Global Warming: Low-lying Netherlands is exporting its water-management expertise

Netherlands: famous for water-management expertise

Passengers arriving at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport might be alarmed to learn that they are landing on a runway that would  be — if nature took its course — 13 feet under water.  

The fact that the runway is dry and the passengers can alight without getting their feet wet is thanks to more than a century of water management. For hundreds of years, the Dutch have been pumping, draining, building sea walls and dykes, fighting coastal erosion and reclaiming land as a matter of national survival because more than half their country lies below sea level.

These skills in keeping water at bay have served the domestic economy in the Netherlands well, but now, in an era of climate change and rising sea levels, they are driving a major export industry as well.
 
“There are so many cities around the world in deltas, or in coastal zones, very close to the water that are in jeopardy,” Piet Dircke, a Dutch water engineer, told Marketplace. “Millions of people in these big cities need to be protected against the impacts of floods and climate change, and the Dutch know how to do that,” Dircke said.

From Wuhan in China, to São Paulo in Brazil, to Miami, New Orleans and New York, big coastal and riverine cities around the world have been hiring Dutch companies to combat rising sea levels. Dircke’s employer, the giant engineering consulting firm Arcadis, has seen its water business revenues jump by 42 percent over the past five years to $515 million due to this increasing global demand for Dutch expertise.

The know-how extends well beyond pumping and draining. In Rotterdam harbor, an experimental  project has been unveiled that could help communities cope with rising sea levels, not by draining and reclaiming land but by “building on water.” 

Sweden’s PM weeps at the scene of Stockholm terror attack - by Rory Tingle

The Swedish Prime Minister laid a bouquet of red roses and lit a candle to remember the four victims of the Stockholm truck attack.

Stefan Lofven was visibly emotional as he paid his respects outside the Ahlens department store.

This was the site of a horrific attack that saw a 30-tonne truck ram into a crowd of shoppers, killing 4 and  injuring 15 people - nine seriously.

Read more Sweden’s PM weeps at the scene of Stockholm terror attack | Daily Mail Online

Syria: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - by James Downie

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that Donald Trump is always in want of praise from his television. Though other presidents have been busy with the job of being president, cable news — and tweeting about what he’s watching on cable news — is the centerpiece of Trump’s morning and evening routines. It’s clear that what the media cover and how they portray him has a tremendous influence on Trump: This week, the pictures of Tuesday’s chemical attack by Syria played a crucial role in Trump’s decision to order a missile strike Thursday against a Syrian airfield. The president’s sensitivity to his media image makes it all the more important for outlets to be cautious in their coverage of the missile strike and its aftermath.

Fourteen years ago, the media breathlessly reported the George W. Bush administration’s charges against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and then rhapsodized over “shock and awe” in the war’s early months. One would hope that the United States’ subsequent struggle in Iraq (and Afghanistan) might lead talking heads to be more muted or skeptical this time, but Thursday’s coverage suggested otherwise. MSNBC anchor Brian Williams described Pentagon footage of missile launches as “beautiful.” The New York Times headlined one piece in treacly fashion, “On Syria attack, Trump’s heart came first” (before later changing it). Parades of guests largely praised the missile launches as the right course of action.

By contrast, the networks did not focus much on whether it was concerning that Trump had flipped within a week on intervening in Syria, or what Trump’s next steps would be. (It’s worth noting that, after sending 400 Marines to Syria in March, the administration has stopped disclosing how many U.S. troops are deployed there.) There was even less discussion of the legality of the strike, even though Congress had not authorized it. (The Trump administration even forgot to include a justification in its original set of internal talking points.) And absent almost entirely, with the notable exception of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, was any extended dwelling on the United States’ not-so-stellar record of Mideast interventions.

Read more: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - The Washington Post

Syria: US forces fire 'some 50' Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian base

Tomahawk Cruise missile

The US military has fired ‘some 50’ Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian aircraft, an airstrip and fuel stations according to American authorities.

An official confirmed the site targeted is under the control of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. US media says the airfield is located near Homs. The Pentagon confirmed the exact objective was the Shayrat airfield.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Speaking ahead of the strikes, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assad should have no role in a future Syria.

Ordered by President Donald Trump, the strikes follow a suspected chemical attack on rebel-held Idlib, in which more than 70 people were killed.

He later said: “Today I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched.”

The strikes were, he said, in the national security interests of the US.

Trump’s order to launch the missiles came a day after he accused his Syrian counterpart of responsibility for a deadly chemical attack Assad’s government denies carrying out.

“No child of God should ever suffer such horror,” Trump said in a statement following the military action.

EU-Digest: We have not always been very optimistic about President Trumps actions, but this one was a good move which not only puts Assad on notice but also the Russians. 

Read more: US forces fire 'some 50' Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian base | Euronews

European Union - EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support - by Nick Gutteridge

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for California, or Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if US President Donald Trump does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU.

The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments.

A spokesman for the bloc later said that the remarks were not meant to be taken literally, but also tellingly did not try to pass them off as humorous and insisted the EU chief was making a serious comparison.

They are by far the most outspoken intervention any senior EU figure has made about Mr Trump and are likely to dismay some European leaders who were hoping to seek a policy of rapprochement with their most important ally.

Speaking at the centre-right European People Party’s (EPP) annual conference in Malta yesterday afternoon, the EU Commission boss did not hold back in his disdain for the White House chief’s eurosceptic views.

He said: “Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same.

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of California, Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”

Mr Juncker's comments did not appear to be made in jest and were delivered in a serious tone, although one journalist did report some "chuckles" in the audience and hinted the EU boss may have been joking. The remarks came in the middle of an angry speech in which the top eurocrat railed widely against critics of the EU Commission.

And reacting to the furore which followed them, EU Commission deputy chief spokesman Alexander Winterstein explained: "You will have seen that this is not the first time the President draws this analogy and I think he’s making a point that is as simple as it is valid.

"He does not suggest that certain states should secede from the United States and at the same time I think he considers it also not terribly appropriate for other heads of states to suggest that member states of the EU leave the EU. So I think that’s the comparison that he’s drawing."

Read more:  more: European Union - EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support | Politics | News | Express.co.

Dutch Political Scene: Why the Dutch need three months to form a government

Two weeks after the Dutch election, the politician leading talks to form a new coalition says it may take three months or more. But far-right leader Geert Wilders, whose party came second, is nowhere to be seen.

He may be the firebrand Dutch politician who dominated the country's most divisive election campaign in years, but Geert Wilders and his anti-immigration Party for Freedom (PVV) have no option but to watch from the sideline as four mainstream parties seek to build the Netherlands' next government.

Talks to form a new coalition, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, began immediately after the March 15 general election. But the main party leaders have refused to deal with the PVV, despite it winning the second-largest number of seats in parliament.

Since World War II, Dutch governments have taken an average of 72 days to be decided, compared to four to six weeks for a typical German coalition. The Dutch record is nearly seven months in 1977, but even that pales in comparison to its neighbor, Belgium, who after its 2010 election took 541 days to agree to a coalition.

Center-right politician Edith Schippers, whose job it is to achieve a new alliance to run the country, believes the new government won't be in place until July at the earliest. On Wednesday, she gave parliament a progress report on negotiations, warning that an agreement before Easter was "highly unlikely," Dutch public broadcaster NOS reported.

So why does coalition-building take so long in the Netherlands, especially when Wilders - the most divisive political player - is not participating?

"What makes it difficult is our truly multi-party parliament, with 13 parties now represented in the lower house," Professor Ruud Koole, a political scientist at Leiden University, told DW. He said Rutte's liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) would not be content with a minority government.

"You don't really have big parties anymore that dominate a coalition. The VVD now needs three other parties to participate, and that takes a long time," Koole said.

Read more: Why the Dutch need three months to form a government | News | DW.COM | 30.03.2017

France: Marine Le Pen: Loans from Russia - Who's funding France's far right? - by Gabriel Gatehouse

Putin and LePen: Is LePen doing her banking in Russia ?

When Marine Le Pen appeared in the Kremlin on 24 March, it was Vladimir Putin himself who gave voice to the thought that was surely on many people's minds:

"I know that the presidential campaign is developing actively in France," the Russian president said, adding: "Of course, we do not want to influence events in any way."

The Russian president appeared to be suppressing a grin as he spoke those words. Marine Le Pen appeared unperturbed.

She repeated her support for Moscow's annexation of Crimea, and her opposition to the sanctions subsequently imposed by the EU. If elected to the Elysee Palace, she pledged: "I would envisage lifting the sanctions quite quickly."

So the meeting was a win for both. Madame Le Pen looked like a world-leader-in-waiting; Mr Putin received assurances from a woman who might become president of France, and who, like him, opposes the EU and Nato.

But there is more to the relationship between Mr Putin and Ms Le Pen than ideological convergence. Because of the National Front's racist and anti-Semitic past, French banks have declined to lend the party money.

So Marine Le Pen has been forced to look elsewhere for financing.

In 2014, the National Front took Russian loans worth €11m (£9.4m). One of the loans, for €9m, came from a small bank, First Czech Russian Bank, with links to the Kremlin.

The loan was brokered by Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, an energy consultant turned MEP, who has called himself "Mr Mission Impossible".

Read more: - by Gabriel GatehouseMarine Le Pen: Who's funding France's far right? - BBC News