doors or to invite them to dinner at the steakhouse in the strictest of secrecy. All of the Swedwood workers we met over a period of three days had the same message: they are threatened, they are bullied and the management is fostering an anti-union atmosphere; “They can force us to do anything they want. If you complain, they say ‘Don't bother coming back’.” “They fire people for no reason. Most of the workers are afraid. Without the union, we have no protection.” “Blacks are treated worse than whites when it comes to promotions and transfers. Whites get the best shifts.” In the US, unionizing has always been a struggle. Actually, war is probably a more accurate term. Swedwood was supposed to be an exception based on Bill Street's previous experiences with IKEA. He worked hard to convince his own union that it wasn't necessary to declare war on this particular factory. It's owned by IKEA. It's run by Swedes. Nice company; nice people. “I have no problem going to war, but I have a vision here,” says Street. “Using Danville as an example, I want to demonstrate a new model of social dialogue. Show how Swedes think – where we talk to each other instead of going to war.” Now he knows better. “My colleagues in the union were quick to say ‘We told you so,’” says Street. “So, it's back to the same old story of war instead of dialogue.” In Danville, Bill Street knocks on the doors of “supporters” – people who in great secrecy signed a petition to have IAMAW represent them at work. We weave our way between churches on identical side streets with small houses, almost like berries. None of those we meet want to go public – they're not willing to let us use their name or photo – but they trust Bill Street and speak candidly. One man was about to go off shift on Friday when the supervisor said “See you tomorrow.” “But, I'm off this weekend,” the worker pointed out. “See you tomorrow, I said,” repeated the supervisor and that was the end of the story. A family man with young children tells us that he has had to work every weekend since Christmas; “Swedwood doesn't care if you have a family and children.” Whoever you ask, he or she can think of three to five colleagues that have been fired. Several have been encouraged – or threatened – to not get the union involved. An insidious point system leads to termination for the slightest misdemeanour. Things that would not even been noted at Swedwood’s factories in Sweden are a demerit here. After a few demerits, you get a reprimand; then you're out. Several of those we met spoke of a man who had problems with his bladder. Time and time again, he asked if he could go to the restroom, but was told no. One day, he ended up urinating on himself. His wife came to the factory with a change of clothes. He changed in the men's room and was given a demerit for leaving his workstation. After two weeks, he went to the restroom without permission to avoid another “accident”. Then he was fired. This does not come from one or two militant supervisors – if there are any. It comes from regular, scared workers from the Swedwood factory. They work in different shifts with different supervisors. It is a culture that runs from the top down, they claim. A culture that, according to the workers, is sanctioned by the top dog, Swedish Bengt Lundgren. Bill Street explains “When Lundgren took over, we were warned that things were going to go from bad to worse.” “He knows everything,” says a female worker. “There are rules and regulations,” says Bengt Lundgren in response to the criticism. “And we follow the rules and regulations that are in place. Dialogue is handled via the employees. I have absolutely no dialogue with the union. That's how the American system works.” Not even the international union is welcome, even though Swedwood signed a global agreement with the BWI in Geneva. When BWI general secretary Anita Normark visited Danville along with some of her colleagues, she had to wait two days before they let her in. Kjell Dahlström, former chairman of the union Skogs- och Träfacket, had the same problem even though he is a member of IKEA's team for monitoring IKEA manufacturers around the world. “This is a clear violation of our agreement,” says Dahlström irritated. Dagens Arbete's journalist was also denied access to Swedwood's factory in the US. The interview with factory manager Bengt Lundgren took place from a hotel room in Danville by conference call, with HR manager Anders Schönström as monitor in Ängelholm. Bengt Lundgren responded to question after question with the same answer: “I'll answer that question one more time. If the members come together and get 50 percent or more, they are more than welcome. Until then, we are under no obligation to associate with the union.” Naturally, Swedwood and IKEA dismiss the criticism. HR manager in Sweden, Anders Schönström, states that Dagens Arbete is making serious accusations. “It's one group's word against another's” he says in response to employee accusations. “People are incredibly grateful for how much we do for the employees,” claims Schönström. “Our representatives feel insulted since they think they're doing a good job. They feel that we are much better than other companies in the US when it comes to these matters.” Anders Schönström also feels that Swedwood follows the rules that are in place; “All employees have free choice. Our employees are free to organise in the manner they think is right. We also respect if people don't want to be part of the union. I feel that we are following IKEA's code of conduct in Danville.” Bob Ramsay of the international union BWI was one of the individuals who had trouble visiting the Danville factory last year. He is hardly impressed by Swedwood's handling of the situation there. “The employees have no free choice. They are scared to death to show a positive attitude towards unionizing. The employer hardly needs any excuse to fire people.” Ramsay doesn't think that Swedwood can solve the problems in Danville, even though the Swedish union GS is pressing on in Sweden; “If anything is going to change, there has to be direct orders from IKEA in Sweden that enough is enough. It's time to change your attitude and talk to the union about this.” “It's going to have to start costing IKEA money,” according to Bob Ramsay. “Money and image. That's the only way to get results.” “Swedwood is IKEA,” says Monika Jocic at IKEA's information department. “You have to go through the organisation that is responsible. The ball is in Swedwood's court.” “We are seriously worried about Swedwood's and IKEA's attitude,” says Per-Olof Sjöö, chairman of the Swedish woodworkers' union and deputy chairman of the international woodworkers' union in Geneva. “We will act in one way or another, likely through ILO and OECD, which monitor union rights throughout the world.” It would be pretty easy for Swedwood to solve the problems. Just let in Bill Street from the American union. Let him explain – during working hours – how the union works and then let the workers decide for themselves if they want to be part of it or not. The law in the US permits this. Or, you could do it the difficult way. Bill Street's union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) takes Danville by storm with an onslaught of recruiters. This is called a blitz. They knock on doors and collect signatures from Swedwood workers. It is expensive, likely to cost at least 100,000 dollars in Danville. If more than 50 percent of the employees want Bill Street to represent them in a union, a date is set for a ballot vote. It takes about six weeks to get this type of permit from a government agency. During that time, the employer can convince the employees to vote no. Special companies known as union busters can be called in. They are experts at undermining unionizing activities. “First, we have to fight to form a union and take a vote. Then we have to fight to work out an agreement. Once we've done that, we have to fight to keep our members.” “But, if we can't convince 65 percent to sign, we don't ask for a vote,” says Bill Street. “If we can't get 65 percent, it's too easy for the company to break us. We nonetheless lose 40 percent of all votes. Six weeks gives the company plenty of time to scare the shit out of the workers.” ‡ Facts: How employees earn demerits: As described by the employees: Your daughter gets sick. You take her to the hospital and turn in a doctor's note when you get back – one demerit. Death in the family; you stay home – one demerit. Going to the restroom when not on break – one demerit. After the fourth demerit, you are called into the HR manager and are given a dressing down. This is called a “verbal”. With the fifth demerit, you get a written warning. The seventh is called a “final”. The eighth is a “final-final”. “The next time, you're fired.” Ninth: “Go home and don't come back.” You're out of a job. Rules that IKEA/Swedwood breaks: “It goes without saying,” writes Swedwood “that we promote diversity, have a fair and open workplace and treat all of our workers with respect. Employees have the right to organise and join a union and we reject discrimination in every form.” IKEA's code of conduct, Iway, also applies in full force to the subsidiary Swedwood: IKEA suppliers must ensure that workers are not prevented from organising. And ...“are not prevented from entering into collective negotiations”... “between employer and employee representatives chosen by the workers”. Listen to the interview: The scene: a hotel room in Danville, Virginia USA. A telephone and a journalist from Dagens Arbete. On the other end of the line: the manager of the Swedwood’s factory a few kilometres away in the same town. Listen to the interview at da.se 350 people work at Swedwood’s factory in Danville, which is 100 percent owned by IKEA and was built in 2008. The factory manufactures the products Expedit, Pax and Lack for IKEA. According to management, there are currently 350 workers at the factory, of which 61 percent are white. Danville is located in southern Virginia in the USA. In 2007, the town had 44,000 residents, of which 53 percent are white, 44 percent are African American and 1.3 percent are Spanish speakers. Only 4.1 percent of all workers in Virginia are members of a union. Text and photos: Anders Elghorn; originally Published by Dagens Arbete Related pages about: Multinationals Trade Union Rights Regional content: United States

10-05-2010 om 23:19 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

09-05-2010 om 01:12 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Once again, in a matter only of a few years, the eyes of the world are turned with suspense toward the Gulf Coast. Sadly, the oil spill is following a path similar to Hurricane Katrina and threatening the coast of Louisiana as well as neighboring states.

As citizens of God's creation, we perceive this monumental spill of crude oil in the oceans of our planet as a sign of how far we have moved from the purpose of God's creation.

Our immediate reaction is to pray fervently for the urgent and efficient response to the current crisis, to mourn painfully for the sacrifice of human life as well as for the loss of marine life and wildlife, and to support the people and communities of the region, whose livelihood directly depends on the fisheries of the Gulf.

But as the first bishop of the world's second-largest Christian Church, we also have a responsibility not only to pray, but also to declare that to mistreat the natural environment is to sin against humanity, against all living things, and against our creator God. All of us -- individuals, institutions, and industries alike -- bear responsibility; all of us are accountable for ignoring the global consequences of environmental exploitation. Katrina -- we knew -- was a natural calamity. This time -- we know -- it is a man-made disaster. One deepwater pipe will impact millions of lives in several states as well as countless businesses and industries.

Therefore, we must use every resource at our disposal to contain this disaster. But we must also use every resource to determine liability for the fact that 11 people have died and 5,000 barrels of oil are flowing daily into the delicate ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. In exchange for the benefits and wealth generated by deep underwater drilling, individuals, institutions, and industries assume responsibility for protecting the earth and its creatures from the well-known potential hazards. In this instance, they have clearly failed in those responsibilities; that failure must be acknowledged and strong measures taken to avert future catastrophes.

Although we are halfway around the world from this incident, our interest in it is deeply personal. We visited Louisiana and its bayous only four months after its devastation by Hurricane Katrina and we returned there just last October to convene our Eighth Religion, Science, and the Environment Symposium, "Restoring Balance: The Great Mississippi," in New Orleans. At that time, we noted:

Although the time we have been on the planet is insignificant in the context of the life of the planet itself, we have reached a defining moment in our story.

Let us remember that, whoever we are, we all have our part to play, our sacred responsibility to the future. And let us remember that our responsibility grows alongside our privileges; we are more accountable the higher we stand on the scale of leadership. Our successes or failures, personal and collective, determine the lives of billions. Our decisions, personal and collective, determine the future of the planet.

In the spirit of responsibility, the White House and certain Congressional leaders have declared that, before beginning new offshore drilling for oil, there must be greater understanding of the environmental impact and responsibility for such endeavors. We support this approach. For, as confident as interested parties were that a disaster like this could not occur because of watertight controls and fail-safe mechanisms installed, those controls and mechanisms failed, with the horrific results we witness unfolding each day.

Until such understanding and responsibility have been determined, may God grant us all the strength to curtail the spill, the resources to support the region, and the courage to make the necessary changes so that similar tragedies may be avoided in the future.

07-05-2010 om 23:04 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Infrax rekent meerkost groene stroom niet door aan klanten

• donderdag 06 mei 2010, 10u07
• Bron: belga

tiens tiens tiens nochtans herinneren we ons het volgende...op 5 juni 2008 in De Standaard en trouwens ook in onze archieven vonden we het terug

ze hebben daar een kort geheugen bij INFRAX...

Economie

donderdag 05 juni 2008

Zonne-energie jaagt distributietarief omhoog

BRUSSEL - Om de zonne-energiehype te financieren zal in 2010 al bijna 6euro extra worden aangerekend.

Een gezin met een gemiddeld elektriciteitsverbruik zal in 2010 5,94 euro extra moeten betalen om zonne-energie te subsidiëren. Dat zegt Infrax, het netbedrijf van drie zuivere Vlaamse distributie-intercommunales (Interelectra, Iveg en WVEM). Het bedrag dient voor de uitgaven aan groenestroomcertificaten voor fotovoltaïsche stroomproductie (PV). De meerkosten zullen dan 3,5 keer hoger zijn dan vandaag. Twintig procent van alle Vlamingen is aangesloten op het elektriciteitsnet van Infrax.

De algemeen directeur van Infrax, Paul De fauw, pleitte er gisteren voor de kosten voor de uitbouw van zonne-energieproductie te verdelen over alle Vlaamse gezinnen.

Eigenaars van een PV-installatie krijgen per 1.000 kilowattuur die opgewekt wordt, een bijkomende vergoeding bovenop de gemiddelde prijs voor de productie van elektriciteit. Het gaat om 450 euro per 1.000 kilowattuur. Infrax is verplicht om die prijs te betalen, maar kan daarna niet anders dan die dure certificaten tegen een veel lagere prijs verkopen aan de leveranciers.

Voor groenestroomcertificaten schommelt de marktprijs vandaag rond 110 euro. Het verschil mag worden verrekend in het distributienettarief.

Infrax stelt echter vast dat het bedrag dat het op de particulieren en de kmo's kan verhalen heel snel aan het stijgen is. Dat komt doordat de Infrax-regio's goed zijn voor 41procent van alle groenestroomcertificaten (GSC) voor zonne-energie in Vlaanderen, terwijl in zijn werkingsgebied slechts 20procent van alle klanten woont. 'We zijn het slachtoffer van onze successen op het vlak van de stimulering van duurzaam energieverbuik', stelt Paul De fauw van Infrax.

Dit jaar zal Infrax 679.000 euro verhalen op de elektriciteitsverbruikers in de gebieden die het bedient. In 2009 verwacht Infrax zelfs een spectaculaire toename van de zonne-energiekosten tot 7,4 miljoen euro. De verwachting van de top van Infrax is dat de uitgaven voor de certificaten voor zonne-energie nadien sterk zullen blijven stijgen.

Er wordt onder meer verwezen naar het project van de Limburgse Reconversiemaatschappij LRM om samen met de Groep Machiels een PV-centrale van 4,5MW piekvermogen te bouwen op het vroegere slibbekken van de mijn in Heusden-Zolder. Die wordt bestempeld als de grootste zonnecentrale van de Benelux.

Kosten zonnepanelen stijgen tot 100 miljoen

Vlaamse gezinnen en bedrijven hebben de jongste tijd massaal geïnvesteerd in fotovoltaïsche panelen. Daardoor explodeert de steun die de netbeheerders daarvoor uittrekken. Vorig jaar liep de factuur op tot 45,6 miljoen euro. Dit jaar verwacht de Vlaamse energieregulator Vreg dat het bedrag meer dan verdubbelt tot ruim 100 miljoen euro. Dat bedrag wordt integraal doorgerekend aan de verbruikers.

(tijd) -Wie zonnepanelen plaatst, krijgt in Vlaanderen een financieel duwtje in de rug dankzij de groenestroomcertificaten. Zo’n certificaat krijg je voor elke 1.000 kilowattuur productie en is op de markt iets meer dan 100 euro waard.

Maar de netbedrijven zijn verplicht die certificaten op te kopen tegen een gemiddelde prijs van 350 euro om investeringen aan te moedigen. Vorig jaar was dat zelfs 450 euro. De netbeheerder verkopen de certificaten vervolgens op de markt en nemen het verlies op als kosten in de tarieven.

Met het succes stegen ook de kosten. Dit jaar verwacht de Vreg dat de groenestroomcertificatenkosten oplopen tot een tiende van de kosten van het netbeheer. ‘We wijzen er wel op dat dit niet 10 procent van de totale elektriciteitsfactuur is’, relativeert Vreg-directeur André Pictoel. Maar hij voegt er meteen aan toe dat de kosten ‘goed in het oog moeten worden gehouden’.

West-Vlaanderen en Limburg tellen de meeste zonnepanelen. Dat betekende tot voor kort dat inwoners uit die regio meer bijbetaalden dan elders in Vlaanderen.

Maar door een onlangs goedgekeurd solidariteitsmechanisme worden de kosten tussen de regio’s nu genivelleerd. Zo betaalden klanten uit de regio van de intercommunales IMEA (Antwerpen) en Imewo (Gent) miljoenen voor de vele zonnepanelen in het werkgebied van de intercommunales Inter-Energa (Limburg) en Infrax West (West-Vlaanderen).

06-05-2010 om 23:28 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

3 dead in Greek bank fire during Athens riots as tens of thousands protest spending cuts

05-05-2010 om 23:42 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Kerncentrales toch sneller dicht door val van regering

Door de val van de regering-Leterme blijft de wet op de kernuitstap onverkort van kracht. De verlenging van de levensduur van de oudste kerncentrales komt er niet, bij gebrek aan goedkeuring in het parlement. De nucleaire industrie legt zich daar niet bij neer.

Het omstreden protocol dat de federale regering vorig najaar met de Franse energiereus GDF Suez sloot om de drie oudste kerncentrales in Doel en Tihange tien jaar langer open te houden, is een van de belangrijkste projecten die sneuvelen door de val van de regering. "Het is niet omdat er een andere regering komt dat het akkoord tussen de Belgische staat en GDF Suez over de levensverlenging van de kerncentrales niet langer zou gelden", waarschuwt een kaderlid van GDF-Suez.

Het protocol maakte een einde aan de wet op de kernuitstap van 2003. Maar de deal vond zijn weg niet naar het parlement. Een wetsontwerp van minister van Energie Paul Magnette (PS) bleef uit. "Sommigen, niet wij, hebben de val van de regering gewild. Dit is een van de gevolgen", zegt zijn woordvoerster Marie-Isabelle Gomez.

De zaak komt nu ongetwijfeld op de onderhandelingstafel bij de vorming van een nieuwe federale regering. Volgens de Belgische nucleaire industrie, verenigd in het Nucleair Forum, hoort het dossier daar niet thuis. Het akkoord dat de top van GDF Suez destijds met premier Herman Van Rompuy en Magnette sloot, blijft nog steeds geldig, vindt het Forum. (Johan Corthouts)

04/05/10 04u52

Al minstens 12.000 Vlamingen willen niet betalen voor zonnepanelen van de buurman

put

Lees ook

• Groen koken kost geld

Vrijdag gooide netbeheerder Eandis de knuppel in het hoenderhok. Onze energiefactuur zal met 20 procent stijgen omdat Eandis pakken geld moet betalen aan bedrijven en particulieren die zonnepanelen installeerden.

De reacties op de sociale netwerksite Facebook blijven niet uit. Inmiddels zijn er al 12.000 leden die weigeren meer te betalen aan Eandis. De Facebookgroepen luisteren naar namen als: 'Neen Eandis, wij gaan geen 20 procent bijbetalen', of: 'Ik wil niet betalen voor de zonnepanelen van mijn buurman'.

Danny De Doncker (43) uit Putte is de oprichter van die laatste Facebookgroep. 'Zaterdagavond lanceerde ik de oproep', zegt Danny De Doncker, die webdesigner is. 'Ik was toen best kwaad, want het is altijd hetzelfde. Allemaal mooi, die subsidies, maar uiteindelijk draait de burger ervoor op. Ik had gedacht dat alleen wat vrienden zouden reageren op mijn oproep. Maar dat ik op maandagavond al meer dan 5.000 leden had, deed mij wel schrikken. Ik wist niet dat het zo hard leefde.'

De webdesigner heeft zelf geen zonnepanelen, zijn buurman wel. 'Ik denk dat hij wel zal kunnen lachen met mijn oproep. Ik heb helemaal niets tegen zonne-energie. Installateurs van zonnepanelen hebben mij al kwade berichten gestuurd. Maar ik heb zelf ook al overwogen om er te installeren, dat is mijn punt niet. Ik vind het gewoon niet eerlijk dat de kleine consument moet opdraaien voor de kosten. Ik denk wel dat het een krachtig signaal is als we samen 100.000 leden kunnen mobiliseren.'

en volgens ons hebben ze overschot van gelijk want voor dergelijke beleidsblunders hoeven we met zijn allen niet op te draaien! Basta. Wanneer we merken dat tomatentelers inderdaad meer verdienen met het kweken van groenestroomcertificaten ipv met tomaten dan moet er ingegrepen worden. We begrijpen tenandere die ganse heisa niet omwille van de verklaringen van Eandis nu. Een jaar geleden beweerde Eandis net het zelfde maar toen spraken ze nog van een verhoging van 1,5% van de total elektriciteitsfactuur en toen reageerde niemand...nu spreekt men van 20% en het kot is te klein. Ondanks het feit dat de boodschap toen ook al duidelijk was... rarara. Misschien worden de mensen zich eindelijk bewust van de ganse troep en dat het hen heel wat zal kosten...

Voor diegenen die willen vergelijken met de verklaringen van net een jaar geleden of maart 2009... je moet er wel de commentaren over de slimme meters bij nemen...:

04-05-2010 om 22:50 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

SPIEGEL ONLINE

04/22/2010 04:16 PM

Revolt of the Sun Kings

Solar Industry Fights to Save Subsidies

By Frank Dohmen, Nils Klawitter and Wolfgang Reuter

Government subsidies for solar energy in Germany have reached absurd proportions, as ordinary consumers pay out billions to support solar power. Now plans to reduce the subsidies are encountering massive resistance from the industry and a number of German states, which benefit from the current arrangement.

Stuart Brannigan believes that the subsidization of solar power practiced in Germany is extremely exaggerated. Brannigan, a British citizen, says that it's "absolutely necessary" that it be drastically reduced in size.

It's a surprising remark, considering that Brannigan is the European managing director of Yingli Green Energy, a Chinese solar energy company which largely has German government subsidies to thank for the fact that it has been able to grow from a small business into a major player in just six years. Brannigan hasn't exactly made any friends in the photovoltaic sector, especially not in Germany, with comments like this.

Yingli opened up shop in 2004 as a small photovoltaic business, producing solar cells, in Baoding south of Beijing. At the time, the company was manufacturing 6 megawatts worth of solar panels a year -- enough for the roofs of houses in a few villages.

The company now boasts annual sales of more than $1 billion (€740 million). Yingli is a sponsor of the upcoming football World Cup in South Africa. It is referred to in the media as a "solar giant." And Germany is the reason why it is a giant.

Guaranteed Prices

Almost half of Yingli's production is shipped to Germany, which is an attractive market for solar producers, largely because of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) enacted in 2000. The law guaranteed a price of up to €0.57 ($0.76) per kilowatt-hour for electricity derived from solar power that was fed into the grid. The so-called feed-in tariff has since been reduced to a maximum of €0.39, which is still six times the normal producer price. But Brannigan can live with the new reductions. The cuts may actually benefit Yingli in particular, because other producers can't compete with China's low wage costs.

Nevertheless, says Brannigan, "Germans can be proud of this law." Without the help of lawmakers, he says, Germany would hardly have seen such dynamic development of renewable energy sources. What was once a niche industry has turned into a sector with global importance. The solar industry is responsible for almost 80,000 jobs in Germany alone.

But lawmakers have overshot the mark by far, at least when it comes to subsidies for solar energy. Anyone who installs solar panels benefits from guaranteed feed-in tariffs for the next 20 years. That means that, over a 20-year period, Germany's electricity customers will pay a total of around €14 billion in subsidies -- just for the solar panels that were installed in 2009. And that cost is likely to rise in the future, because Germans are mounting more and more solar collectors on their roofs. Economists estimate that all the solar panels installed by 2013 will cost German consumers more than €70 billion. Thanks to the generous subsidy program, crops on some fields have been replaced with arrays of shimmering, bluish modules mounted on automated stands and tilted toward the sun. And all of this is being done for an amount of electricity that meets only 1.1 percent of German demand.

The German government has also recognized that the system cannot continue in its current form. In addition to an annual reduction of about 10 percent in feed-in tariffs, in place since 2009, the subsidy program will be drastically reduced by another 16 percent on July 1.

'Wave of Bankruptcies'

The industry is horrified. Solar manufacturers have taken out full-page ads in newspapers, addressed directly to "Dear Chancellor Merkel," begging her not to touch the EEG.

Frank Asbeck, CEO of the German photovoltaic giant Solarworld and an unofficial solar industry spokesman, fears a solar eclipse and sees a "wave of bankruptcies" headed for the industry. In the wake of the 2009 crisis, he says, the solar sector is still on shaky ground, with most companies remaining in the red -- except, of course, Solarworld.

In fact, Asbeck has created the only fully integrated solar company in Germany. Solarworld handles everything from silicon processing to manufacturing modules to recycling old products. In Freiberg, a town in the eastern German state of Saxony where Solarworld has its production plant, Asbeck is known as the "Sun King."

He has developed a highly automated production system in this former silver mining center, where 1,200 employees produce as much as 6,000 workers do at Yingli. Asbeck estimates that the Germans have about an 18-month technological head start over the Chinese. But whether that advantage still exists is debatable. "We too use European equipment," says Brannigan, noting that he spent about $350 million on such equipment in 2009.

Germany's Market Share Declining

The EEG was long a blessing for the industry, particularly German solar producers. The guarantee of sales created a market and spurred on the industry to introduce series production. But the modules did not become significantly less expensive, at least not until the Chinese and the Taiwanese put the Germans under pressure by flooding the market with cheaper products.

As a result, the German producers' share of the market for solar cells and modules is steadily declining. In 2007, one in five solar cells installed anywhere in the world came from Germany. Today it's only 15 percent, and Germany's market share continues to decline.

Even with the compensation for electricity fed into the grid continuing to shrink, falling material costs have kept the production of solar panels extremely attractive to this day. Some systems promised returns of up to 30 percent. The industry grew accordingly, and so did the costs for ordinary electricity consumers.

According to figures compiled by the German Environment Ministry, consumers subsidize every job in the solar industry to the tune of about €150,000 a year. However, the solar publishing group Photon last year estimated the subsidy to be €218,000.

Good Image

Unlike subsidized coal, however, solar energy has a good image. It is seen as environmentally friendly and future-oriented. For this reason, politicians have consistently shied away from making sharp cutbacks. Even now, the government is still sidestepping the issue. Only a few weeks ago, it postponed the 16-percent cut, which had originally been planned for April, until the summer.

It's true that renewable energy provides us with clean electricity, and with rising commodities prices and increasingly scarce resources, it could even become cheaper than conventionally generated electricity in the foreseeable future. But we haven't reached that point yet.

On the contrary, the current system of high subsidies leads to social inequality, because anyone who doesn't own a house that can be equipped with glittering solar panels is paying for the environmental investments of affluent dentists or attorneys.

"In 2010, a large household with an annual electricity consumption of 7,000 kilowatt hours will pay at least €100 in solar power subsidies alone," says Holger Krawinkel of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations.

Supporting the Sunny States

These subsidies are also problematic for another reason. Ultimately, citizens in Germany's cloudier northern states and poorer eastern states are paying for the solar systems being installed in the prosperous and sunnier southern states.

Last year, about 40 percent of all German solar arrays were installed in Bavaria. Of the roughly €14 billion in subsidies that the EEG guarantees owners of systems installed in 2009, about €5.5 billion will go to Bavaria.

Not surprisingly, Bavarian Governor Horst Seehofer is sharply opposed to reductions in solar subsidies, despite having criticized the subsidies as being far too high only a few months ago. In particular, Seehofer is trying to prevent the planned elimination of the subsidy for solar arrays installed in open fields, a lucrative business for more and more Bavarian farmers. Meanwhile, the environmental experts within the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) -- the parties that make up Germany's coalition government -- are deeply divided over the issue, on both the federal and state level.

There are many indications that the case will end up before the mediation committee of the two houses of the German parliament, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, which represents the states. If only one of the eastern German states, where much of the solar industry is located, refuses to play along, the CDU/CSU and the FDP will lose their majority. Saxony-Anhalt has already threatened to use its veto.

Smaller than Reality

The messy situation and the excessively high subsidies have a lot to do with a simple trick the industry has been playing on politicians for years: It simply made itself appear to be smaller than it really was.

The EEG law calls for the feed-in tariffs to be reviewed and adjusted at regular intervals. In the past, members of the Bundestag have consistently used industry projections of newly installed solar output per year as the basis for these calculations. And it was precisely these projections that were always relatively low (see graphic). So low, in fact, that what would have been an appropriate reduction in the rates didn't seem necessary.

In 2007, the Environment Ministry, using existing forecasts for 2009, assumed that electricity from solar energy had to be subsidized to the tune of about €2 billion, because the industry associations had projected the installation of new modules that would provide about 600 megawatts of power. The real number was 3,800 megawatts, with costs of about €14 billion over the next 20 years.

Even energy expert Hermann Scheer, a member of the German parliament for the center-left Social Democrats who is one of Germany's most prominent solar proponents, now says that the subsidies "cannot continue in their current form." But he also warns against taking overly abrupt steps. Scheer is now proposing a gradual reduction with smaller cuts, which he argues can also bring about the 30-percent reductions in cost over the next two years that many experts are calling for. According to Scheer, the industry didn't do itself any favors with its efforts to shrink the numbers. "I have always warned against underestimating the real new installation figures."

Back to Its Old Tricks

But now the industry is already back to its old tricks. The industry, especially Solarworld CEO Frank Asbeck, is putting up fierce resistance -- apparently with success. Under a plan proposed by Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen (CDU), those who consume the electricity produced by their own systems will be able to largely minimize the reduction in feed-in tariffs. Sources at competing solar companies call this move "pure Asbeck." Asbeck, for his part, concedes that the industry association, BSW, introduced a similar proposal into the discussion with the environment minister.

At first, there was a joint plan to promote the subsidy for solar arrays installed in open fields, but Asbeck isn't as interested. US competitor First Solar's thin-film photovoltaic modules are often less expensive for use in open fields. For that reason, Asbeck is focusing on rooftop installations, and Solarworld is already selling an assembly kit for personal use. It consists of a battery and a solar module, so that customers can consume up to 100 percent of the electricity generated.

Asbeck's friend Scheer believes that the new provision for personal use is unnecessary. He says that it allows new loopholes to develop that can no longer be monitored. He also points out that this sort of thing isn't even necessary. According to Scheer, solar technology is an excellent technology. It doesn't trouble him that its share of electricity generation is so tiny, despite the massive subsidies. He believes that solar energy's time will come. In 10, 20 or 30 years, says Scheer, this technology could be responsible for significant portions of the power supply.

Asbeck has the same goal in mind. He has just spoken with Larry Hagman, who once played the villain J.R. Ewing on the television series "Dallas" and is now being recruited to appear in a commercial for Solarworld. "He's a real environmentalist," says Asbeck. In the proposed advertisement, Hagman is sitting in a rocking chair, as J.R. Ewing. When his brother and family rival Bobby appears in the frame, J.R. says: "It was a great idea that we got out of that dirty oil business just in time." "And then he laughs in that cackling way," says Asbeck.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

03-05-2010 om 22:23 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced Wednesday that it will test its controversial SmartMeters side by side with older analog meters at 150 homes, in the utility's latest effort to defuse public suspicions about the new devices.

Since last summer, PG&E customers have complained that the new, digital SmartMeters overstate electricity usage and lead to higher bills, a charge the utility has consistently denied. So PG&E will pick 150 homes throughout Northern and Central California and test the new meters against the old for three months to see if any discrepancies emerge.

Both meters will be tied into the same electrical line and should, in theory, show the same usage.

"We want to make sure our customers have confidence in this technology," said PG&E spokesman David Eisenhauer.

Data from the test will be made public at the end of those three months, Eisenhauer said.

State energy regulators have already hired a consulting firm to investigate the meters' accuracy. But so far, regulators have refused to halt deployment of the advanced meters, which relay their information to the utility via wireless communication

Each of the utilities filed a business case for the deployment of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) based on a combination of demand response benefits, which were anchored around the findings of the dynamic pricing pilot, and operational benefits in distribution. The CPUC approved all three business cases and meter deployment began at a rapid pace, hitting rates of 18,000 meter installs per day.

en als jullie wat meer uitleg willen over "gedifferentieerde tarieven" waarvan iedereen gelooft dat het goedkoper zal uitkomen...als men tenminste een ingenieursdiploma op zak heeft. Want lees maar mee... met een aantal bloggers uit gebieden waar smartmeters ingeburgerd zijn...

Get ready. PG&E is planning the same nasty surprise on your utility bill.

Under a plan submitted to the state Public Utilities Commission, rates would be reduced for people who use the most electricity and increased for people who conserve. If they're approved, the new rates would take effect in May 2011.

PG&E's proposal is a good deal if you live in the San Joaquin Valley with its sweltering summers and soaring air conditioning bills. And it's conveniently timed for PG&E's campaign in Kern County, where voters — many of them already angry about the introduction of wireless SmartMeters last year — will decide an advisory measure in November that asks if they want to replace the San Francisco-based utility with a publicly owned utility district.

(PG&E also is sponsoring Proposition 16 on the June 8 ballot, which is intended to block creation of public utility districts. We'll comment on that in a separate editorial.)

If you live in one of California's cooler coastal counties, PG&E's proposed rates are a lousy deal.

PG&E wants to squeeze its five rate tiers into three, with more people falling into the highest tier. For a Sonoma County resident using 550 kilowatt-hours per month, that means paying about $130 more annually. Meanwhile, people using 1,500 kilowatt-hours a month would save about $1,200 a year.

I asked my friendly neighbors. And friends, colleagues, sometimes even total strangers. Everybody seemed to be paying less than $100 every month. And here I was going poorer day by day by paying hefty electricity bills to PGE for all of last three years. Last month’s bill was just a wake-up call. Something was really wrong here!

I reached a point where I was almost convinced that either somebody is stealing away my electricity or, I have a faulty appliance or two that is/are leaking electricity all the time.

After much deliberation, I decided to act a little sane before going berserk.

Why is my electricity bill so high? For the first time since I moved out of living in an apartment, I searched for PGE bills. Couldn't find them. Oh, I enrolled for electronic delivery, no paper statements! Doh.

I logged in to PGE and looked at the bill details. Ah, there's a slab system. Dumb me. So yes of course my electricity usage is high but the troubling part is that I pay more than 3 times what others in my neighborhood pay. So why is the baseline so low? Does this mean that everybody else is able to manage within 340 kWh every month?

It was time again to consult friends. It was a big help when a friend allowed me to look at his bill. Wait … his baseline quantity is almost double that of mine. Great, so all I got to do is probably enroll in some other type of plan.
Another call to PGE brought down all my sudden found hopes. The friend’s service was on a E1 H Residential Service – Electricity only. Mine is E1-XB -- Gas + Electricity. PGE understands that for residential customers who only have electricity will need to use it for heating as well so their baseline usage is set higher. In any case, since this friend lived in an apartment I was sure, the bill would somehow be lower ( it was lower for me when I was an apartment dweller) than mine.

But that is weird. I am supposed to use gas as well as electricity. And of course, other than the winter months, nothing in my home uses gas other than the water heater. A quick look at the history at PGE site (those guys have an amazing website) showed that during non-winter months, my gas usage is less than $10-$15.

Now, that is a troublesome discovery. Although I moved from India a couple of years ago, I’m still new to this place. I do not even know what appliances can run on Gas. The first appliance that comes to my mind is the cooking range. It’s electric! Shouldn’t it be Gas? How dumb of me. When I rented this house, I didn’t pay attention.

Coming back to the electricity bill, it seemed lik if I could save falling into the last (above 300%) slab, my bill would at least reduce by a major amount. But what exactly would be able to save from? What appliance is consuming so much of electricity?

02-05-2010 om 23:47 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

DALLAS - Anger at one of Texas' largest utilities is growing.

Dozens of people are furious at sky-high power bills and are convinced the new smart meters are to blame.

"I don't mind paying my bill, but I'm not paying for something I'm not using," said one customer in Grand Prairie on Saturday.

Oncor representatives sat through a tongue lashing at a town hall meeting, where angry customers, pleaded for help with their high bills.

"It's either food, medicine or my electric - there's no way," said Trina Hall.

Nearly all say their bills went up after Oncor replaced the old mechanical meters on their homes with new digital smart meters.

Susan Major has always been careful to save electricity but almost immediately after her new meter went up, so did her bills.

"There's something wrong, either my meter was installed wrong, read wrong, something, and nobody will own up," she said.

Oncor still blames the cold winter for most of the high bills.

But the company now admits its workers misread at least 7,000 new meters when they were installed and overcharged customers.

"What you have is essentially a typo, we're catching those, both with the customers and through our own internal process," said Chris Schein from Oncor.

The utility insists the meters work.

Still, anger is growing, as is suspicion.

Grand Prairie Rep. Kirk England (D) is joining other lawmakers, calling for Oncor to stop installing millions of the new meters across North Texas until an outside agency can test their accuracy.

"I think there's a problem and I think it's more than just weather," he said.

FORT WORTH — Following hundreds of consumer complaints and concern from the Texas Public Utility Commission, Oncor is now testing its new "smart" meters in side-by-side comparisons in North Texas.

But homeowners in one neighborhood in far North Fort Worth have already come to their own conclusions.

“I’m very frustrated,” said Diana Fisher. “I just know my meter's different than everybody else's. It's not the old little mechanical with the numbers turning; it’s actually a digital meter.”

Fisher is convinced that her digital meter has been overcharging her for years.

She’s been complaining about high power bills since she moved into a brand-new subdivision three years ago. She often spends, on average, $300-400 a month on electricity.

Fisher became so irritated that she started introducing herself to her neighbors and comparing bills.

She found homes with the mechanical meters consistently showed that families were using less electricity.

Every home in the subdivision is nearly identical; all share similar floor plans and have nearly the same square footage.

Around the corner, Melody Whitlock and her family live in a 3,065 square foot home — exactly the same size as the Fishers'.

Whitlock’s family is larger; she has three kids, while the Fishers only have one at home.

Yet the Whitlocks — with a larger family — consistently have lower power bills. Statements show they’re using half the electricity as the Fishers.

In January, for instance, the Whitlocks' meter said they used 3,123 kilowatt hours of power; the Fishers' meter said the family consumed 4,998 kwh.

“December and January were our two highest bills, and we were gone a week of those months,” Fisher complained. “I really don't know how I could be using this much electricity.”

Not only were the Whitlocks at home, but they had their Christmas lights running for hours every night. The Fishers passed on the decorations to save electricity.

In several ways, the Whitlocks admit they suspect they use more electricity than their neighbors around the corner. They wash clothes every other day, while the Fishers do laundry once a week.

The Fishers spent thousands making their home energy efficient, even unplugging every major appliance.

Diana Fisher, a legal editor, admits she works from home, but insists she leaves the lights off, and only turns on the family television once a week.

Melody Whitlock sheepishly admits her husband sleeps with the TV turned on.

It’s all enraged Diana Fisher.

“They have TV; we don't! We don't have little kids that watch TV! They use a lot more [electricity]; they have to!” she said. “And their bills are $200-$300 cheaper than mine every month!”

Fisher said her years of complaints have been largely ignored. “I’ve called so many times, I think they’re sick of hearing me,” she said.

Oncor is quick to point out the Fishers have a digital meter that’s been in use for nearly 20 years and not one of the new “smart” meters.

The utility recently began installing hundreds of thousands of the new sophisticated digital meters on homes across North Texas.

Homeowners, shocked with suddenly high bills, have questioned their accuracy and lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to get Oncor to stop installing them.

Currently, the Public Utility Commission is investigating, although Oncor insists its new meters work perfectly.

One major difference is that the “smart” devices carry data wirelessly to Oncor. Oncor said the Fishers' digital reader is an older version that cannot transmit readings wirelessly. The company insists both the Fisher’s digital meter and the Whitlocks' mechanical meter work properly.

“There's absolutely no difference (in their meters),” said Oncor spokesperson Chris Schein. “It’s the difference between reading an analog watch and getting it from a digital watch; it’s the same thing.”

Schein said the Fishers’ usage was in line with a family of that size in a home that large, although he concedes that the Whitlocks’ power consumption is low.

However, Schein figures the Fishers’ one teenage daughter is likely using more electricity than the Whitlock’s three young children. He says teenagers, with all of their electronic devices, typically sap more energy than small children who still don’t know how to turn on the lights.

“What we're seeing here is a difference in lifestyle and that's what really drives the difference between the two families' usage,” Schein said.

Diana Fisher strongly disagrees. She’s now left feeling helpless and furious as she struggles to pay electric bills reaching $600 a month.

“I don't know what to do,” she said.

And the difference in power usage has even Melody Whitlock suspicious.

“There's really not making any sense of it,” she said. “There's something definitely wrong.”

DALLAS — Oncor Electric Delivery set up a promotional event Sunday to show off its new smart meter technology.

But a small group of protesters — chanting slogans and carrying signs and red bandanas — got more of the attention.

The angry homeowners were at Keist Park Recreation Center in Oak Cliff to voice their concerns about high power bills.

The customers contend that their usage increased only after the smart meters were installed.

Oncor spokesman Chris Schein said the utility stands by the accuracy of the devices. "One of the the things that consumers ask us to do is to show that the meters are running the same way, and we've run dozens of tests showing that the meters are running the same and that the meters are accurate," he said.

The company says inefficient heating sources, inefficient supplemental heating (like space heaters) and bad rate plans are to blame for this past winter's high power bills.

Smart meter moratorium sought by Texas senator

by JASON WHITELY / WFAA-TV

wfaa.com

Posted on March 4, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Updated Thursday, Mar 4 at 12:17 AM

DALLAS — After Oncor Electric Delivery has already deployed 760,000 advanced digital electric meters, better known as "smart meters," a state official is now calling on the Texas Public Utility Commission to suspend further installations until an independent third party test can be conducted to settle questions about expensive bills some customers have received.

State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Killeen) sent a letter to the PUC on Tuesday officially making the request. Commissioners will consider it at Thursday morning's meeting in Austin.

The utility said it's a good idea.

"Oncor fully supports independent third party testing of a significant sample, because we want to rebuild that public trust," said company spokeswoman Catherine Cuellar. "Based on our experience, [we] have no reason to doubt the [meter's] accuracy."

Still, for Lisa Smith and Jennifer Stanfield, electricity is a sore subject.

"Yeah, yeah a little bit," Smith chuckled.

What isn't funny is their December electric bill: more than $1,000.

"To pay for these bills, I'm cutting out any kind of social life I have," Stanfield said. "Not eating out; not going out and meeting friends after work."

Even with new energy efficient windows and a thermostat set at 56 degrees, their January bill still topped $800. High bills, the two said, didn't happen until Oncor replaced their mechanical meter with a digital one.

"We've got people with their electricity being cut off -- being bullied -- and that's not right," said Ree Wattner, who organized a group of dozens of neighbors. They've already met twice trying to find a remedy to the high bills they suspect the smart meters caused.

Wattner even started a Web site for her Smart Utility Reform Citizens group and said she is preparing a petition to the PUC.

But Oncor said it has found fewer than 10 of its 760,000 advanced meters with problems after random tests.

The utility blames the cold winter for big bills. Data from the National Weather Service confirms that December 2009 was colder than the previous four years.

But state records show the Texas Public Utility Commission refused to do a cost-benefit study two years ago -- even after cities and others asked for it.

Plus, CenterPoint Energy, Oncor's counterpart in Houston, just removed 3,002 smart meters because software failures prevented them from being read remotely, according to records the utility filed with the PUC.

The devices are at the center of a class-action lawsuit in California after residents there received big bills, too.

Oncor CEO Bob Shapard flew to Austin to answer questions at Thursday's PUC meeting.

He is expected to explain a number of things his company is doing -- including side-by-side tests with both old meters and new ones recording usage starting Friday in an effort to recapture public trust.

01-05-2010 om 23:36 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Comments

so where do we all sign up to stop this meter...only together in "numbers" can we do something...

Lets all give our opinion and make a difference...only our voice heard as one will be the difference...

Nog een ander blog met allemaal blije gebruikers onder het motto:

Smart UR CitizensTexasWe are citizens that are fighting the unrealistic untility charges which we believe are caused by the Smart Meter

http://smarturcitizens.blogspot.com/2010/03/wwwsmarturcitizenscom.htm


lNicholasLee8350 said...

Where do we go to sign up to fight Oncor. This is insane, I am going on month #3 with double or almost triple cost as last year. TXU is worthless and could careless about its customers for putting a solution out that has raised so many concerns.

March 10, 2010 6:08 PM

drankin35 said...

I would like to know where you sign up to fight Oncor.. I also had TXU and my bills tripled and they were no help. I had to change companies because I couldn't pay the full bills and they were going to disconnect my service. HELP.....

March 15, 2010 4:13 PM

GLight said...

I too have seen my bill increase 75-125% over the past several months since my new smart meter arrived. I believe there is defiantly a problem with the meters. The encore spokes person say’s it is the results of colder weather. While I agree, it has certainly been colder than normal I do not believe, that is the total problem with these higher bills.
Big companies have a tendency to lie when they are on the carpet to protect the company image and stock prices. Therefore, if you are going to tackle this company it will be necessary to compile as many facts as possible. My bill last March was $267.78 this March it is $628.65.

March 16, 2010 7:13 AM



We kunnen daar inderdaad veel van leren maar we zullen dus meer dan waarschijnlijk onze mening over die krengen niet moeten herzien!
Leest, Hombeek en Vosselaar en binnenkort gans Vlaanderen, jullie zijn gewaarschuwd!

01-05-2010 om 22:53 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

30-04-2010 om 23:08 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

29-04-2010 om 22:56 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

EU pollution regulations 'could prompt energy crisis'

Press Release

EU Parliament must resist pressure to weaken Industrial Emissions Directive

[Brussels, 26^th April 2010] – Medical and environmental groups are alarmed by possible reductions in public health and environmental protection standards within the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), which is about to undergo a second reading in the European Parliament. They are concerned that ongoing discussions appear to be favouring short-sighted industry interests over public and environmental health [1].

Millions of Europeans suffer from chronic respiratory diseases daily - one of the leading causes of premature deaths in Europe. According to the European Respiratory Society (ERS), respiratory diseases will result in 12 million deaths globally by 2020, increased hospital admissions, and millions of lost working days with a yearly financial burden of over 100billion Euro.

“Many of these diseases are preventable, which is why medical and environmental groups have joined forces to tell EU regulators that the best control strategy from the standpoint of human health is to reduce the levels of all air pollutants,” said Prof. Nikos Siafakas, ERS President. “They must resist the call for unnecessary derogations from Best Available Techniques, excessive opt-outs and needless postponements.”

Best Available Techniques (BAT), agreed by industry, member states and NGOs, are the state of the art techniques which achieve a high level of protection for the environment whilst being economically and technically viable.

Emission Limit Values under pressure from industry

In 2001, the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) was revised to gradually limit pollution emitted from installations such as coal-fired power plants [2]. However, despite 15 years’ warning that a stricter nitrogen oxide Emission Limit Value (ELV) will apply from 2016, several EU countries and their power companies are yet arguing for more time. They also argue that without derogations new investment would move electricity supply towards more carbon-intensive technologies.

The health and environment groups point out, however, that this is a grossly oversimplified argument that overlooks the immediate environmental benefits of efficient new plants, the role of CO₂ capture readiness requirements, the unlikelihood of coal being abandoned and the very considerable advantage of gas for load following intermittent renewable sources of energy. They point out that if the operators of large combustion plants make money by running these plants, then they should at least make the necessary economic investments to bring these plants in line with BAT.

Moreover, despite overwhelming evidence of the superiority of ELVs over trading schemes in achieving emission reductions, the EU power sector’s umbrella organisation Eurelectric is trying to remove the option of member states introducing requirements on greenhouse gas emissions from IPPC installations [3].

An unlevel playing field: Varied implementation between countries

The groups are also concerned about what appears to be an increasingly unlevel playing field between member states when it comes to applying BATs. “Implementation studies from the European Commission revealed that in some cases significant differences and shortcomings occur between how permits are applied between different EU member states. This not only creates an unlevel playing field for industry but also an uneven level of health and environmental protection for EU citizens, who ultimately pay the price”, said Christian Schaible of EEB.

The IED is a litmus test for the Europe 2020 strategy and its commitment towards smart, green growth. Environmental and health NGOs are calling for a realistic and ambitious IED that provides the predictability and equal treatment sorely needed for green, capital-intensive investments.

“We are in favour of a strong and effective directive that fosters and rewards the principle of innovation rather than derogation, and we are strongly encouraging MEPs to take the same line”, concluded Schaible.

Read our Briefing Note: Industrial Emissions Directive (IPPC Recast)

Dus waren de Belgen weer aan het dobbelen en achter de vrouwen aan het lopen want via ons linkje kan je de ondertekenaars vlug identificeren...Het Ollandse Natuur en milieu was er dus WEL bij.....Hallo Belgistan, Flandristan en Walistan, Wakker worden!

28-04-2010 om 23:29 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Greek bonds rated 'junk' by Standard & Poor's

Greece's debt has been downgraded to junk status by rating agency Standard & Poor's amid concern it could not take steps to tackle its economic crisis.

It makes the struggling nation the first eurozone member to have its debt downgraded to junk level.

Portugal's debt was also lowered on fears the trouble could spread - sending stock markets sharply lower.

Greece wants 40bn euros (£34bn) from eurozone governments and the IMF to shore up its finances.

But there are fears it will not meet conditions needed to access the funds it needs to make looming debt repayments.

Doubts intensify

When ratings agencies downgrade the country's credit rating - it means they think it is now a riskier place to invest. If it reaches junk status, a country loses its investment grade status. Some financial institutions have rules prohibiting them from investing in "junk" bonds.

Greece's 2-year government bond yield surged to almost 15% on Tuesday, making it highly expensive for the country to borrow from the debt market.

Greek 5-year yields hit 10.6%, higher than many emerging market economies, including Ecuador at 10.5% and Ukraine at 7.1%.

The 2-year Portuguese bond yield jumped to 5.23% from 4.16%.

S&P said it was lowering its rating on Greece's debt to BB+ from BBB-. It also reducing Portugal's debt rating by two notches to A- as doubts intensified about countries with substantial debt relative to GDP.

Greece's finance ministry said in a statement that the downgrade "does not correspond with the real data of the Greek economy."

The news rocked markets in Europe and the US. In London, the FTSE 100 index closed down 2.6% with most of the losses following S&P's downgrade of Greece. Germany's Dax index slid 2.7% and the French Cac-40 lost 3.8%. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones index was 1.4% lower at 11,052.1 points.

Meanwhile shares in Greek banks slumped by more than 9%, the largest one-day fall in bank shares for 18 months.

'Prohibitive' rates

On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had pledged German support to a European financial aid package for Greece, provided "certain conditions" were met.

She said that Germany would play its part in order to ensure the future stability of the euro but that Greece would have to be ready to accept "tough measures" over several years in return.

The unpopularity of austerity measures is worrying markets

Greece needs to raise 9bn euros ($11.9bn; £7.7bn) by 19 May, but has said it cannot go to the markets because of "prohibitive" interest rates.

The Greek government's cost of borrowing on the money markets has reached record levels in recent days amid investor concern over whether a 40bn euro bail-out package for Greece will be agreed.

Eurozone countries, together with the International Monetary Fund, have yet to agree details of the package.

Investors are also concerned that the Greek government's austerity measures - designed to cut domestic spending and reduce its ballooning budget deficit - will prove too unpopular with the Greek public.

S&P warned holders of Greek debt that they only had an "average chance" of between 30% and 50% of getting their money back in the event of a debt restructuring or default.

It said its action to cut the rating resulted from its "updated assessment of the political, economic, and budgetary challenges that the Greek government faces in its efforts to put the public debt burden onto a sustained downward trajectory".

The agency added Greece's weak long-term growth prospects made it less credit-worthy.

How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt

By Beat Balzli

dpa

Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou speaking at a conference in January.

Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the country's already bloated deficit.

Greeks aren't very welcome in the Rue Alphones Weicker in Luxembourg. It's home to Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office. The number crunchers there are deeply annoyed with Athens. Investigative reports state that important data "cannot be confirmed" or has been requested but "not received."

The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics. One time, gigantic military expenditures were left out, and another time billions in hospital debt. After recalculating the figures, the experts at Eurostat consistently came up with the same results: In truth, the deficit each year has been far greater than the three percent limit. In 2009, it exploded to over 12 percent.

Now, though, it looks like the Greek figure jugglers have been even more brazen than was previously thought. "Around 2002 in particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products with which governments could push part of their liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.

Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date.

Fictional Exchange Rates

Such transactions are part of normal government refinancing. Europe's governments obtain funds from investors around the world by issuing bonds in yen, dollar or Swiss francs. But they need euros to pay their daily bills. Years later the bonds are repaid in the original foreign denominations.

But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a special kind of swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece to receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10 billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly arranged additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.

This credit disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt statistics. Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively record transactions involving financial derivatives. "The Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through swaps," says a German derivatives dealer.

At some point Greece will have to pay up for its swap transactions, and that will impact its deficit. The bond maturities range between 10 and 15 years. Goldman Sachs charged a hefty commission for the deal and sold the swaps on to a Greek bank in 2005.

The bank declined to comment on the controversial deal. The Greek Finance Ministry did not respond to a written request for comment.

Cost of Greek debt soars

Eurozone governments are today coming under increasing pressure to quickly release emergency loans to Greece, as opinion hardens on the markets that Greece will not be able to honour its debts.

The Greek government's announcement on 23 April that it will seek emergency support from the eurozone and International Monetary Fund has failed to stem a sharp rise in the interest investors charge on Greek government debt, or the cost of insuring it.

Yields on Greek two-year bonds this morning climbed to almost 14%, a record high for the eurozone, and higher than the yields charged to Argentina (which defaulted on its debt in 2001), Venezuela and Pakistan.

There is not going to be a default, there is not going to be debt restructuring as part of the programme

Yields on ten-year bonds reached 9.83%, over 670 basis points higher than those on German bonds, the benchmark rate for the eurozone. Three weeks ago, yields on ten-year bonds were at an, already high, 7.4%.

The spike in yields suggests that investors are pricing in a debt restructuring – that is, they are assuming that Greece will seek to negotiate a reduction or deferral in its obligations to investors – and that they do not believe that the eurozone can or will prevent restructuring.

The cost of insuring €10 million of Greek debt with credit default swaps has jumped by €100,000 since Friday.

Thomas Mayer, chief economist for Deutsche Bank, today described the rising yields as an “insolvency death trap”.

Germany's stance

The mood on the market has not been helped by a tough message from the German government that it will only provide financial support if Greece commits itself to tough economic restructuring measures. Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, said yesterday that Greece “must do its homework” before getting financial aid.

The German parliament, which must vote to approve any aid, will be briefed about Greece's situation on Wednesday by Dominique Strauss-Khan, the IMF's director-general, and by Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank. Both Strauss-Khan and Trichet will urge the parliament to quickly approve aid to prevent Greece's situation from becoming any worse.

Emergency loan facility

Officials from the European Commission and IMF are in Athens negotiating with the Greek government on the restructuring programme it will implement in exchange for support.

Marco Buti, the Commission's director-general for economic and financial affairs, said today that the programme would be finalised in the next few days, and would be designed to ensure that Greece meets its obligations to investors.

“There is not going to be a default, there is not going to be debt restructuring as part of the programme,” he said.

“Having a programme will help a lot in [providing] stability and reassuring markets,” he said. He said that it would be a “very serious programme of adjustment”, spanning at least three years.

He said that it is “a question of days” before member states complete all the internal procedures necessary for the provision of financial support.

Ministers agreed on 11 April to set up an emergency loan facility, funded jointly by the eurozone and IMF, as a response to Greece's debt crisis. It would provide finance to Greece at rates substantially lower than it is currently paying on the markets. The programme is expected to last for three years, with the eurozone providing around two-thirds of the total support. The facility's budget for 2010 is around €45 billion, with €30 billion to be provided by the eurozone and €15 from the IMF. Germany would contribute €8.4bn, the largest single contribution from the eurozone.

Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, said that the loan facility was a “recipe, in my view, for potential political disaster”.

“Market participants don't think it would work,” he added.

Gros said that the facility was unlikely to restore Greece's fiscal health, and member states would face difficult decisions after 2010 on whether to provide more support or to allow Greece to default. “When that [€45 billion] is used up you cannot refuse the next tranche,” he said. “Whoever said no would be responsible for a catastrophe,” he added, warning that “this could be the end of political union in Europe”.

Gros is advocating that Greece negotiate with its creditors on a five-year deferral of payment.

27-04-2010 om 22:42 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

(Iemand met de borderline-persoonlijkheidsstoornis heeft vaak een laag gevoel van eigenwaarde en een sterke neiging tot extreme oordelen. In relaties met vrienden en/of partner is het vaak alles of niets, vaak eerst alles en daarna plotseling niets.

Het lage gevoel van eigenwaarde leidt soms tot zelfbeschadigend gedrag (automutilatie, bijv. zichzelf bewust snijden of branden), ook in combinatie met manipulatie, maar sommige Borderline-patiënten proberen hun onzekerheid te overschreeuwen door provocerend gedrag, waarbij je juist geen onzekerheid zou verwachten.)

How Much is a Miner's Life Worth?

Black Hole, Black Death

By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

This is an excerpt from Jeffrey St. Clair's environmental history, Born Under a Bad Sky..

The only thing more predictable than the deaths of those twelve miners in the Sago coal mine on January 2, 2006 was the Bush administration’s rush to exploit a tragedy that they helped foster.

Since 2001, Big Coal has benefited as Washington regulators have turn a blind eye to their rampages across Appalachia. The cost of such official laxity is borne by decapitated mountains, buried and polluted streams, and hundreds of miners injured and killed by an industry that has been liberated from even the most basic regulations governing worker safety and environmental protection.

The Sago miners didn’t even have the minimal protections afforded by membership in a union. In the economics of coal country these days people are so desperate for a job that they will sign up for the most dangerous kind of work while asking few questions about the risks or the precautions taken by the companies. And that’s exactly the way Big Coal wants it.

Since Bush arrived in Washington, more than 230 coal miners have perished in 206 mine accidents. Hundreds of others have been injured. Thousands suffer from chronic ailments and lung diseases caused by hazardous working conditions.

The Sago mine was a death trap. In 2005 alone, the Mine Safety and Health Administration slapped the mine with 208 citations for violations, ranging from the accumulation of flammable coal dust to ceiling collapses.

The accident rate at Sago was abysmal. In 2004, Sago had an accident rate of 15.90 accidents per 200,000 man-hours worked. This rate is nearly three times more than the national average of 5.66. The next year was even worse. In 2005, Sago’s accident rate spiked to 17.04, with at least fourteen miners injured.

But these citations and accidents came without regulatory sanction. Most of them resulted only in negligible fines. In total, the mine was hit with just $24,000 worth of penalties. It’s much cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problems, even when the conditions are lethal. For example, in 2001 Jim Walters Resources paid only $3,000 in fines for an accident that led to the deaths of thirteen miners in Alabama. That’s $230.76 per dead miner. The company earned more than $100 million that year. Other companies have paid less than $200 in fines for fatalities linked to safety violations.

And these token fines often go unpaid by the mining companies. A review of the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s records since 2000 reveals that the agency has hit the mining industry with $9.1 million in fines following fatal incidents. But the companies have paid less than 30 percent of that puny amount.

All a company has to do is appeal its fine, and it will likely be reduced. More than $5.2 million in fines have been reduced to $2.5 million following appeals. Another $2.2 million is unpaid pending appeal. The agency lists more than $1.1 million in fines as being delinquent, but most of those mines remain in operation.

Under the Bush administration, Big Coal has essentially been handed the responsibility for regulating its own behavior, with few questions asked. Even in the aftermath of the Sago disaster there were no serious calls for congressional hearings or criminal sanctions against the mine bosses and their corporate chieftains. The biggest outrage was reserved for the false report, which stated that the twelve miners had miraculously survived their ordeal in the poisonous pit, where carbon monoxide levels had reached 1,300 parts per million, more than three times the maximum safety level.

Naturally, the Democrats offer the miners almost no relief. In the 2004 presidential campaign, when the election hinged on results from the coal belt, John Kerry wrote off the mining country of southeast Ohio and West Virginia, counties burdened by the highest unemployment in country, and lost by landslide margins to Bush.

If you’re going to tie black ribbon on the gates of the White House, you might as well wrap one around a tree outside one of the Kerry-Heinz mansions, as well. Neither party gave a damn about the lives of those men.

26-04-2010 om 23:43 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

As homeowners were falling behind on their subprime mortgages, wreaking havoc for investors that owned slices of their mortgages in securities peddled by Wall Street, Goldman Sachs was "well positioned," according to internal company emails from top executives.

The firm had "the big short," declared chief financial officer David Viniar -- Goldman Sachs was making money off the souring of the very securities it had peddled to the market.

The internal emails released Saturday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations paint a picture long known by most of the country, yet never before so vividly and explicitly articulated by Goldman officials. (Scroll down to see the full text of the emails.) As early as May 2007, as homeowners were being crushed under the weight of subprime mortgages, the most profitable firm on Wall Street had long taken out a form of insurance on those delinquencies.

The firm made money on the upside -- originating, securitizing and selling subprime mortgage-based securities to investors -- and on the downside, thanks to the insurance.

"Bad news," a May 17, 2007, email began from one Goldman employee to another. A security the firm had underwritten and sold had just lost value, costing Goldman about $2.5 million.

Further down in the email, the employee, Deeb Salem, wrote "Good news...we own 10mm protection...we make $5mm."

The firm made $5 million betting against the very securities it had underwritten and sold.

In a July 25 email that year, Gary Cohn, the firm's chief operating officer, wrote Viniar to update him on the firm's mortgage market activities. The firm lost about $322 million on residential mortgages -- but it made $373 million on its bets against the market, bets that increased in value as the market tanked.

About 25 minutes later, Viniar wrote back, "Tells you what might be happening to people who don't have the big short." The firm made $51 million that day.

"There it is, in their own words: Goldman Sachs taking 'the big short' against the mortgage market," subcommittee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in a statement accompanying the release of the internal emails.

"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," Levin said. "They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients."

Levin's panel points out that in the firm's 2009 annual report, Goldman Sachs stated that the firm "did not generate enormous net revenues by betting against residential related products."

"These e-mails show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market," Levin said.

Top Goldman Sachs executives will testify before Levin's panel on Tuesday to answer for their subprime activities. The panel is using the firm as a case study to focus on the role played by investment banks in contributing to the worst financial crisis and economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The nearly 18-month-long investigation has already netted impressive results. The panel exposed the subprime shenanigans at failed lender Washington Mutual, and how lax federal supervision allowed it to become the biggest bank failure in U.S. history, and this week it showed how the major credit rating agencies essentially worked with Wall Street in allowing the firms to peddle AAA-rated securities that had no business ever earning top ratings. That lulled investors into buying what they were told was gold but was really just lead.

Goldman Sachs is under a particularly harsh glare, as its profits have engendered the kind of enmity normally reserved for swindlers. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against the firm April 16 for defrauding investors. Goldman vigorously denies that it did anything wrong.

In a Nov. 17, 2007, email, Goldman's chief executive officer, Lloyd Blankfein, wrote to his top lieutenants in response to an upcoming New York Times story about how the firm had profited off the souring subprime market: "Of course we didn't dodge the mortgage mess. We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts."

Blankfein is one of the top executives to be questioned Tuesday by Levin.

In an Oct. 11 email that year, one Goldman employee, reacting to news that Moody's Investors Service had downgraded $32 billion in mortgage-related securities, wrote to a colleague: "Sounds like we will make some serious money."

"Yes, we are well positioned," the colleague responded.

Most investors lost money off that downgrade. But Goldman had been shorting the market.

As of November 2007, Goldman had about $2.1 billion worth of long positions in subprime mortgage products, meaning it was betting that those securities would increase in value, according to the firm's 2008 annual filing with the SEC.

But in a cautionary note to investors and regulators, the firm also noted that "At any point in time, we may use cash instruments as well as derivatives to manage our long or short risk position in the subprime mortgage market."

25-04-2010 om 23:01 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Bisschop Vangheluwe bekent misbruik jongen

Seksueel misbruik kan niet meer verjaren in Nederland

Daders van seksueel misbruik zullen in Nederland in de toekomst tot aan hun dood kunnen worden aangeklaagd en vervolgd voor hun daden. Als het aan de Nederlandse minister van Justitie, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, ligt, zal de huidige termijn waarin slachtoffers aangifte mogen doen, vervallen. Dat liet de uittredende minister weten aan RTL Nieuws.

Een huidige meerderheid in de Tweede Kamer van in ieder geval PvdA, CDA en VVD is daar ook voor, zo bleek eerder al. Eerder deze week had de minister aangekondigd dat hij de afschaffing van de verjaringstermijn zou bekijken, maar hij is nu al tot de conclusie gekomen dat seksueel misbruik altijd vervolgd moet kunnen worden.

Kerk
Hirsch Ballin vindt dat het strafrecht bij dit "ernstige misdrijf" altijd van kracht moet kunnen blijven, omdat volgens hem steeds weer blijkt dat veel slachtoffers enorme moeite hebben om melding te maken van hetgeen hen is overkomen. Dat blijkt volgens hem ook weer bij de misstanden binnen de katholieke kerk en kerkelijke instellingen die nu naar buiten komen. Slachtoffers durven hier soms tientallen jaren later pas iets over te zeggen.

De afgelopen jaren is de verjaringstermijn al enkele keren verruimd in Nederland. Momenteel bedraagt hij twintig jaar en gaat hij lopen vanaf het achttiende levensjaar van het slachtoffer. Die kan dus aangifte doen tot aan zijn 38ste jaar.

Het voorstel moet nog worden uitgewerkt en zal alleen gelden voor toekomstige gevallen. (anp/sps)

27/03/10 23u08

http://www.gva.be/dekrant/experts/johndewit/mogen-pedofiele-misdrijven-pas-na-30-jaar-verjaren.aspx



en voor één keer luisteren we naar VLD en het gaat dus NIET over B-H-V

Mogen pedofiele misdrijven pas na dertig jaar verjaren?

16/04/'09 16 APRIL 2009 - Moeten pedofielen strenger aangepakt worden? Mogen hun feiten pas na dertig jaar verjaren in plaats van na tien zoals nu het geval is? Alvast Sabien Lahaye-Battheu (Open Vld) en Daniël Bacquelaine (MR) willen dat en ze dienden elk afzonderlijk een wetsvoorstel daarvoor in. De Kamercommissie Justitie organiseerde hierover hoorzittingen net voor het paasreces. De meeste getuigen wezen het voorstel af, ze willen de toestand houden zoals hij nu is. Ook Child Focus deed dat. Er kwamen ook alternatieven aan bod: een verjaringstermijn van 15 jaar in plaats van 30 en een wijziging van de burgerlijke procedure voor schadevergoeding. (Een tweede artikel over de hoorzittingen over pedofilie gaat over woonverboden, websites met namen van pedofielen en de meldingsplicht. De verwijzing naar dat stuk vindt U onderaan dit stuk, nvdr).

WAT IS VERJARING?

Verjaring wil zeggen dat een misdrijf na een bepaalde tijd niet meer wordt vervolgd. Men laat de zaak dus zo. Daarvoor zijn drie grote redenen:

* De wet van het vergeten. Na verloop van tijd verstoort het oprakelen van een misdrijf de openbare orde meer dan de bestraffing nog nuttig zou zijn.

* De wroeging van de dader. Men gaat ervan uit dat de dader in de loop der jaren voldoende werd gestraft door gevoelens van spijt en berouw of angst.

* De bewijsproblematiek. Nuttige sporen en bewijsstukken raken verloren en getuigen herinneren zich niet meer wat ze zagen.

HOE IS DE BELGISCHE REGELING?

In België verjaren de ergste misdaden, die voor assisen moeten komen, na 15 jaar. Andere misdaden, die bij verzachtende omstandigheden naar de correctionele rechter kunnen worden gestuurd, verjaren na 10 jaar. Correctionele feiten (diefstallen e.d.) verjaren na 5 jaar, overtredingen na 6 maanden.

Deze termijnen kunnen telkens éénmaal worden verlengd en dus oplopen tot het dubbele. Het is zo dat het misdrijf moet uitkomen tijdens de eerste fase (de eerste vijf jaar bv.). Het onderzoek moet dus in die eerste periode starten. Maar daarna kan de termijn nog eens verlengd worden tot in totaal 10 jaar na het misdrijf.

Alleen genocide, oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid verjaren nooit.

HOE VERJAREN PEDOFIELE MISDRIJVEN?

Voor seksuele misdrijven met minderjarigen is er een speciale regeling, die op twee punten van de klassieke regeling afwijkt.

1. De verjaringstermijn start pas als het slachtoffer meerderjarig (18 jaar) is.

2. Als de misdaad wordt gecorrectionaliseerd, dan nog blijven de verjaringstermijnen die van een misdaad (10 jaar X 2). Voor alle andere misdaden zakken de verjaringstermijnen bij correctionalisering naar 5 jaar (X 2).

Deze afwijkende regeling heb je voor: aanranding en verkrachting van minderjarigen; jeugdbederf; pooierij met een minderjarige; genitale verminking van minderjarige meisjes; mensenhandel met seksuele uitbuiting van minderjarigen.

De redenen van dit aparte regime dat in twee fasen in 1995 en 2000 werd ingevoerd, waren:

* Meestal staat de dader te dicht bij het slachtoffer omdat de feiten in het gezin gebeurden en het slachtoffer als minderjarige daar nog woont.

* Het slachtoffer is op het moment van de feiten bang van de dader omdat hij heel veel invloed heeft.

* De feiten veroorzaken zo'n trauma dat het slachtoffer op dat moment niet durft optreden.

WAT WIL OPEN VLD?

Volgens Sabien Lahaye-Battheu (Open Vld) druist verjaring in dit geval in tegen het rechtsgevoel van de slachtoffers en van de maatschappij. Het systeem van verjaring biedt bovendien de mogelijkheid om vertragingstechnieken te gebruiken en zo aan de straf te ontsnappen. Verjaring heeft volgens Open Vld zijn nut voor misdrijven die onmiddellijk aan het licht komen, maar niet voor seksuele misdrijven tegen minderjarigen die soms pas na vele jaren bekend raken. Daarom moet de verjaringstermijn verlengd worden van tien naar dertig jaar. De MR ontwikkelt in haar voorstel een soortgelijke redenering.

Concreet: een 25-jarige vader die zijn vijfjarig dochtertje verkracht kan daarvoor - in het voorstel Lahaye-Battheu - nog door de rechter veroordeeld worden tot het moment dat hij 98 jaar wordt. De verjaringstermijn start immers als het kind 18 jaar is (de vader is dan 38) en dan lopen twee termijnen van 30 jaar.

De Kamercommissie Justitie organiseerde de voorbije weken hoorzittingen over deze voorstellen.

WAT VINDEN DE WETENSCHAPPERS?

De Dienst voor Strafrechtelijk Beleid deed een onderzoek naar de toepassing van de wetten van 1995 en 2000, die de huidige, speciale regeling voor verjaring van pedofiele misdrijven invoerden. Onderdirecteur Freddy Gazan stelde het voor tijdens de hoorzittingen.

Gazan ging na of de nieuwe startdatum van de verjaring (18 jaar) tot meer klachten en veroordelingen heeft geleid.

De resultaten waren magertjes. De meeste arrondissementen hadden geen cijfers; enkele arrondissementen hadden er een paar. Alleen in Antwerpen en Brussel waren er beduidend meer. In de eerste elf jaar van de wet (tussen 1996 en 2006) telde Antwerpen gemiddeld slechts 14 extra zaken. In 1997, het jaar met de meeste extra zaken, waren er 36, waarvan er 19 geseponeerd werden.

Het onderzoek wijst uit dat er maar weinig klachten bijkomen door de nieuwe wet en dat ze vooral meer worden geseponeerd.

De DSRB is tegen een verlenging van de verjaringstermijn. Waarom?

* Al in 1995 somde de minister van Justitie een serie nadelen op van de huidige wet, die nog sterker zullen spelen: het is moeilijk om zaken zo laattijdig nog te bewijzen (getuigen zijn overleden of van alles vergeten, lichamelijk onderzoek is onmogelijk, sporen zijn verdwenen); het slachtoffer verliest geloofwaardigheid door zo lang met een klacht te wachten; de rechten van verdediging worden geschonden door zo'n laattijdige behandeling; het is moeilijk om de periode van de criminele feiten en de aard van de verzwarende omstandigheden precies te omschrijven.

* Onderzoek van de Franse Senaat uit 2007 toonde aan dat - buiten Engeland en Wales waar alle zware misdaden onverjaarbaar zijn - geen enkel land een verjaringstermijn van meer dan 20 jaar heeft, ongeacht de leeftijd van het slachtoffer. Bovendien heeft België nu al een van de meest repressieve wetten met betrekking tot dit soort misdrijven.

* Niet alleen het slachtoffer, maar ook het parket en derden kunnen dan zoveel later klacht indienen. Dat kan voor serieuze problemen zorgen als de slachtoffers hun zaak willen vergeten en voortgaan met hun leven.

* En wat als het slachtoffer dood is? Loopt de verjaringstermijn van de misdaden van de dader dan nog verder? Natuurlijk wel, meent de DSRB, en hij wil dat de wet in die zin verduidelijkt wordt.

* En wat met het misdrijf schuldig verzuim? Momenteel is het zo dat iemand die de feiten kende, maar niet optrad en haar kop in het zand stak, door de lange verjaringstermijn de dader kan aangeven, zodat hij vervolgd wordt en de persoon die schuldig verzuim pleegde niet. Omdat voor haar de verjaringstermijn véél korter is, nl. 5 jaar! Dit probleem zal nog erger worden als de verjaringstermijn op 30 jaar komt. De DSRB wil op dit vlak zeker een aanpassing van de wet zodat de verjaringstermijnen voor verkrachting van minderjarigen en voor schuldig verzuim in dezelfde zaak, ook dezelfde zijn.

Gazan beklemtoonde dat zedenfeiten met minderjarigen vele eeuwen onder de mat werden geveegd, maar sinds de zaak-Dutroux worden ze echt wel ernstig genomen door het gerecht en zijn ze ook bespreekbaarder bij de bevolking. Is het dan nog nodig om een aparte behandeling te geven aan zedendelinquenten en niet aan fysieke geweldenaars? Moeten voor exhibtionisten strengere (proceduriële) regels en straffen gelden dan voor de dader van een gewelddadige sack-jacking? De DSRB vindt alvast van niet.

Gert Vermeulen (strafrecht, Universiteit Gent) was ook tégen het verlengen van de huidige verjaringstermijn. "Dat zou nog nuttig zijn, als de opsporing niet op tijd rond zou geraken, maar dat lukt momenteel wel. Bovendien krijgen de Vertrouwenscentra twee keer zoveel meldingen van kindermisbruik binnen als de politie. Laat ons liever wat meer investeren in deze therapeutische aanpak, want die heeft veel meer succes".

WAT VINDT HET GERECHT?

Cédric Visart de Bocarmé, procureur-generaal van Luik, sprak zich ook uit tegen een verlenging van de verjaringstermijn. Om de gekende reden, maar ook omdat men dan het systeem van verjaring verlaat. Na zestig jaar kan men niet meer van verjaring spreken.

Bovendien wordt de hele logica van de verjaring door elkaar gehaald: een moord zal na het voorstel-Lahaye-Battheu twee keer sneller verjaren dan een aanranding van een minderjarige en dat stoort het rechtsgevoel.

Volgens de procureurs-generaal is de verlenging van de verjaringstermijn ook nutteloos, omdat dit soort daders toch altijd meerdere feiten plegen. En door het systeem van eenheid van opzet start de verjaringstermijn altijd maar pas vanaf het allerlaatste feit.

De parketten vrezen dat de slachtoffers er zeker niet beter van worden. Waarom zo'n zwaar dispositief vele jaren na de feiten opstarten, met alle emotionele gevolgen voor de slachtoffers vandien, als de kans op resultaat toch klein is. Een verlenging van de verjaringstermijn zal vooral tot meer seponeringen van laat ingediende klachten leiden, vrezen de pg's.

De Orde van Franstalige advocaten sprak zich radicaal tegen het voorstel uit, de Orde van Vlaamse Balies nam geen standpunt in.

WAT VINDEN DE SLACHTOFFERS?

De slachtofferorganisaties reageerden verdeeld. Sommige steunden het voorstel-Lahaye-Batheu, maar de bekendste, Child Focus, was tegen.

1. Kristine Kloeck, algemeen directeur van Child Focus, sprak zich tegen de verlenging van de verjaringstermijn uit. "Slachtoffers zijn niet uit op wraak en ze zijn niet gebaat bij een levenslang slachtofferschap. Ze willen vooral erkenning van de gruwelijke feiten en willen na verloop van tijd met hun leven verder gaan. Bovendien wisselen de rollen soms af: 40% van de daders was vroeger ook slachtoffer. Child Focus wil de belangen van het slachtoffer niet uitspelen tegen die van de dader". Volgens Kloeck is dat zeker niet nuttig bij criminele feiten die zich voor 85% binnen het gezin of de familiale context afspelen.

"We moeten alles doen op het moment van de feiten zelf of kort daarna. Als men vele jaren later nog gerechtelijk optreedt, dan dreigen heel oude wonden opnieuw opengereten te worden en dat is niet goed".

Het voorstel-Lahaye-Battheu richt zich volgens Child Focus blijkbaar op die 2% zedendelinquenten die feiten plegen buiten de familiale context en die wellicht altijd zullen hervallen. Kloeck vond dat er voor die groep al voldoende maatregelen zijn: de straf, terbeschikkingstelling na de straftijd en onbeperkte internering. Voor haar was er geen nood aan een verlenging van de verjaringstermijn tot dertig jaar, die volgens haar "het proportionaliteitsbeginsel schendt".

Child Focus meent dat het belangrijker is om de rechten van de slachtoffers in alle fasen van het geding te verbeteren en om hulpverlening uit te bouwen. "Wij krijgen vaak telefoontjes van pedofielen die geholpen willen worden, maar voor wie geen plaats is".

Kloeck stelde bovendien dat de federale overheid nog altijd geen werk heeft gemaakt van het POKO, een instituut binnen het gevangeniswezen dat zeden- en andere delinquenten zou onderzoeken en hun recidivekansen zou bestuderen. Het instituut werd zo'n vijftien jaar geleden beloofd door toenmalig justitieminister...Stefaan De Clerck. Er was zelfs een budget voor uitgetrokken en er was een locatie, maar uiteindelijk is het er nu nog altijd niet. Dat zijn de prioriteiten voor Child Focus.

2. De Werkgroep SOS I, die incestslachtoffers vertegenwoordigt, vond daarentegen dat het voorstel-Lahaye-Battheu een stap in de goede richting was.

Deze werkgroep pleitte voor een opname van een nieuw misdrijf in het strafwetboek: incest. Bij incest moet afwezigheid van toestemming altijd worden verondersteld, ook als het slachtoffer meerderjarig is. Incest moet gedefinieerd worden als "ieder seksueel misbruik door de ouder van iemand met wie het huwelijk uitgesloten is". Seksueel misbruik door schoonouders, ooms, tantes, broers, zussen, samenwonende bijzitten van de ouders moet eveneens als incest worden gedefinieerd. En de straf hiervoor moet altijd tussen de 20 en de 30 jaar liggen.

De verjaringstermijn om klacht in te dienen moet onbeperkt zijn: géén verjaring dus.

WELKE ALTERNATIEVEN?

Tijdens de hoorzittingen werden twee alternatieve voorstellen geformuleerd.

Professor en advocaat-generaal bij het Hof van Cassatie Damien Vandermeersch kon er zich in vinden om de verjaringstermijn desnoods op te trekken van tien jaar (X 2) naar vijftien jaar (X 2). Dan wordt hij even lang als die van de zwaarste, niet-correctionaliseerbare misdaden en dat zou nog logisch zijn.

Professor Thierry Moreau (UCL) pleitte voor een versoepeling van de burgerlijke procedure, zodat een slachtoffer later makkelijker schadevergoeding zou krijgen. "Voor de slachtoffers is het vooral van belang dat de feiten worden erkend door de dader. Voor de dader is het vooral van belang dat hij niet vervolgd wordt. Ervaringen uit de praktijk wijzen uit dat daders bekennen als er geen straf meer aan vast hangt, ze zijn dan ook bereid om een schadevergoeding te betalen. In plaats van de verjaringstermijn te verlengen, zouden we dus beter de burgerlijke procedure hervormen".

Nu is de verjaringstermijn in principe vijf jaar vanaf het moment dat het slachtoffer zijn schade en de identiteit van de dader kent. Die termijn kan oplopen tot 20 jaar en wordt geschorst tijdens de minderjarigheid. Moreau vond dat het beter was om daar aan te werken.

24-04-2010 om 00:23 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

23-04-2010 om 23:31 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever