I can send the renewed version to a few MEPs, if that would be interesting.
I would (in increasing order of scope and time needed)
As to time, it would be good to get this off soon if we want them to take it into account.
The markets point may be right, but it would mean an awful lot of editing now and then people eyeballing it...
uranium - yes, it's not indigenous - my parenthesis was just to blunt that assumption. If you have better wording, feel free (without engaging into a peak-uranium debate right now...)
feed-in: where? sounds good to me
deviation: sounds good. A line on this would be fine
anti-marketista: what do you suggest? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I suggest it's too late for today (office hours). We should aim at getting it in tomorrow (late) morning at the latest.
the biggest change: I think the anti-marketista line of argument spreads too wide over the document. It seems to be the focus of not just the first but all chapters, with some loose switching between criticism of ideological advocacy from the Green Paper and our own advocacy of alternatives. These alternatives are often in a dualistic contrast with freemarketism, whereas one could argue f.e. showcasing that markets being determined by conditions which include policy choices, including doing nothing.
I think this may be an important point, but it also the criticism has to be made, and sometimes it is less effective to say it once earler in a paragraph, than to suggest examples as you go along. I realize your point, DoDo, that it makes it sound too criticism of ideology foccused, but it is also legitimate...they do it in their origninal document.
To completely edit out the "criticism" it would also require some heavy editing (and a lot of time and effort, I would think)...and I don't think anyone who has done heavy lifting on this in the last two days should try that. So unless someone is into a pot of coffee...
The other option is to add a brief preface that acknowledges the quandry of trying to respond to a paper technicaly when it is full of ideology, and say we are forced to point out the inconsistences, even as we try to respond to the questions of the paper. Then it is maybe just a question of saying "here's one of those points, but anyway...", rather tahn having to do a whole re-write late at night, with time pressure on.
To me, it is readable, gives important views/information, and makes the point. Perhaps different formatting, as Nomad suggested (chapters) might be more effective too...but again, can that be done reasonably simply, or are we talking about heavy changes?
My opinion is that we view this as a learning process, in that we can be aware of these issues that we have identified with upcoming papers (since they will probably have the same or similar problems)...and really focus on putting this paper to bed.
My ten cents worth...but it could save some time... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
The most important capabilities are: any edits must be side by side with the original for fast comparison, editors must be identified, and the text of each version is numbered using autonumbering for each stacked level of headlines, subs, paras and subparas . and bullet points etc.
With the latter it is much faster to locate the text commented upon, using the number. It helps to track any shifts in text order also.
I only know commercial software that does these things (and much more) for this purpose. But I am sure there is an Open Source version of it out there. You can't be me, I'm taken
But this process assumes that one or more members of the approval group have exclusive editing rights. Only commentary is allowed if you don't have edit rights. The document can be locked in different ways.
But comments can be quite long - people often paste whole paras that they've rewritten into comments - and that makes it easier for the editor too - copypaste.
This process is perfect also for visuals and layouts. Pointing a comment at exactly what you are commenting is much easier than explaining in words to what you are referring. You can do this in Photoshop too but the files get so damn big, and people get itchy about interfering physically in the layout without competence. So a pdf is more secure. You can't be me, I'm taken
Spreading the remaining extra costs with the help of guaranteed purchase at fixed higher prices (feed-in laws) also creates a market that spurs development by competition of renewables producers among themselves.
The development of a market for competition among renewables producers is also created by the feed-in laws. These spread the remaining additional costs utilising the advantage of guaranteed purchase at fixed higher prices. You can't be me, I'm taken
If I understood it I could do wonders with it by a rewrite. You can't be me, I'm taken
This is presented as a declaration of fact, when it is a debatable, and far from generally accepted, proposition, as the various attempts by Member States to bring about the creation of "national champions" have demonstrated recently.
I am not averse to tinkling out the commas myself in ET, as I am not allowed to do it in professional writing. But the above sentence is a comma too far; especially after 'accepted' You can't be me, I'm taken
BTW, check the comments at the writeboard. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The first sentence doesn't fit into the context, as my original "also" referred to a half-sentence on spreading costs in the previous sentence (written probably by Jérôme). I used 'extra cost' to denote price above market price, I'm not sure 'additional cost' covers that meaning. The 'guaranteed purchase at fixed higher prices' directly does the spreading of costs, "utilising the advantage of" just doesn't sound right. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Spreading the remaining above-market-price costs with the help of feed-in laws, that is guaranteed purchase at fixed higher prices, also spurs development: it creates a market for competition of renewables producers among themselves. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Sustainable, competitive and secure energy will not be achieved without open and competitive energy markets, based on competition between companies looking to become European-wide competitors rather than dominant national players. Open markets, not protectionism, will strenghten Europe and allow it to tackle its problems. A truly competitive single European electricity and gas market would bring down prices, improve security of supply and boost competitiveness. It would also help the environment, as companies react to competition by closing energy inefficient plant.
This has been bothering me for a while, and I only just figured out why
the issue of the internal energy market is presented in the following biased way:1. In order to achieve the goal of a genuine single market, what new measures should be taken...?The single market is not presented as a subject for discussion. It is a predefined goal, assent for which is assumed.
1. In order to achieve the goal of a genuine single market, what new measures should be taken...?
Maybe we should say something like "the single market is unrealistically conflated with a "pure" deregulated market without reference to the real world and to the policiy choices otherwise advocated by the Green Paper". In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The reference to the "genuine single market", imo, is absolutely equivalent in their (extremely unsubtle) language to creating internal energy markets. I don't think we should worry about it. Neither do I think we should be re-editing this text extensively now. We'll have work to do later on Energize Europe.
I don't think it makes sense to send in a correction to the Energy Directorate so late in the game, and after so many modifications. Adding a paragraph that's been lost in the shuffle is one thing, but we've been touching and retouching too much.
The edited text can still be circulated to others, but we have to be careful about not representing that the text is identical to that which was submitted to the consultation.
You did start this last document with "I know this is crazy but we only have 48 hours to do this". We all had other commitments: Jerome was travelling on Sunday, I had a family visit, DoDo was away. You've done the work and I've nitpicked from the sidelines. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
Of course, we can and should use the current text to circulate.
There was no implied criticism about people's availability in my remark. Just that my first attack diary on the Consultation was long ago, and the Open Letter two weeks ago, and stuff coming out now is a bit frustrating. Anyway, I really do think they use "genuine single market" as equivalent to "finishing the liberalisation of energy markets". Otherwise the following poll options make no sense.
I'm sorry I only got through reading stuff and trying to draft what, to my mind, should be a brief critique of the Green Paper, so late. It's also clear there was no advance consensus on whether it should have been a brief critique or a more detailed position paper. That complicated things when editing time was short.
BTW, there's a White Paper on Communication Open Consultation, closing date 30th Sept. Working group, anyone?
...That in this questionnaire the aim is for a common 'free' makret, and alternatives aren't even asked about, also reflects that the Commission is obliged to push that damned "Lisbon process".
I say if there was no feedback/note of receipt on the previous yet, trying to send the improved version won't be a problem even if they ignore it. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Is everyone in agreement on the text now?
Before circulating it, however, I think it needs some page formatting (the page breaks need attention, as Nomad said). Writeboard won't do it, as far as I can see. I can make a .doc file of it and format that.
Any other ideas, anyone?
The Open Letter was different, I think, it was from EU citizens.
He said we should send the latest version anyway. We can always claim we sent an old draft by mistake as opposed to calling it "errata".
We can always send version 13 which is exactly as our prevvious submission plus the new paragraph.
Version 14 and later already contain more and more substantial rewordings of other things.
Options:
I frankly don't believe it matters a whole lot with DG-TREN. Since the only consultation was IPM, they don't put up (unless I'm mistaken) a page with contributions as with the Biofuels Consultation. They may acknowledge receipt. I sent the e-mails return receipt, but that should go to etg@eurotrib.com, which only Jérôme has access to. So should any response they make.
They're not going to take any notice of what we say anyway, we know that ;)
Presentation of the WP, December 2006.
