The British prime minister, David Cameron, haspledged that if he wins the next general election, hewill negotiate with his European Union (EU) partners to“bring back” powers from Brussels to London, and thenhold a referendum so that the UK electorate candecide whether or not the UK stays in the EU.Eurosceptic Conservatives and members of the UKIndependence Party (UKIP) are happy. The UK'sEuropean partners are not.The reaction from leaders of other EUMember States has been to point out thatchanging the rules of the game, or pickingonly elements of cooperation which suitone party, is not acceptable. The Guardianquotes Angela Merkel: “We are prepared totalk about British wishes but we mustalways bear in mind that other countrieshave different wishes and we must find afair compromise.” European leadersactually have little enthusiasm fornegotiations which are likely to be longand difficult, and would turn out to be awaste of time altogether if the UK electorate were tolater vote to leave the EU. Only the Czech primeminister, Petr Nečas, was supportive of David Cameron,stating that a more flexible and open Europe isdesirable, as is the continued membership of the UK.It is important to recognise that when decisions aremade by the EU at the European level, the UK, as aMember State, has a major say in those decisions. UKgovernment ministers take part in Council meetings.And UK MEPs represent the interests of their regionalconstituencies in the European Parliament. EUlegislation has to be agreed by the EuropeanParliament and the Council of the European Union aswell as by the European Commission in “trialogue”negotiations. Such “trialogue” negotiations arecurrently underway on Horizon 2020, the FrameworkProgramme for Research and Innovation 2014‐2020, forexample.It is also important to remember that “Europe” is notjust the EU. The UK is one of 47 Member States in theCouncil of Europe, which is based in Strasbourg andcarries responsibility for human rights and the Rule ofLaw. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), alsoin Strasbourg, whose ruling that prisoners should begiven the right to vote is opposed by David Cameron, isan institution of the Council of Europe, not theEuropean Union. The ECHR’s ruling that asylum seekers

should not be deported to countries where they arelikely to be subject to torture or degrading treatment,even if they have been convicted of serious crimes, hasalso been controversial in the UK. There are also otherEuropean, or mainly European, organisations, whichshould not be forgotten, such as the Organisation forSecurity and Co‐operation in Europe (OSCE), with 57participating states and a secretariat in Vienna, which

is concerned with security, conflictprevention, human rights anddemocracy, and the North AtlanticTreaty Organisation (NATO), a militaryalliance.Now David Cameron wants tonegotiate a repatriation of powersfrom the EU to the UK. He is intent ondrawing up a list of areas where theUK can opt out of EU regulations,starting with the Working TimeDirective, which regulates minimumholidays for EU workers. (Whose“national interest” would opting out

of the Working Time Directive serve, one wonders.)The UK government has embarked on a broadconsultation to help decide which powers, or“competences”, it will attempt to claw back from theEU. Over the next couple of years, until the end of2014, organisations and individuals are being invited toparticipate in this review. The purpose of the exerciseis to establish where the balance of competencesbetween the EU and the UK lies in actual practice, andto consider how this balance might be changed so thatthe national interests of the UK are served better.Since the 1957 Treaty of Rome established theEuropean Economic Community (following theformation of the European Coal and Steel Communityin 1951), the EU institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg,and Strasbourg have acquired competences in agrowing number of areas as shown in the table on thenext page.

Around EuropeQuaker Counc i l fo r European Af fa i r s

No. 349 February ‐ March 2013Does David Cameron Know What he’s Doing?

(See Page 2)

Which way for the UK?Image: CC by Desmoric

In this Issue:Does David Cameron Know What he's Doing? p.1Then and Now: Terrorism p.2Defining the Green Economy p.3Fracking in Europe p.5Book Review p.7QCEA has Grown! p.8

2

Then and Now: Terrorism

It may seem to many people in the UK that the EU hasbeen grabbing increasing power over their lives. But itis important to understand the principle ofsubsidiarity, which is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.Subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be made atthe most local level practicable, at local, regional ornational level, rather than in Brussels. The EU can takeaction only in areas which lie within its exclusivecompetence, or in areas of competence shared withnational governments if it is more effective for actionto be taken at the European rather than national (orregional or local) level. Member States can challengeactions of the European Commission in the EuropeanCourt of Justice if they believe that the principle ofsubsidiarity has been disregarded.All this should be borne in mind as the UK governmentconducts its review of the balance of competencesbetween the EU and the UK. The review is beingconducted over four “semesters”. At the beginning ofeach semester, the relevant government departmentsare issuing calls for evidence related to thecompetences being reviewed. During the first half of2013, internal market, taxes, animal health and foodsafety, development, health, and foreign policy arebeing reviewed. Global issues, security and defence,and democracy and human rights are amongst thetopics being addressed within the review of the EU’scompetence in the area of foreign policy. Individualsand organisations with knowledge and expertise in anyof these areas are being encouraged to submitevidence to the relevant government departments.

The crux of the matter is that the EU is more than justa single market with internal freedom of movement forpeople and goods. The UK has enjoyed the benefits ofEU investment in regional development, for example.The participants in a club, whether a sports team, acharity, an orchestra, or a co‐operative, are free to doand achieve things which they cannot do on their own.Part of the deal is that they are required to attendtraining sessions or rehearsals or to invest time andmoney in various ways. Decisions about whocontributes what and when, and how the benefits ofjoint action are to be distributed, are decidedcollectively. This is in the interests of all theparticipants. (See https://www.gov.uk/review‐of‐the‐balance‐of‐competences for further information andhow to participate.)It works the same way with the European Union. TheEU is much more than the sum of its parts. Over thepast four decades since the UK joined the EuropeanEconomic Community, much has been achieved whichcould not have been achieved by all the Member Statesacting alone “in their own interests”. It has long beenin the UK’s interests for decisions to be made at theEuropean level. In a kindergarten, children learn toshare and cooperate for the sake of the whole group.It seems that David Cameron has yet to learn thislesson.

Gordon Matthews

The first edition of Around Europe was printed inJanuary 1978. Today, looking back through 35 years ofQuaker news from Brussels, it is striking just how manyof the same issues are still the focus of the QuakerCouncil for European Affairs today. Terrorism is onetheme that appears again and again. There is nouniversally accepted definition, but terrorism is mostoften considered to be the use of violence orintimidation in the pursuit of political goals. It hasbeen used as a tactic throughout human history.

Then: Around Europe, Issue 1, 1978.We first encounter terrorism in Around Europe as thetitle of a brief news item in the earliest edition. Itdescribes an initiative by the French government tobuild a "legal union" within Europe to create"automatic extradition rules for a certain number ofserious crimes". This push for closer cooperation onextradition most probably arose from the many terrorattacks across Europe in the 1970s. Active groups

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/35431/eu‐balance‐of‐competences‐review.pdf

3

Defining the Green EconomyThe green economy seems to be in vogue. The termhas been increasingly cropping up in speeches by worldleaders and national politicians, in internationaltelevision broadcasts, on the banners of environmentalactivists, and even in Around Europe. Whethertranslated as l’economie verte, die Grüne Wirtschaftor la economia verde, this concept is often proclaimedto be something of a panacea to the simultaneousenvironmental and economic crises that the worldcurrently faces. But what does the green economyactually mean? Does everyone use the term in thesame way? And is the concept something to besupported, or, perhaps, challenged?

Where did the idea of the green economycome from?The term green economy was first coined in 1989 in areport commissioned by the UK government entitledBlueprint for a Green Economy. Yet the idea laydormant until 2008, when it re‐emerged as a responseto the economic and environmental crises, and thegrowing recognition that these were interlinked. The

green economy was given the spotlight as one of thetwo key themes discussed at the Rio+20 United Nations(UN) Summit on Sustainable Development which tookplace in June, 2012. According to conference’sobjectives and themes, the green economy can beseen as a lens for focusing on and seizing opportunitiesto advance economic and environmental goalssimultaneously.” Since the conference, the greeneconomy has become a buzzword in internationalpolicy discussions.

How have others defined the greeneconomy?According to a 2012 report by the United NationsDivision for Sustainable Development, there is nointernationally agreed definition of the term "greeneconomy," and at least eight different explanations ofthe concept can be identified in recent officialpublications. As the report points out, most of thesedefinitions characterise the green economy along thesame general themes: a model that encompasseseconomic prosperity, environmental degradation,

included the Irish Republican Army (IRA) from NorthernIreland, the Charles Martel Group in France, BasqueFatherland and Liberty (ETA) in Spain, and the RedBrigades in Italy. Terrorism appears again in AroundEurope in the wake of a series of bombings acrossBelgium in October 1984. The bombings were carriedout by the Fighting Communist Cells. They sought toinflict damage on the US presence in Belgium, notablyNATO and the Belgian operations of large UScompanies. All the political parties in the EuropeanParliament passed motions condemning the violenceand called for deeper European cooperation on theissue.

Now: Around Europe, Issue 275, 2005.With the advent of the ‘War on Terror’, terrorismbecame a more distinct and particular focus of QCEA.Attacks such as those in New York in 2001, Madrid in2004 and London in 2005 had a profound impact onpolitics in the West. Whilst it may be hyperbole to say

that the world changed after 9/11, the attacksproduced fundamental shifts, both in internationalgeopolitics and Western domestic security concerns.Whilst QCEA’s work on terrorism in the 1980s waslimited mainly to monitoring Europe’s approach toterrorism, in the 2000s QCEA challenged the wholeparadigm through which Western governmentsresponded to the issue of security. The front pagearticle in issue 275 (September 2005) announces thepublication of nine briefing papers by QCEA. Thecentral message of the briefing papers is that theEuropean response to terrorism has ‘the potential toundermine the human rights of all people – not just ofthose committing the acts in question but of all of us’.Since this declaration, QCEA has continued to work onthe human rights implications of the Europeanresponse to terrorism. In a 2007 report QCEA suggeststhat the EU must ‘emphasise the humanity ofterrorists’ and do more to challenge ‘the use andmisuse of fear in religion and politics’. The Quakerconviction that there is that of God in everyone is indirect contradiction to the human desire to demonisethe accused. This focus on the basic human rights ofsuspects, including the right to a fair trial, remains afocus of QCEA’s work today.All the briefing papers mentioned in this article areavailable online on the QCEA website underpublications. The online archive of Around Europe(bit.ly/AroundEurope) goes as far back as 2005. Forolder copies please contact us: office@qcea.org

Chris Venables

Aftermath of IRA attack in Brighton, England (1984) Image: CC BY‐SA 3.0 D444n

4

climate change, equality, well‐being, and socialjustice. Despite this, there are some importantdifferences. Seven of the eight definitions make somereference to a model based on economic growth,demonstrating that many see the green economy asbeing synonymous with green growth. Only one of theeight official definitions described does not refer to agrowing economy. This is the definition proposed bythe ’Danish 92’ group: “The Green Economy is not astate but a process of Transformation and a constantdynamic progression. The Green Economy does awaywith the systematic distortions and disfunctionalitiesof the current mainstream economy and results inhuman well‐being and equitable access to opportunityfor all people, while safeguarding environmental andeconomic integrity in order to remain within theplanet’s finite carrying capacity. The Economy cannotbe Green without being Equitable.”However, in the media and day‐to‐day policydiscussions, the term often sheds its allusions to well‐being and social equality altogether. Instead, it iscommonly employed to describe economic activitiesand investments that have a green objective, such asincreased investment in renewable technologies.Politicians may claim to be supporting the greeneconomy when they develop new wind power schemes,for example.

Why is the definition important?There are a number of problems with a phrase so opento interpretation, and so rarely defined, becomingintegrated into political rhetoric. We need to know

what something is before we can implement it. Howshould a citizen respond to a political manifesto, forexample, that pledges to support the green economy?Is this a commitment to installing solar panels on theroof of the parliament, or to developing an entirelynew approach to our economic system? How can wehold decision‐makers accountable to this pledge if wedon’t know exactly what they intend it to mean?A key risk here is that the term green economy will beused to mean a marginally green‐er economy. In otherwords, business as usual, with a few green extras: theeconomy as we know it, but with a lick of green paint.This is a far cry from transformative actions towardsthe fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive systemthat is promised by many of the original definitions –and which is urgently needed in our society.

How would QCEA like to see the greeneconomy defined?QCEA believes that the green economy can be aneffective concept in sustainable development policy,and we welcome tools that can assist decision makersin drawing synergies between economic, social andenvironmental issues. In starting to develop theconcept of the green economy, policy makers havetaken vital first steps towards recognising that theenvironment and the economy are, indeed,intertwined and interdependent. In order to beeffective, however, the green economy must beconsistently defined and not left open tointerpretation. The concept must always address socialjustice as well as the urgent environmental problemsthat we face. Economic growth should not be the focusof a green economy and we question whethercontinued growth is, in fact, at all compatible withsustainability. We call for a wider range of indicatorsto measure wellbeing in holistic, rather thaneconomic, terms.By challenging decision makers to define the phrase,particularly when it appears to be little more thanempty rhetoric, we are calling for accountability andgiving them the message that we will not accept a‘watered down’ version of this innovative concept. Weneed to begin making large scale changes to oureconomic model; greenwashing it will simply not do.

Bethany SquireChallenging market economics with a Biblical sense of the goodness of God in creation is to join a spiritualstruggle. Faith in God, solidarity with the suffering poor and all other forms of life demands that we take astand and say, “This destruction must stop”. We must be perfectly clear about the implications ofundertaking this responsibility. It is more than just setting up household recycling bins, growing organicvegetables or riding a bike to work. It is more than a talking job. It is a renovation which will changeeverything: the way we do business, the way we eat, the way we travel, the houses we build, the productsand services we can expect and the prices we pay for them, the way we feel about trees and the way weworship God.

Keith Helmut, 1990. Quaker Faith and Practice, (Britain Yearly Meeting), extract 25.15

The green economy: More than just investing in solar panelsImage: CC AWA

5Shattering the Earth in our Quest for Energy:

Fracking in EuropeI, like many people, have a slight nostalgia forchildhood and the time when I believed that wishingfor something would make it come true. There issomething gentle about that time of belief, when ouroptimism and sense of justice was not yet shredded byexperience.But this childish wishing is also dangerous: it enticesnot only individuals but also nations along paths thatmay not be rational. This is how I see the wistful andslightly defiant idea that we in the Global North mightbecome self‐sufficient in fuel. We hear of gas depositsin Europe and of increased domestic production in theUS. Ah, we think, if only we didn’t need to rely onothers, if only we could control production and priceourselves. We long for a nice, clean flow of cheapenergy, for unworried relaxation on comfortablefurniture in a warm room despite the cold driving rainoutside.Leaders of national governments are not immune toour human longing for an easier world. In February2011, citing needs for jobs, growth, and Europeancompetitiveness, the European Council called for anexamination of the environmental effects ofhydrofracking.

Methane trapped in rocksHydrofracking is a method of harvesting methane gasheld in impermeable rocks or coal. To release the gasfor capture, the rocks are cracked open by forcingmillions of litres of water and chemicals into theground under high pressure. The names of thechemicals used are rarely published, but they ofteninclude friction reducers, acids, corrosion inhibitors,antibacterial agents, surfactants, gelling agents,stabilizers, scale inhibitors and other chemicals, plus

sand. The forceful injection of a huge volume of thissolution creates cracks in the rocks. The sand or otherpropping agent holds the fissures open, allowing thegas to flow out and be captured.One does wonder about the wisdom of a technologydesigned to break up parts of the firm foundation onwhich we live, the rock beneath the surface of theearth – and, indeed, some fracking operations havebeen associated with minor earthquakes. But morerisky is the possible leakage of methane, a potentgreenhouse gas, into air and into the groundwater.Altered soil structure may allow methane to leak intothe air. Another problem is the huge volume of wastewater produced and left in ponds on the surface, or,for about 80 per cent, allowed to remain underground.The waste water is saline and contaminated withadditives, some of which are toxic.Are we so unwilling to give up our addiction to energy?We need soil and water to grow food. Contaminatedwater and soil could affect human health as well ashealthiness of livestock and food produced. InPennsylvania, methane has been discovered to havepolluted groundwater and wells used for humanconsumption. Living near a fracking site can providesome simple home entertainment: in some homes, thetap water has enough methane to be ignitable – youcan set your tap water on fire!Jobs are usually mentioned as a benefit from everyproposed industrial activity. This seems to be a good:we are all aware of the pain of the economic crisis.However the optimism regarding new jobs must be setoff against the short‐term nature of such work, as wellas the possible loss of other industries such as tourismand food production. And then there are knock‐oneffects: social inequality is worsened by the effect ofincreased prices with the influx of workers andpaychecks into towns near fracking sites. In addition,the types of jobs created gives us an idea of theresource demand of this method of collecting gas: theUS Chamber of Commerce has associated fracking withincreased employment in construction, metalprocessing, manufacture of equipment, chemicalmanufacture, mining of sand, and transport – andmore than 2000 jobs in health care. Like anyextractive industry, once the supply dries up, the jobswill also vanish. And the connection of human well‐being with economic activity is still being ignored:some months of employment is a poor trade‐off fordamaged bedrock, contaminated groundwater,possible loss of local food production, and other morepermanent results.

Fracking in EuropeThe European Commission proposes to create aframework to manage risks associated with shale gas.We are a bit like addicts who lose sight of their own

A New Nickname for QCEAQCEA has been brainstorming on a “handle” or catchphrase ornickname by which QCEA could be known colloquially. This is not aproposal to change the name of QCEA officially but to have aphrase which is snappier. We are looking for a name that istransparent and indicates something about the organization. Thewords should be short and evocative, and they should be easy torecall and to pronounce. Ideally, it should not duplicate an existingname.Below are six options that were brainstormed by QCEA supporters.Help us out by letting us know which you prefer by filling out thesurvey on our Facebook page or on Survey Monkey(http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SN7B7ZW).

Quaker Action EuropeQuaker Action Brussels

Quaker Advocacy EuropeQuaker Witness EuropeA Quaker Voice Europe

Quakers Changing Europe

integrity in the search for a ‘fix’ for their addiction.Are we addicted to luxury, to the relief of theeconomic prosperity that Europe enjoyed in the pasthalf century? Or can we face a revision of our focus tohuman well‐being rather than growth? We knowreducing our energy use –and greenhouse gasemissions‐ will damage our world less. Do we reallyneed short sleeves in winter indoors at the cost ofdamaging our bedrock, soil, water, health andatmosphere?Hydrofracking is already taking place in Europe, invertical wells and with some shale gas explorationprojects in a few EU Member States. The UK hadsuspended its programme after some small earthtremors but lifted the ban last December. Somecountries (e.g. Denmark) are reviewing the use of thetechnology. Other Member States, like France andBulgaria, have prohibited it, while the Netherlands hasinstigated a temporary moratorium.It is up to each EU Member State to ensure the legalityof any fracking operation with regard to environmentaland other requirements. Legislation that should beconsidered includes regulations affecting human healthand safety, environmental impact assessments,protection of surface water and groundwater and otherhabitats, management of waste, and permission to usechemicals. To ensure coherence of policies, the stateshould also consider the Europe 2020 policy objectives,including reducing factors contributing to climatechange. This is one reason why our fantasy isunrealistic: the problems regarding energy are due notonly to supply but also to the after‐effects of drillingand burning fuel. It is very clear that we need todecrease our energy consumption. Instead of turningup the thermostat to ignore the wind and the rain, wewill need to put on another jumper. And get used tothe wind: storms are likely to increase with globalwarming.Shale gas may be particularly inappropriate to addressenergy needs on this globe with a warmed climate:fracking may contribute to release of large amounts ofmethane, a gas that has a far larger impact withregard to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. Aclear conclusion is hard to reach, in part due totechnical choices such as method, infrastructure, and

maintenance. And to what is being compared: somecomparisons are of different types of energy sources,whereas the real question is whether we can continueour flamboyant energy‐inefficient lifestyles at the costof our natural environment.

Called to stand against frackingFracking has grown enormously in the United Statessince 2005. In New York, where the discussion ofwhether to permit fracking is ongoing, the ReligiousSociety of Friends (Quakers) has come to a decisionthat they are called to stand against fracking: “AsQuakers, we experience the Divine through loving andtruthful relationships with all people and all creation.After extensive efforts to inform ourselves aboutfracking we have concluded that it is inconsistent withour faith and practices which include a commitment tointegrity, community, equality and care of God’screation.”As for the EU’s stance on fracking, you have a chanceto have your own say. The European Commission haspublished a consultation on fracking (see“Unconventional fossil fuels (e.g. shale gas) in Europe”at http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm) QCEA will be making a submission andthose signed up to our sustainability action alerts willreceive an advance copy. Sign up at office@qcea.org.

Alexandra Bosbeer

6

As Quakers, we experience the Divine through lovingand truthful relationships with all people and allcreation. After extensive efforts to inform ourselvesabout fracking we have concluded that it isinconsistent with our faith and practices whichinclude a commitment to integrity, community,equality and care of God’s creation. We observe thatthe natural gas industry and government agencieshave placed financial gain over the health of ourcommunities and the environment. … In other stateswhere horizontal hydrofracking has been performed,it has resulted in the loss of vast amounts of freshwater, the release of toxins into the environment,damage to communities, and cost to the tax payers.We support legislation and incentives which promoteresearch, development, and use of renewable andsustainable energy; support local farms and farmers;protect the air and water; enforce accountability forindustries that risk environmental harm; and createeconomic policies that promote work for New YorkState residents that they can do in good conscience.We urge all citizens to thoughtfully consider the longterm effects of hydrofracking on the water, land,local economy, infrastructure, services, and thecommunity as a whole. … We are called to standagainst fracking, and invite others to join us inopposition to this practice.

Have your own say about the EU's stance on frackingImage: cc by cybergedon

Extract from New York Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society ofFriends Minute on Hydrofracking, approved 11 November 2012

Occasionally I read a book that I feel compelled toshare with others. On turning the final page, I feel aresponsibility to pass on the information that I havejust acquired, a sense that these ideas, whetherinfluential facts or inspirational fiction, have toomuch potential for me to be able to keep them tomyself. This is how I felt on closing thecopy of Bankrupting Nature: Denyingour Planetary Boundaries that I havebeen reading recently.I do not mean to suggest that everypoint made in Bankrupting Nature is agroundbreaking revelation, nor thatevery argument it makes is entirelyincontestable. Rather, the issuesaddressed in this timely report byAnders Wijkman and Johan Rockström,are so pressing and well articulatedthat it is easy to wonder how anyonecould read the book and not be movedto action.Bankrupting Nature, launched inDecember 2012, is a report to the Club of Rome, aglobal think tank that aims to holistically analyse thecurrent challenges facing the world and itsinhabitants, with a view to improving the prospects offuture generations. The book’s joint authorsdemonstrate an impressive combined portfolio.Wijkman’s CV lists high profile political roles includingPolicy Director of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and Secretary General of the Swedish RedCross, whilst Rockström’s career encompasses avariety of scientific bodies working on sustainability.Together, they combine their expertise to ensure apolitically comprehensive approach, well grounded inscientific expertise.The report examines multiple and interlinkedproblems relating to global governance, climatechange, biodiversity loss, population growth, andsocial inequalities. Some of the most interestingsubjects discussed include: the complex and vitalrelationship between financial structures and nature;the effect that providing electricity to poorer nationscould have on limiting population growth and reducingclimate change; and some pressing insights on theworld’s response to the potential problem of peak oil.Although its authors claim that Bankrupting Nature isnot a book about climate change, they do devote alarge proportion of the report’s 206 pages to thisissue. Whilst many of the arguments presented onglobal warming may not be new, they are extremelywell presented, neatly outlining and refuting thearguments of climate sceptics. This makes the bookthe perfect tool to have on hand in such a debate.

One could be forgiven for feeling more than a littledemoralised at certain points in the book. AlthoughWijkman and Rockström avoid an entirely pessimisticapproach by searching to provide solutions andproposals, this is often on a strategic rather than atactical level. That is to say that the reader finishes

the book with a very clear idea of whatis to be done but not so much clarityabout how this can be achieved or aboutthe changes they can implementthemselves. In recognising that theycannot provide all the answers, however,Wijkman and Rockström encourage andinvite further discussion on findingsolutions to the issues they highlight. Atthe heart of all of their proposals is thevital concept that economic andenvironmental issues cannot and mustnot be separated. (Take a look at ourarticle on ‘Defining the Green Economy’,page 3, to read more about our ownviews on this holistic approach.)Whilst the scope of the book is

admirable and well supported by an impressivebibliography of predominantly economic and scientificpapers, the sheer quantity of facts and informationcan, at times, be a little overwhelming and difficult todigest. The authors compensate for this, however, byusing a very readable tone and consistently providingreader‐friendly definitions of complicated concepts.This is greatly assisted by an excellent translation intoEnglish by Jim Wine, who maintains accuracy, clarityand style throughout.Having enjoyed and been inspired by BankruptingNature, my conundrum now is how to make best useof what I have learnt. Although I read the book fromcover to cover, a comprehensive index means that itcan easily be used for reference. Therefore, I hope itwill be a useful tool from which I can brief myself onkey arguments before debates and conferences. I mayeven be inclined to start carrying it around with me,so that always have a range of counter‐arguments atmy finger tips in any environmental discussion ‐ if onlythey would print a pocket version! Bethany Squire

Book ReviewBankrupting Nature: Denying our Planetary Boundaries

Bankrupting Nature: Denying our PlanetaryBoundariesAnders Wijkman and Johan RockströmISBN: 978‐0415539692Revised edition. Published by Routledge: December 2012£24.99 (€29.29), $44.95206pp

Bethany with Bankrupting NatureImage: QCEA

7

Around EuropeQuaker Council for European Affairs aisblSquare Ambiorix 50, B‐1000 Brussels, BelgiumEditeur responsable : Alexandra BosbeerNo. entreprise 0420.346.728www.qcea.orgqceablog.wordpress.com

8

SAVE THE DATE:Europe, Economics and Justice: Can we do better with less?A conference organised jointly by QCEA and Quaker Peace & Social Witness15‐17 November 2013 in Brussels

From a young age, I have loved to travel, and my interest in cultures continues today. Before starting work withQCEA, I completed a Masters Degree in International Relations after an undergraduate degree in French andGeography. I have lived in France for two years, and I have travelled widely through Europe and Australia as wellas the Middle East before the ‘Arab Spring’.It was whilst in the Middle East that I became even more interested in Human Rightsand specifically Women’s Rights, as well as the influence of other countries on thatregion. The land is considered sacred, yet, as one of the most resource‐rich areas ofthe world, it is exploited for its oil. For me, the continual conflict between identityand geography, in the crucible of external global influences, makes the Middle Eastone of the most vulnerable yet fascinating areas of the world.Having been schooled in a Quaker environment, I have gained a great amount fromQuaker practices and ethics. I look forward to exploring more about Quaker workinternationally and at the European level, while understanding more about thecomplexities of the European Institutions in relation to Criminal Justice and HumanRights.I play the flute and enjoy music, art and literature: I can’t wait to explore the cityand the surrounding region.

Imogen Parker

QCEA has Grown! Our New Programme Assistant Imogen ParkerIntroduces Herself

What are the causes and consequences of the European economic crisis? What alternatives are there toausterity? How can we, as Quakers, contribute to the building of a just and sustainable economy which

meets human needs without destroying the planet?These questions will be addressed with the help of keynote speakers and workshop facilitators. Please comeand join us as an interested individual, or as a representative of your Area Meeting or worship group.The conference fee, including meals and accommodation from Friday evening until Sunday afternoon, is £160or €185 (£145 or €170 for QCEA supporters or associates). (Brussels locals: contact us for the price of theconference and meals without accomodation.)For further information, contact office@qcea.org or see http://www.qcea.org/home/events/conferences/

Changes in Around EuropeThis is the first of a trial series of a biggerAround Europe. These double issues will bepublished only every two months, althoughsubscription prices remain the same.We thank those who have commented alreadyand will be delighted to receive more feedbackon this experiment. Write office@qcea.org, sendus a letter, or comment on our Facebook page!

Imogen Parker Image: QCEA