The power of #science (or not) Over the last 1½ or so years, the number of scientists appearing in the media has increased sharply. So as the number of (self-proclaimed) experts. And yet, it’s fair to say that no-one is any the wiser. That raises the questions: What can science do? What should it do? And what should it not do? And what is the role of politics in regards to science? Ever since the outbreak of #COVID-19, scientists found themselves shoved into the media spotlight Not an enviable position for someone generally used to talk to peers, especially considering that they were asked to provide answers to a developing situation, regarding a disease about which little was known (and which is still not fully understood). Some were visibly uncomfortable, others delighted in it, no-one excelled in it. It is perfectly understandable for the public to expect answers from the experts, after all, if the experts can’t provide answers what good are they, and why should we waste the taxpayers’ money on them? Was it reasonable to expect hard and fast answers there and then? Probably not. It was completely understandable all the same. No-one will doubt that the social fall-out of the Corona-crisis (such as the rise in conspiracy theorists) was in large parts due to a communication breakdown. Shops open? Shops closed? Schools open or closed? Face masks on or off, and which kind of face mask? The list of such questions is long, and the answers we got were sometimes confusing. And all the while people were faced with pretty existential questions and demanded answers quickly. The fundamental problem is that the scientists are by the very nature of their profession the last people to give hard and fast answers on developing problems. That is not because they can’t communicate to the public. Some are quite good at it, some are admittedly even better. The reason why they are not in a position to provide hard and fast answers to developing problems is that science itself is a very slow-moving process. The generation of knowledge by trial and error does take time. In such situations it is very easy to find (or to generate) one study that comes to different conclusions than another or a number of others. Without going into the ever present possibility of academic fraud, it is entirely possible that one study comes to different conclusions. In a situation when, as it were, the canvas is still more or less empty this is likely the case, and it is even desirable because the more explanations for such varying observations have to be found the more complete and thus useful the picture will be in the end. The hallmark of a scientific charlatan is to hold up one paper and say: This proves that you all are wrong! Science does not work like that. Conflicting evidence has to be taken seriously, and a model has to be developed that can account for such conflicting evidence and can explain why it was found. This is how science works, this is why it is so slow. That being the case: What can science do? What should it do? And what should it not do? Science should advise politics. Obviously, some such input maybe advisable from a scientific point of view, however, in practice a scientifically desirable solution might be completely impractical. Finding an acceptable compromise between what is desirable and what is politically achievable is the role of politics. It is furthermore the role of science to explain the progress it has made in understanding problem XYZ. The worldwide Interweb has been hailed as a means to democratise knowledge. That is a very tricky way of putting it. Scientific facts are not subject to democratic decisions, they do not depend on a majority of people agreeing on them. But even if we take ‘democratised knowledge’ to mean equal access to knowledge, this does not imply that everybody who has read three articles on Wikipedia or watched 3½ videos on YouTube becomes an expert. What makes a scientist, a scientist is the practice of taking all available facts into account, finding plausible explanations for these observations, and spotting the missing facts and what these gaps might imply. In a nutshell: Critical thinking. To clarify: Critical thinking does not mean to realise (or even just to surmise) that a person in some position of power has their own agenda and to conclude that therefore everything he or she says must be a ruse to fool others. What science cannot do is to moralise its findings. We may think of applications such as nuclear bombs or genetic engineering as deplorable or dangerous, but that is not science’s fault. As long as human beings possess the capacity to sin (in a non-theological sense) human beings can do ‘bad’ things, the means with which they do so is irrelevant. You may use a knife to cut a slice off a loaf of bread or to stab your husband. That is not to say that science should be a-moral. Science does have an obligation to work for the common good. However, it cannot be held responsible if humans use its discoveries in an unethical way. Having said that, this appears to us science’s most pressing duty in these times: To point out, to reiterate, and to educate people on what science is, how it works, what it can do and what it cannot do.

The EU’s Response to Greenwashing Trianon Scientific Communication has invited Dr Richard Burchill, as a guest writer. Richard Burchill is a Senior Counsel for Macroscrope Strategies, Brussels; Associate Research Fellow United Nations University (UNU-CRIS), Brugge. Awareness about climate change, environmental degradation, and the need for sustainability is increasing as the impact of climate change continues to affect day-to-day lives around the world. Increased awareness is a positive development as it channels thinking and action in a direction that gives more consideration to what action is needed to minimize environmental destruction and promote sustainability. Greater awareness of the impact of climate change and the need to change behaviour have resulted in both positive and negative forms of behaviour. The positive changes in behaviour are welcomed as consumers strive to lessen their environmental impact through more informed choices that support sustainability. The negative impact comes when sales and marketing strategies seek to capitalise on the attention being given to the environment by using misleading or bogus information, which is “greenwashing.” Greenwashing is a common activity as companies strive to take advantage of the leading trends in society regarding climate change, but in a way that benefits the company without creating too many extra costs. The EU is taking action to ensure companies can no longer engage in greenwashing. A proposal for a Green Claims Directive is currently in the legislative process and is expected to be adopted in the first quarter of 2024, potentially coming into force in 2026.[1] The Directive is at the intersection of consumer protection and the European Green Deal. It is designed to protect consumers from the deceptive practices of greenwashing and ensure accurate and accessible information is available for decision-making.[2] The Directive is part of the EU’s wider green agenda and will support the wider purposes of the EU’s efforts regarding sustainability. The core idea behind the proposed Directive is ensuring transparency regarding the claims being made by ensuring such claims are based on accessible and verifiable evidence. There is no shortage of advertising claims that seek to show the consumer how the product in question is somehow beneficial to the environment, or at least has not harmed the environment. Plus, companies are working on improving their overall image and reputation by showing they are leaders in environmentally friendly activities. The most common label attached to these activities is that the product, service, or investment is “green” (blue is also used in some circumstances), with these colour choices being seen as a good thing. But green or blue is just a colour and not an objective point of reference or a scientific measure that is verified by evidence. The majority of claims about the green credentials of a product, service, or investment are primarily subjective claims being made to improve the reputation of what is being offered in the hope it becomes more popular compared to competitors. Greenwashing goes beyond the normal marketing practice of trying to demonstrate the superiority of a product in relation to competitors, in that it purposely misleads consumers about the environmental performance or impact of a product, service, investment, or the overall reputation of a company. There are numerous examples of greenwashing where companies are: Claiming to be “carbon-neutral” or “climate positive” without providing verifiable evidence. Using vague terms such as “natural”, “organic”, “eco-friendly”, or “green” without defining what they mean or how they are measured. Highlighting only one aspect of environmental performance, such as energy efficiency or waste reduction, while ignoring others, such as water consumption, biodiversity impact, or social responsibility across the supply and value chains. Making exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of a product or service for the environment or sustainable development. Exaggerated or superfluous claims are a common tactic in sales and marketing and are relatively harmless when they involve superficial assessments such as being a “leading” or a “valued” product or company. No product or service will advertise itself as being “average” or just doing the job like all others in the market. There is always some positive assertion behind products and services that seek to attract customers and position the company as comparatively better than competitors. However, with greenwashing, there are concerns that such practices are harmful to consumers, preventing well-informed decisions. Greenwashing practices further remove incentives for companies to pursue business practices and models that seek to minimize the environmental impact and enhance sustainability - it is easier to make up a position than truly adopt the practice. The Green Claims Directive will change sales and marketing practices as any explicit environmental claim now needs to be grounded in verifiable, transparent facts based on accepted methodologies and evidence. The key objectives of the Directive are:[3] To make green claims reliable, comparable, and verifiable across the EU. To protect consumers from greenwashing. To contribute to creating a circular and green EU economy by enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. To help establish a level playing field regarding the environmental performance of products and services. The Directive requires companies to prove and substantiate the environmental claims being made across the supply chain of the product. Once the Directive enters into force, all green claims will need to be backed up by transparent evidence that is clearly communicated. Further, third-party verification systems will be established at the national level, which will set out acceptable methodologies for green claims. Through the introduction of verifiable evidence, common phrases such as ‘net-zero’, ‘carbon-neutral’ or ‘eco-friendly’ will be prohibited as these commonly have no scientific basis nor any legal meaning. This will require a substantive change in company practices as companies will no longer be free to make unsubstantiated claims as they will now need to do their research, provide transparent evidence, and effectively communicate what the expressed environmental claims mean.[4] The verification of green claims by companies needs to be done by the company itself, in line with the verification systems set up by the national authorities. This will require significant resources and expertise, as the requirements of the Directive go beyond compliance with existing consumer protection measures and broaden the information and data that companies will need to collect and publish. Under the Directive, companies need to exercise a much more robust environmental claims management framework, including providing explanations as to how the environmental claims are reached and informing consumers of any changes that occur. This means substantial changes to the sales and marketing activities along with increased capabilities in data management, and enhancements to governance structures so that the green dimensions of companies are not just a tool for selling more products but an actual part of the business process. With penalties being part of the new regulatory framework, the C-suite will need to be directly engaged with the objectives of the Directive and ensure there is company-wide adherence. Companies will also have to supply annual reports about their compliance with the Directive, which should support a more holistic approach to sustainability. It is hoped the Directive will spur companies to seriously examine their business practices and adapt their activities to bring about more sustainable practices. As transparency is a key part of the Directive, companies that are making the effort to address climate change and support sustainability will be able to benefit from increased market share. There are clear trends in consumers seeking to minimise their environmental impact. When the new system is in place, the transparency and verification of the claims will, hopefully, lead individuals to seek products that are more sustainably produced. As the verification schemes take hold it will prevent false claims leading to improved competitiveness as companies will not be able to distort the market and undermine competitors through deceptive assertions. Related to the EU’s efforts to expand support for sustainability within the EU, the Directive will also have a wider global impact. The Directive will apply to companies based outside the EU in different ways. As EU based companies will need to demonstrate their environmental claims are applicable throughout the supply chain they may need to reconsider their suppliers outside the EU if those suppliers are not pursuing sustainable solutions as well. Companies based outside the EU who are pursuing business directed at the EU single market that makes use of environmental claims directed at EU consumers will have to comply with the Directive. Companies outside the EU will need to show their claims are in compliance with EU established verification systems or demonstrate that their national verification systems, if they exist, are in line with the Directive. The third-party verification processes are going to be the key dimension for the effectiveness of the Directive. Across the EU, the national verification processes will need to be harmonised but the Directive recognises there is no single system for achieving the objectives of the Directive. The Directive will eliminate the extensive use of public and private labelling schemes that are currently used. At present, there are over 300 schemes and labels claiming green credentials circulating in the EU. It is estimated that only 35% of these require specific evidence to demonstrate compliance with the scheme.[5] Such schemes will no longer be valid as all green claims will need to be in line with the verification and labelling schemes set up under the Directive. Current EU regulated labelling schemes, such as Ecolabel or organic products, will continue to apply.[6] Coming up with a coherent and workable verification system that is consistent across the EU is likely to be one of the largest challenges for this Directive. The applicable authorities in the Member States will need to act in a concerted manner from the outset to ensure the nationally mandated verification systems are using the same methods and evidence points. The EU will be able to oversee the creation of the methodology (as this is set out in the Directive), but consistency in practice across the different member states is going to be a significant point of contention if the different national verification systems appear to be taking varying approaches, such as showing preference to particular companies or industries or applying different levels of investigative powers, and penalties. Defining what constitutes a ‘green’ product or service can be complex due to the variety of environmental impacts that need to be considered. The matter is further complicated as the science for assessing green credentials is continually evolving, making the active monitoring of this Directive, once in force, a necessary activity for the Commission. The EU’s Green Claims Directive is a promising initiative that aims to promote transparency and accountability in environmental claims. While it faces certain challenges, its successful implementation could play a key role in driving the transition towards a more sustainable economy. As the Directive is implemented and refined, it will be important to monitor its effectiveness in promoting sustainable consumption. There are concerns that companies may just give up on trying to minimise negative environmental impacts. This may occur with some companies. The wider sales trends in the EU point to purchasers having a greater concern about sustainability therefore companies choosing not to convey any environmental claims will lose out. While much remains to be seen as to how the Directive will work in practice it is a positive step for empowering consumers in bringing about the green transition to a sustainable economy with fewer negative impacts on the environment. [1] “’Green claims’ Directive” Briefing: EU Legislation in Process, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/753958/EPRS_BRI(2023)753958_EN.pdf. [2] The Proposed Directive, along with the Explanatory Memorandum can be found here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0143&from=EN. [3] European Commission, “Green Claims”, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en. [4] There will be an exemption for small enterprises with fewer than 10 employees and less than €2 million annual turnover, but these companies will be encouraged to comply with the Directive. [5] EU Factsheet, “Empowering Consumers” https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_2099. [6] See Article 1 Proposed Directive.

Who to follow in 2024 – Diverse and Inclusive EU - Eu Bubble Insider Article published here on January 30th, 2024. Welcome to this section of our ‘Who to follow in 2024 list’, where we spotlight the inspiring individuals leading the charge in creating more equitable and inclusive debates and policies within the EU. This carefully curated list presents a diverse array of leaders, each making significant strides in their respective fields, from championing anti-racism initiatives to spearheading gender equity in technology. Following these influential figures is key to staying at the forefront of the most current debates and trends in diversity and inclusion. Join us in celebrating these change-makers who are diligently working towards a more diverse and inclusive European community. Return to the main list  here . Shada Islam – Managing Director at New Horizons Project A renowned specialist in European Union affairs, serving as a commentator, advisor, analyst, and strategist. Managing Director of New Horizons Project, she brings insightful perspectives on topics like geopolitics, trade, migration, inclusion, diversity, and women’s empowerment. Her expertise extends across Europe, Asia, and Africa. Shada is a vocal advocate for women’s rights, minority representation in EU institutions, and a more inclusive Europe. She is known for her engaging public speaking, lecturing, and writing, contributing to significant discussions on Europe’s global role and contemporary geopolitical challenges. LinkedIn | Twitter (X) Loredana Teodorescu – Head of EU and International Affairs, Istituto Luigi Sturzo Head of EU and International Affairs at Istituto Luigi Sturzo, is an expert in EU migration and asylum policies, European internal security, and foreign affairs, with a focus on the women, peace, and security agenda. She hosts the Martens Centre’s podcast “HerAndEU”, addressing women, leadership, and EU policies, showcasing her dedication to enhancing female leadership in these areas. Loredana’s involvement with various expert networks, like the European Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Asylum Agency, emphasizes her influence in EU governance and policy-making. LinkedIn | Twitter (X) Dr. Audrey Flore Ngomsik – President at the the Brussels Binder President of the Brussels Binder, with a PhD in Physical and Analytical Chemistry, she brings over 20 years of experience in green chemistry and sustainable development. Her role extends beyond the Binder, as a co-founder of Trianon Scientific Communication and a board member for several organizations, where she promotes social sustainability and DEI for climate change mitigation. Dr. Ngomsik is also known for her engaging public speaking and training abilities, effectively communicating complex sustainability challenges to diverse audiences. Board Member of several organizations, she uses her scientifically driven approach to help boards use social sustainability, in particular Diversity Equity & Inclusion for a more efficient mitigation of climate change. LinkedIn | Twitter (X) Josipa Friščić – Communication Officer at Inclusion Europe Advocate for diversity and inclusion within the EU. Her role since April 2020 involves developing and implementing communication strategies for various projects. She possesses a strong background in digital media management, content coordination, and strategic collaborations with EU institutions.Previously, Josipa’s roles at ICF Next and the Erasmus Student Network further honed her skills in digital editing and advocacy, solidifying her as a key influencer in the field of social inclusion communication. LinkedIn | Twitter (X) Christine Reinders – Co-Lead DEI at the Brussels Binder At the Brussels Binder, Christine plays a pivotal role in promoting gender diversity in policy debates. Her work extends to helping companies create inclusive cultures and achieve their ESG goals. As a global citizen, Christine is dedicated to making a positive difference in the lives of employees worldwide, leveraging her expertise to increase employee engagement and address societal challenges. Following Christine can be particularly beneficial for those looking to gain insights into effective Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and their integration into corporate strategies. LinkedIn Tamara Makoni – Founder & CEO at Kazuri Consulting An award-winning inclusion specialist with a global perspective shaped by her upbringing across three continents. Her work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is fueled by a blend of personal experiences and professional expertise gained through working with teams in over 30 countries. Her experience includes facilitating DEI workshops for senior leaders in NGOs and multinational corporations, delivering keynote speeches at global conferences, and guest lecturing at prestigious institutions like Vlerick Business School and Tilburg University. As a third culture kid, she brings a unique and relatable perspective to the challenges and opportunities of fostering diversity and inclusion in today’s globalized world. LinkedIn Wietse Van Ransbeeck – CEO & Co-Founder at CitizenLab Recognized as a Forbes 30 Under 30 Europe, Wietse leads CitizenLab’s efforts in making governments more inclusive, participatory, and responsive. The platform facilitates efficient citizen participation and helps in driving better policy decisions. With a vision for a more participatory form of governance, Wietse’s work at CitizenLab has garnered recognition from Google, McKinsey, and Rocket Internet as the “Best Social Impact Startup of Europe.” His efforts are not just about incorporating technology into governance but also about ensuring that this digital transformation leads to more democratic and engaged societies. LinkedIn | Twitter (X) Kim Smouter – Executive Director at European Network Against Racism With over 18 years of experience in Brussels, Kim’s expertise spans a variety of social causes including LGBTQIA+ rights, employment, education, and digital rights. His prior roles include significant positions in the European Parliament, the European Network of National Civil Society Associations, and ESOMAR. At ENAR, he leads the organizational, financial, and administrative management, supervising a team of experts to achieve impactful societal change. His work involves defending the European civic space and strengthening DE&I integration in businesses. LinkedIn | Twitter (X) Berta Herrero Estalayo – Head of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at Huawei With a strong background in European Union politics and policies, Berta has extensive experience across institutional, corporate, and media sectors. Her work spans foreign affairs, enlargement, cohesion, new technologies, and innovation. Prior to her current role, she served in the cabinet of a Vice-President of the European Parliament and as a journalist for Spain’s newspaper El Mundo, reporting internationally. She founded and directs the Schools for Female Leadership in the Digital Age, She recently launched The Women’s Academy for Rural Innovation, an initiative empowering women in rural areas to excel in the green and digital transition. LinkedIn

Testimonial on Public Speaking - Training Testimonial from Stefano Sannino Secretary general European External Action Services

I have no clothes to wear This is Part I of a two-part mini-series on the environmental impact of fashion and the possible solutions. Part I deals with the social aspects, Part II will deal with the technological ones. It has been updated since the last version published in 2020. I love fashion Being a woman that may not be overly surprising. I also want to protect the environment. Being a scientist and a cosmopolitan that is likewise not overly surprising. Fashion, however, does have a huge environmental impact. It is responsible for ¼ of the total greenhouse gas emissions (which is 5 times that of the airline industry). It is the biggest polluter of fresh water resources and quite energy intensive. The industry uses up to 2000 chemicals (for cleaning natural fibers, as smoothing agents, as colorants,….) known to be harmful to human health (toluene and aromatics, phthalates, dichloromethane, etc.). Some evaporate, some dissolve in water discharged in our environment, some stays in the fabric that we end up wearing. [1] The social impact is none the better: 1/6 people around the word work in the apparel industry, 98% of them do not receive minimum wage 11% are children [2] Our way of using clothes is not sustainable The issues arise from: How our products are made. Where our products are made. Where they are going to end up. The elderly amongst us can still remember a time in which it was not unusual to personally know ones tailor! Today fabrics are woven at one location, cut at another, sewn together at a third, and shipped half-way around the globe where they end up in our hands. Another challenge is our consumption of clothes In 1960, an average American household spent over 10 percent of its income on clothing and shoes.The average person bought fewer than 25 garments each year. And about 95 percent of those clothes were made in the United States. Today, the average American household spends less than 3.5 percent of its budget on clothing and shoes. Yet, we buy more items of clothing than ever before: nearly 20 billion garments a year, close to 70 pieces of clothing ppa, which is equivalent to more than one item of clothing purchased per week. 2 percent of these clothes are made in the USA. [3] It will come as no surprise that the situation in Europe is comparable. According to EU statistics, in 2016, the average European household spent 4.9% of its income on clothing and footwear. Households in Estonia topped the list with an average of 6.8% while in Bulgaria the average was lowest at 3.1%. [4] Between 2006 and 2016, the share of clothing and footwear in total household expenditure decreased in the vast majority of member states. The largest fall over this 10-year period was recorded in Lithuania (from 7.8% of total household expenditure in 2006 to 5.9% in 2016, or a decrease of 1.9 percentage points – pp), ahead of Greece (-1.3 pp), Spain (-1.1 pp), Ireland, France, Cyprus and Malta (all -0.8 pp). Whether we buy more clothes because their quality is lower than a few decades ago or whether the fashion industry has been successful in making the previous collection seem outdated in ever shorter periods is a moot point. Adding to the environmental impact of the production of ever greater piles of clothes So, fashion has huge environmental impact along every step of the garments: production, use, and end-of-life treatment. Everyone has experienced this at some point. You find a piece of clothes in your closet that you no longer use and choose to throw it away. What happens to your clothes when you are unable to sell or donate them because they are too worn out to be given away? Regretfully, only 20% of waste textiles are recycled or used as industrial rags, carpet padding, or insulation in building. The remaining 80% will end up in landfills. That begs the question of what happens to our clothing after it ends up in a landfill and how long it takes for it to totally decompose. Over half the garments produced are not recycled but discarded and end up in mixed household waste and are subsequently sent to incinerators or landfill sites where they contribute to the problems associated with management. If your piece of clothes is made of natural fibers Natural fibres eventually return to the soil, just like anything else created by nature. To biodegrade: Pure linen will need 2 weeks 100% cotton will need several months Wool can take 1 to 5 years depending on the blending. While pure linen can biodegrade in as little as two weeks and 100% cotton T-shirts can take several months to decay, some natural fibres may take longer. Wool, for example, can take one to five years to degrade, depending on the combination. If your piece of clothes is made of semi-synthetic fibers or synthetics fibers Viscose and cellulose are examples of semi-synthetic fibers. Even if the raw materials is a natural fiber (wood pulp,...), they are synthetise through a chemical method. They will take up to several month to decompose in landfills. Nylon, spandex and polyester are example of synthetic fibers. As the semi-synthetic fibers, they are created through a chemical process, with polymers derived from oil byproducts and natural gas ( like plastics!) These fabrics will take up to 200 years to completely breakdown in landfills.[5] Can the consumer do anything about it? In theory, yes. The fashion industry moves 1.7 trillion dollars every year, so we can hit where it hurts. It is just a question of wanting to buy better. Hence, change resulting from changing consumer habits will be slow to arrive but for those of you who do want to make a change, here are six hints you can put in practice starting today: Hint 1: Look at the labels and give preference to natural fibres Cotton is no longer king, it has been replaced by polyester. As a matter of fact, 50% of our clothes are made in polyester now. The problem in that cotton is a natural fibre, polyester is a synthetic fibre made of petroleum, i.e. non-renewable resources. In addition, washing polyester clothes results in microfibres in the wastewater which ultimately accumulate in the fish we eat. Cotton, on the other hand, is readily biodegradable. Moreover, you need 125 MJ of energy to produce 1 kg of polyester. [6] It is 5 times of what you need to produce 1 kg of cotton and twice of what you need to produce 1 kg of wool! You do the maths! [7] And if you think that you cannot wear wool during the summer, you are wrong. You can wear wool, it just has to be the right kind of wool. As a matter of fact, wool fibers have a lot of creases and crinkles that allow for pockets of air. So that makes wool clothing light and breathable in the summer. [8] In addition to cotton and wool, you can also try linen or other natural fibers available such as, silk, cashmere, hemp, … So, prefer natural fibres over synthetic ones if you want to do your part for the environment. So as not to appear as do-goody lifestyle dictators: There is absolutely no problem with having a nice satin blouse in your wardrobe: Buy it, wear it, keep it and once it has reached the end of its lifetime discard it in a clothes bank. Cotton has also its down side... It takes about 2,700 liters of water to make just one t-shirt (vs 6.4 liters for linen), which is enough water for one person to drink for 900 days. Hint 2: Check the quality before buying So, we buy too many pieces of clothing of inferior quality. Instead of buying 4 T-shirts for 10€ each, buy one T-shirt for 40€, that you will really wear! And if a T-shirt cost 10€, that means that all along the supply chain, some people are not paid, or are in slavery for you to have your very cheap T-shirt! Checking the quality of your garments is very easy. Hold the material in two hands and stretch it a bit. If the shape of the material alters the fabric won’t last that long. You can also check the seams. If they come apart already just because you give them a stern look — don’t buy it. Hint 3 : Buy only what you love and will wear More than 30% of clothes in European wardrobes have not been used for at least a year. Why do we buy them then? Because the marketing is great! So, be aware, and don’t let yourself be led to buy what you don’t need. To do this, use the BISOU method: If you are still struggling, some people can help you. The Happy Closet by Deirdre Clehane and Debbie Clerkin, will not only help you with your image, but their capsule wardrobe is a methodology to buy more sustainably. Hint 4: Boycott the non-sustainable brands to make them change To make a real difference, the boycott might be a solution. The key to making a boycott works is not only to cease buying cheap, non- durable clothes, but to also put our money into recycled, good quality clothes. It might cost more, but it is higher quality and garments are made by people in better working conditions. This has worked before. For instance, in 2013, Abercrombie & Fitch has seen some backlash after it was revealed that the company does not cater for plus sized women, and that the policy for hiring shop assistants was depending on candidate’s physical attributes. In 2018 Dolce & Gabana had to endure a serious debacle because of a racist and discriminatory advertisement on Instagram. They had to cancel a major show run in China just hours before it was due to start and have been boycotts from models and celebrities. Hint 5: Buy brands which publicly set up sustainability goals and try to reach them Some are really well known. Eileen Fisher  look at everything from the fibres, to the dyes and finishes, and the ethics during the production process, to repairs and waste at the end of the life-cycle — and the list goes on. These brands buy back and resell their own label’s gently worn clothing so you can get it for a lower price in excellent condition. Scabal works mainly with wool sourced from local farmers to be sure that the production of wool stays durable and sustainable. Give preference to brands that are local and share their sustainability commitment, i.e. their plans AND actions. In 2023, we have introduced to you several brands that fit this profile: Les Izmoor by Ines Bourgeois, tackles the problem of overproduction and over consumption, by producing one modular garment per season and on demand. SÉ-EM by Charlotte Mounzer is a Belgian brand entirely based on the circular economy and zero waste ethics. Erratum Fashion by Siré Kaba and Indikon by Radhika Singh [9], work with NGO, to make sure of the workers have good working conditions, to give equal opportunities to different population, and use their brand to preserve cultural inheritage. Muhire by Josiane Nsabimana is a luxury textile brand based on circular economy, and the preservation of cultural inheritage. If you have no idea where to find these brands, COSH! is here to help you. This application will help you discover sustainable shop near you and tailor a shopping route based on your personal style & budget. Listen to our podcast leaders in sustainability, episode 25 to know more about it: Hint 6: Buy brands which publicly set up sustainability goals and try to reach them Our final hint, and probably the most important one… Changing our way of buying clothes will not happen from one day to the other but if we stay informed, committed and engaged, we can make a difference. So, ask the producers questions. Aware yourself of the work conditions of employees. Stop being a passive consumer. If all the small brands and all the big brands make a change, the environment will be better, the conditions of worker will be better, our wardrobe will feel better (because less overcrowded). We can all together make the fashion industry remodel itself to be both thriving and sustainable. [1]  Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals: Environmental Data and Facts; German Environmental Protection Agency, Springer, New York, 2004, page 609 [2] https://labs.theguardian.com/unicef-child-labour/ [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [3] https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/7939/madeinamerica [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [4] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180103-1, [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [5] Degenstein, L. (2018). Biodegradable vs. non-biodegradable textiles: Environmental impacts under standard landfill conditions. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, 25(1), 18–23. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.036489062540142, [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [6] https://www.commonobjective.co/article/fibre-briefing-polyester [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [7] https://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/estimating-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-fabric/  [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [8] https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1299372/FULLTEXT01.pdf, [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024] [9] https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-5d8fk-151fb1a, leaders in sustainability - Episode 24, Indikon, [Last accessed on Jan 7th, 2024]

03.08.2023 by L'OFFICIEL BE In October 2023, Veuve Clicquot is organizing the third Belgian edition of its Bold Woman Award, rewarding and highlighting established and non-established female entrepreneurs. Meeting with Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik, CEO and co-founder of Trianon Scientific Communication.

La diversité des talents c'est pas uniquement la couleur du peau - Interview by girl squad seaon 02 episode 08.

Interview by Les Grenades (RTBF) - - L'importance des représentations Audrey-Flore Ngomsik est docteure en physique et chimie analytique, experte en développement durable et CEO de l’entreprise Trianon Scientific Communication. Après un parcours universitaire sans avoir eu de modèle, elle milite pour augmenter la diversité là où les décisions sont prises. Son témoignage inaugure une nouvelle série de vidéos Grenades consacrée aux femmes dans les STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Une interview vidéo de Marceline Destordeur. The interview was initially published, May 30th, 2022, here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=578512833571061

Tackling Global Warming: Exploring strategies beyond CO2 reductions The world is getting hotter and all attempts to do something about it, or at least to curb CO2 emissions, seem sluggish at best. Can we change our world so that it heats up less, despite the greenhouse gases? The world is getting hotter and all attempts to do something about it, or at least to curb CO2 emissions, seem sluggish at best. Can we change our world so that it heats up less, despite the greenhouse gases? Well, yes, theoretically at least. The temperatures we experience on this goodly frame, our earth, result from the incoming radiation from the sun, and the radiation the earth emits back into space. CO2, the most important of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorbs some of the incoming radiation and transforms it into heat. The higher the concentration of CO2, the lower the amount of radiation emitted back into space. That leaves two options of redressing the balance (i.e. reducing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere to a level somewhere between today's and that of around 1850): Sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere or Introducing some element which either reduces the incoming radiation or increases the amount of radiation emitted back into space. The first one could be some kind of sunlight-deflectors in our earth's orbit; the second one could be the introduction of aerosols which reflect sunlight into our atmosphere. Technical considerations aside, both approaches are truly gigantic tasks. The idea of mirrors in space sounds like science fiction. Indeed, until quite recently it has been just that. The reason for this is simple geometry: given the distance between the sun and the earth any object that is to deflect a significant amount of radiation from the earth would have to be either very big or very close to the sun. However, in practice any object in space, such as satellites, has to be placed at the point where the gravitational pull of the sun and that of the earth cancel each other out, the so-called Lagrange point - moving the object closer to the sun in order to increase the area of shadow it casts is simply not an option. In 1999, parts of this science fiction scenario became reality when the Russian satellite Знамя-2 (Znamya-2) unfolded a solar mirror which measured twenty meters in diameter. This mirror produced a spot on the earth which was about eight meters in diameter. The brightness of this spot was reported to be close to that of a full moon. It should be noted that this serves as just an example of what is possible, even though in this case the objective was not to deflect sunlight away from the earth but rather to divert it towards it. In general, the enormous surface area needed to achieve a modification of about 1% of the incoming radiation can be brought about in two ways, either by putting up one gigantic mirror up into space or by putting up a large number of smaller mirrors up there. The other extreme would be to disperse clouds of small particulate matter in our atmosphere. It is well known that the dust ejected into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions exerts a cooling effect by reflecting incoming sunlight leading to lower temperatures in the affected areas. Members of the older generation may remember the term 'nuclear winter', which was in widespread use in the 80s and which describes a scenario in which the enormous amounts of fine dust generated by multiple nuclear weapons would lead to drastically decreased temperatures on earth. However, this effect could be used to our advantage by spraying suitable materials (diatomaceous earth, alumina, calcite, salt, inorganic sulfates, etc.) from carrier air-crafts into the stratosphere. This is known as stratospheric aerosol injection. The stratosphere is the zone around our planet stretching from about 12 to 50 km above sea level. Our weather, in particular precipitation like rain, originates from the troposphere, which extends from ground level to about 12 km above. This means, any aerosol that is injected into the stratosphere will remain there without getting washed down by the rain. Of course, such an approach is not without its own set of risks although at present these are highly speculative. There is simply not sufficient knowledge to accurately gauge such possible effects. Stratospheric aerosol injection may lead to ozone depletion. Since aerosol particles absorb heat this might change circulation patterns in the stratosphere with completely unknown consequences for circulation patterns closer to the earth's surface. In addition, reduced sunlight might have an effect on plant ripening and primary production. Again, no hard and fast knowledge regarding such possible effects exists. Finally, reducing the incoming solar radiation or, more precisely, its intensity will also have an effect on the efficiency of photovoltaic power generation. CCS/CCU Right down here on earth, our climate could also be engineered, namely by adjusting our atmosphere. In a way, the current global warming is also the result of an engineered atmosphere, albeit a mis-engineered one. The concept goes by the two acronyms CCS and CCU, standing for Carbon Capture and Storage and Carbon Capture and Utilisation, respectively. CCS/CCU would solve the biggest obstacle towards renewable energy: cost. It would enable us to continue using our existing fossil fuel infrastructure. If it were possible to use fossil fuels without warming up the climate (and without acidifying the oceans) that would be just marvellous, wouldn't it? Not quite, because while it is technically quite feasible to so, it would generate enormous amounts of CO2. All this captured CO2 would have to be stored somewhere and in such a manner that it cannot escape. While CO2 is per se non-toxic, air which contains too much CO2 is still dangerous simply because it doesn't contain sufficient amounts of oxygen any more. The captured CO2 could be pumped into exhausted oil or gas wells. However, that requires shipping it to wherever it could be pumped underground which would make the process unfeasible. And if we 'suck' the CO2 out of the ambient air at the storage point? This is known as Direct Air Capture (DAC) and it is being tried on a larger scale. While still expensive, this technology is not nearly as costly as any space-based solutions described above. This is where the second acronym (CCU) comes into play. Now that I've got all that carbon, what do I do with it? The problem with CO2, as a useful molecule is that it is energetically 'dead', which is to say that it requires a lot of energy to turn it back into something useful, something that is reactive and whose reactivity can be steered towards synthetically desirable outcomes. However, there are 'non-chemical' uses for CO2. In terms of volume, the biggest one would be enhanced oil recovery. Some of the captured CO2 could also be used in controlled environment agriculture, where atmospheres enriched in CO2 are used to increase yields. A third use could be the carbonation of soft-drinks. To sum things up, any self-respecting space scientist will call the space-based ideas outlined at the beginning of this article as something possibly nice for the years 2100 and later. However, something needs to be done here and now. Ideas like stratospheric aerosol injection are much cheaper, however, the associated risks are poorly understood, if at all. Capturing CO2, either at the point of generation (coal-fired power stations, cement kilns etc.) or straight out of the atmosphere is possible but raises questions regarding the security of the CO2-deposits. Also, it does require some investment, however, far less so that mitigating the consequences of global warming. The most promising and most sensible thing to do remains to reduce the generation of CO2 as much as possible. In weighing the options to tackle climate change, we've seen ambitious ideas alongside practical challenges. Whether it's space mirrors or carbon capture, each solution presents its own set of possibilities and hurdles. But one thing is clear: cutting CO2 emissions is non-negotiable. We need to act now by embracing sustainable practices, switching to renewable energy, and rethinking our reliance on fossil fuels. There's no silver bullet here. Instead, it's about combining innovation with practicality. We must work together globally, be resourceful, and stay committed to protecting our planet for the future. It's not just one solution; it's a concerted effort that holds the key to a sustainable tomorrow.

Même les vêtements deviennent de plus en plus intelligents Interview publiée dans La libre Belgique, le 30 decembre 2022: https://www.lalibre.be/planete/sciences-espace/2022/12/30/meme-les-vetements-deviennent-de-plus-en-plus-intelligents-SWQ2SUX3DZDNJFYWD6RGT3PXHE/

Interview by LN 24: COP28 : Un petit pas vers la fin des énergies fossiles ? Par Pascal Vebros L'émission a été publié initialement ici: https://www.ln24.be/2023-12-13/le-petit-theatre-de-vrebos-du-mercredi-13-decembre Les invités sont: Marie Christine Marghem Carine Thibaut Jean-Pascal van Ypersele Jerome Meessen et Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik Click on the picture or the button below to watch the video.

Empowering diverse voices: a pledge for inclusive choices The article has been published by the parliamen Magazine here: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/empowering-diverse-voices-a-pledge-for-inclusive-choices Six years ago, the Brussels Binder burst on to the scene like a superheroine, ready to address the glaring issue of underrepresentation of women in policy debates. Nowadays, it is the city’s go-to resource for improving gender diversity in the so-called Euro-bubble. But our cape needs more sparkle. Despite our efforts, the situation remains dire. In 2020, of 270 conferences across 26 countries, 26 per cent had “manels” (panels featuring only male speakers), 68.48 per cent of speakers overall were men, and fewer than 4 per cent of men and fewer than 1 per cent of women were from underrepresented minorities, according to data from Open Society and Ashoka. In the media landscape, in Belgium, in 2020, women represent only 26% of subjects and sources featured, according to the 6th Global Media Monitoring project. If we focus on Brussels, the numbers are similar. Research for our Walkingthe Talk report shows an increase in gender equality in think tanks’ panel discussions, with 46 per cent being gender balanced. However, 16 per cent were manels, only 36 per cent of total speakers were women, and ethnic diversity was even more scarce than in European panels. Knowing that 62% or residents are foreign born, according to the Migration Report published by IOM, this is concerning. The problem is that for democracy, equality and peace to thrive, voices that are not typically heard on panels need to be amplified to promote a diverse range of perspectives. This is even more important in policymaking. When diversity is not represented around the table, the challenges of diverse groups are unlikely to be taken into consideration, because “you don’t know what you don’t know”. How can you advocate for a population whose challenges you are unfamiliar with? As we approach 2024, with European and federal elections coming in June, there is an urgency to ensure the needs, interests and viewpoints of the people are fairly represented throughout the democratic process. Therefore, at the Brussels Binder, we have decided to embrace the words usually attributed to Albert Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.” Mere advocacy and tacit agreements are insufficient; it's time for accountability. To this end, we will release a manifesto on December 11th 2023 – a public declaration urging people to refuse participation in any political debate or policy discussion unless the panel is composed of diverse and intersectional speakers. Gender, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, background … intersectionality should be the cornerstone of any public debate, to be sure that everyone is represented. The manifesto will include pledges for both individuals and organisations that all stakeholders active in politics and in the European Union policy space can sign up to, demonstrating their commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility for all EU policy debates. Through this manifesto we will strive to end manels once and for all, and shine a bright light on underrepresented communities in EU policymaking today. We are facing some of our greatest challenges yet in the EU, ranging from security to climate and our cost of living, and the only hope we have of solving them is through balanced solutions that represent all our interests. It is time to step up; it is time to pledge to listen to diverse voices and start making inclusive choices. Representation matters! We need to empower diverse voices for inclusive choices. You can sign the manifesto here: