When I am writing this I am aware of three areas struck with wild fires - in the US, in Spain, and in Bulgaria. I suspect there are many more that I do not know about. And for sure, there are many more to come.



Climate change has been hotly debated for several years, and anyone who has read an article about it will know that more, and more intense, wildfires is one out of many predictable effects of a warmer atmosphere. Other predictable effects are fiercer storms, droughts and floods.

The key fact is that warm air holds more vapour than cold air. That means it will rain more seldom, but more intense when the rain falls. Some places are flooded, while others remain dry.

The key insight is that weather has always been potentially extreme. On a certain location at a certain time, there is always a potential for extreme weather. A warmer climate does no bring any new events - it simply changes the likelihood of them to occur.


But given that the world is now somewhere around 0.6 degrees warmer than it was 30 years ago, and given the immense damage caused by events like the wildfires in Colorado, it is very relevant to ask to what extent these events are due to warmer weather.

Scientists and activists who have been saying this for years of course make this connection. And you can find journalists in regional newspapers. But you will search in vain for a discussion of climate change in connection with real world events in major news outlets like CNN or NY Times.

This would make sense if CNN and NY Times rejected the idea that warmer temperatures affect the weather, but, alas, you can find several articles describing the effects of climate change on these sites.

How can an article that predicts that climate change will give more wildfires, not be referred to when wildfires do appear?

It's the politics, stupid. One could easily imagine the loathsome comments to a NY Times article about wildfires that even hinted at climate change. It would be highly controversial.

But if we let such bigotry stand in the way of discussing climate change when it happens, how could we ever manage to deal with it? Well... it is like that. We can't.

Good news

It is often said that bad news dominate media, and that positive developments are ignored since they do not have the dramatic news appeal of a disaster. Climate change kills ice bears makes more headlines than the consumption of ecological food increases.

Swimming in Sofia

In a chronicle today in my hometown newspaper Värmlands Folkblad, Clara Bodin tells about a number of ex-communistic swimming baths she has visited.

The article is a formidable read (in Swedish), and it brought back a lot of memories from the times when I was swimming twice weekly before going to work in Sofia.

But it also gave me a kind of bitter taste... why does every account from Eastern Europe have to repeat the same tired stereotypes? Even those written by well meaning and knowledgeable authors.

(picture from wikimedia)

Clara tells stories about the swimming hall in Chisinau that hasn't been renovated since World War II

Who was Bobi Tsankov

I must admit an error. Bobi Tsankov, who was killed in downtown Sofia on Tuesday, was not a journalist in the proper sense. He had published a few articles in not very renowned publications, and did some radio shows, but more than anything he is famous for being a criminal himself. He has been accused of frauds for millions, and have close ties to organized crime himself. After all, it was exactly those ties boasted that he would reveal. So the murder was maybe more of an inter-mafia showdown, than an open attack on free speech.

My mistake is completely due to not checking my sources before I write. It is elementary, I have done it before, but there is no excuse.

Unfortunately I was not the only one todo this mistake. In Bulgarian TV today, Bulgarians wonder how the international press spread eactly this point of view, without checking out who Tsankov really was. I am sure they did  not take their information from Maladets! BBC describes him as a "prominent crime journalist" Balkan Insigth use the neutral "Radio Host", while NY Times call Tsankov a "prominent radio journalist and the author of a book on Bulgaria's gangsters".

After all, poor Bobi did publish some articles, so calling him a journalist could possibly be justified, even if it is wrong. But from where did BBC and NYT learn that he was prominent?

Unfortunately, in most people'seyes, and in reports about murdered journalists, Bobi Tsankov willbe a journalist, and Bulgaria a country where journalists are killed, which is something much worse than a country where gangsters kill each other.  Sloppy writing, like this is, helps in building prejudices about a country that too few foreigners even bother to understand. I hope you can forgive Maladets!, but the BBC and NYT should be better.

The other side of the story is that a mafia murder was carried out in broad daylight in the very center of Sofia, which is bad enough.  Was Tsankov really going to reveal something, that was so sensitive? Or did someone within the organized crime want to show Borisov who really rules this country? I don't know...

Anyway, journalism should be about telling the truth, and using the label "journalist" for Bobi Tsankov is a bit too imaginative.

The Swedish Radio and Belarus

Sveriges Radio - the Swedish public broadcasting company has decided to close its sendings in Belarussian. These sendings were a kind of "Radio Free Europe" in the dicactorship Belarus . The Swedish students' group Liberala Studenter have launched an online petition, askin Sveriges Radio to keep the broadcast as a way to support democracy work in Belarus. I was made aware of the topic from posting on the Central europe mailing list. Since it is a public mailing list I take the freedom that publish the entire letter from Sławomir Wójcik here.

Posted by: "Sławomir Wójcik" swojcik@pk.org.pl slawek.wojcik
Sat Aug 8, 2009 3:45 am (PDT)


Protest against Swedish Radio International - who are closing down the
belarusian radioprogramme which had listeners in Belarus (in
belarusian) and promoted the democratic society. The chief of SRI
Ingemar Löfgren says "democracy projects is not our job" - but the
thing is - Swedish Radio is Public Servise and it SHOULD promote
democracy aswell. Please help us support this protest and sign this
petition!

In swedish: Namninsamling startad - protest mot Sveriges Radios
nedläggning av de vitryska sändningarna. Skriv under du med och stöd
demokratirörelsen i Belarus!

http://www.namninsamling.com/InfoBelarus

Press: "Skriv på listan" (=sign the list) down in the corner, then
sign your first name in "förnamn", second name in "efternamn", your
e-mailadress in "epostadress" (it will not be shown on the list, its
just to confirm the signing in a confirmation email) and in "postort"
you write your city. Then press "Spara" (=save).
Thank you!

PLEASE, FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL, WHOM IT MAY CONCERN!

There are, of course many reasons to keep these broadcasts. Sweden has direct historical, ecological and social ties to the Baltic region incuding Russia and Belarus, and a great reponsibility to work for improved human rights in the region. The fact that Lukajsenko, the dictator of Belarus have showed an increased interest in Europe, should not be an excuse for be more forgiving towards crimes against human rights.

Except for historical and social ties, the Swedish and Polish governments have launched the EU's so called Eastern partnership, a program that was covered in this weekend's Kapital ( #31 page 25). Unfortunately it doesn't seem very clear what the EU wants to offer these countries... certainly not a quick membership, or abolishment of visa regimes. Russia on the other hand, can offer cheap gas and visa-free traveling, at the expense of human rights.

If the EU wants to play hardballs againts Russia, vagueness is unforgivable. And EU showed nothing but indecisiveness towards the violence in Moldova in April. Moreover, as Kapital points out - how can you formulate one coherent policy for countries as disparate as democratical, chaotical Ukraine, authoritarian pro-russian Belarus, a little less authoritarian pro-western Georgia and discretely authoritarian, slighlty democratic and chaotic moldova?

The countries themselves are deeply split on the issue, and in no country, except for Moldova, Kapital writes, is there a strong majority for closer ties to the EU. Kapital adds an interesting graph, showing that in Moldova 80% are for closer ties with the EU and 60% for closer ties with Russia. 140% of all Moldovans are confused I guess...

Maybe Kapital's mistaken graph is closer to ones they got right. Identities are complex, and closer economical ties to the EU and human rights should not necessary exclude a strong cultural affinity with Russia in these countries.

The EU should also ask itself - is Europe ready to redefine itself and regard Moldova, Azerbadjan and Ukraine as parts of Europe - as European as Bretagne or The Rhein valley. If it's not, what could it actually promise?