How will historians in 50 years look back on the first ten years of this century? Will they name it the “decade of terror” as the Financial Times (and lots of other media) suggest? Not if you look at the number of people (one in every 10,000 deaths) killed by terror acts, according to Canadian journalist and historian Gwynne Dyer (“The United States empire takes a hit in the ‘Noughties’").

Will it go into history as the “bubble decade”, as CNBC proposes?

Or should we call it the “decade of climate change” (National Geographic), focusing once again on one of the symptoms and not the root cause of what went wrong in the last ten years?

But maybe we should not concentrate on the “bads” and look at the “goods”, the lessons we learned during the last ten years. That is what Paul Krugman does in the NY Times (“The Big Zero”). He looks at all that was promised at the beginning of the decade, the “economic triumphalism” (the New Economy, the Lisbon Knowledge Society) and what was really achieved: “zero job creation”, “zero economic gains for the typical family”, “zero gains” for homeowners and for stocks. No, “what was truly impressive about the decade past … was our unwillingness … to learn from our mistakes”, says Krugman, and he concludes rightly: “So let’s bid a not at all fond farewell to the Big Zero — the decade in which we achieved nothing and learned nothing. Will the next decade be better?”

Before I try to answer that question, let me try to give this decade its proper name. What about the “decade of ecological limits”? I know it might not sound as good as some of the alternatives mentioned but I think it will be closer to what historians will make of it in 40 years’ time.

Because, let’s face it, what we discovered this decade, is that our exuberant, materialistic and consumption-driven Western way of life, when imitated and reproduced by others (China, India, Brazil), will undermine the very fundamentals on which it is built (healthy ecosystems, social cohesion, cheap energy).

Climate change, peak oil, biodiversity collapse, water scarcity and other threats have brought back the debate of the unjustly forgotten and underestimated Club of Rome’s ‘limits to growth” and all the hopes of “green capitalism” born from a new social contract or Green New Deal will still have to prove its ability to live within these new limits. We will need a new global narrative on what is real prosperity and how to achieve it. There are signs of the beginning of this paradigm change but a real working alternative is still a long way off.

I think the next decade will be a decade of protecting (ecosystems and people), conserving (peace and prosperity) and sharing (resources and wealth). What this means for politics is unclear. I am not convinced the current return to neo-Keynesianism and state intervention (which is generally personified by leftist policies) is the right way. We could well see the rise of a new social and ecological conservatism based on values and a new humanistic spirituality.

Whatever 2010 will bring in terms of economic recovery, it will only be a temporary phenomenon and the age of permanent recessions (every time a bit worse) may well be upon us. Others have called this the “long descent”.

The next decade we will hit more of these ecological (and social) limits and if we do not learn to live within these limits, there will be lots of violence, wars and suffering. The “spirit of Copenhagen” does not bode well for the future. Could we be on our way to a repeat of the first fifty years of the 20^th century, where we needed two world wars before learning our lessons?

Here are some more interesting commentaries on the Copenhagen fall-out (see also my previous “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”)

Thomas Friedman (again, sorry but he is prolific and always good) in the NY Times looks at the “Copenhagen that matters”, the capital of a country where political leaders have had the courage to introduce higher energy taxes to stimulate innovation and stay competitive. Friedman jokes Danes must be from another planet, compared to his own America: “How long are we Americans going to go on thinking that we can thrive in the 21st century when doing the optimal things — whether for energy, health care, education or the deficit — are “off the table.” They’ve been banished by an ad hoc coalition of lobbyists loaded with money, loud-mouth talk-show hosts who will flame anyone who crosses them, political consultants who warn that asking Americans to do anything important but hard makes one unelectable and a citizenry that doesn’t even ask for optimal anymore because it believes that optimal is impossible.”

In Le Monde, French politician and Member of the European Parliament Corinne Lepage is hard on her colleagues: “Il est désormais clair qu’il n’est plus possible de faire confiance aux politiques, devenus des hommes d’affaires et non des responsables politiques, pour reprendre l’expression du président brésilien Lula, pour résoudre les problèmes du monde. Le court terme et les visions géostratégiques l’emportent sur le fondamental : notre survie.

Il restera de l’année 2009 que les dirigeants du monde ont été capables de sauver les banques et de leur allouer des milliers de milliards de dollars sans contrepartie, mais ont été incapables de mobiliser quelques dizaines de milliards de dollars pour éviter la disparition de zones entières, l’exode de millions de personnes, l’accroissement de la famine et de la pauvreté de millions d’autres ou les conséquences humaines des phénomènes extrêmes”. That said, I guess Lepage is still very much dreaming when she thinks civil society and the South can be mobilised in a big climate coalition.

When it comes to what people really want (remember the Spice Girls), I am afraid Eric Le Boucher comes much closer to the truth in Slate.fr when he writes: "La victoire d’Obama et Wen, c’est la remise de l’économie au dessus de l’écologie, ou plus exactement l’émergence de l’idée que la solution ne peut que venir du mariage des deux”. And as to the South: “on comprend que toutes les nations ne sont pas comme les nôtres, riches, vieilles, repues, adeptes de la décroissance. Non, au sud on veut des usines, du chauffage et des voitures!”. What we need, says techno-optimist Le Boucher, is an alternative driven by science and technology and a gigantic investment in research and development. I agree with that point but simply wishing away the ecological limits to technology and growth will not make the world less safe, Eric. You can call this Malthusianism, but the fact is Malthus was right, although he had overlooked the coming oil age.

So when not technology and not politicians nor civil society, who has the key to our common future? Well, as Dan Box states in the (not always pro-business) Ecologist: “Politicians have failed, business is now our only hope”. More on that and on the need for NGOs to rethink and radicalise their strategies after Copenhagen in another post.

The EU is without any doubt one of the biggest losers of the Copenhagen debacle. Not only did its future climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard make a pretty bad impression leading the debates but in the geopolitical Earthquake of shifting global power relations the EU was dramatically absent. Apparently it was not even invited around the table when the final Accord was being discussed between Obama, Wen, Zuma, Lula and Singh.

So how should the EU redefine its climate-energy policy after Copenhagen?

I think it should first of all stop bragging about its so-called climate/energy leadership. It has been a leader more on rhetoric than on real action, even if some of its actions and instruments might have been well-meant. But a genuine European long-term low-resources strategy towards a resilient and sustainable society is still a long way off and the recent EU-2020 document of the commission (the post-Lisbon strategy) is again heavier on hollow phrases than on practical workable solutions. This is, of course, not only the Commission’s fault. The EU-27 are so divided in their understanding of the need and urgency  for a green economy that it will always be hard to find a common strategy. But until it is able to redefine its own political project, its influence will keep on waning. This means it should not focus on rhetorical climate and energy targets à la 20-20-20 (or have a big debate now whether it should move to 30%) but it should start to take thought and vision leadership and help its member states to redesign their economic policies from short-term GDP-growth obsessions to a “new prosperity”-based on a  “people and planet first” paradigm.

The EU institutions should become the think-tank and avant-garde for Thomas Friedman’s “Earth race”. It should focus on all the amazing pockets of sustainability (in terms of business and governance practices and ideas) which exist within its borders and take real leadership in this quest for new prosperity in an age of declining natural resources.

That said, it will have to resist the recommendations from some “old-economy“ business circles to downgrade its green policies. Now more than ever, it is time to take real leadership, whatever the climate and EU sceptics will say.

The American author and three times Pulitzer prize winner agrees with my analysis two days ago that we need a new race, a race to become the first low-carbon, low-resource country in the world in his latest comment on the outcome of the Copenhagen summit. Friedman argues that we need a new strategy to combat climate change, one which does play to the self-interest of nations instead of the moral arguments about global warming. He wants to replace the “Earth Day” strategy with an “Earth Race” strategy:

“I believe that averting catastrophic climate change is a huge scale issue. The only engine big enough to impact Mother Nature is Father Greed: the Market. Only a market, shaped by regulations and incentives to stimulate massive innovation in clean, emission-free power sources can make a dent in global warming. And no market can do that better than America’s.

Therefore, the goal of Earth Racers is to focus on getting the U.S. Senate to pass an energy bill, with a long-term price on carbon that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech. If we lead by example, more people will follow us by emulation than by compulsion of some U.N. treaty.”

That said, I am a bit less optimistic about the wisdom of the market and the vision of political leaders to see the light. Also, as a good American Friedman still believes green technologies will save the day. Maybe he should read 3eIntelligence a bit more

The Copenhagen Accord will go down in history like the Münich Agreement of 1938, when political “leaders” did not have the courage to oppose Hitler’s dreams of world domination. Churchill later used the words of the Bible: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting” to criticize British Prime Minister Chamberlain. No doubt, those “leaders” who brokered the “shame of Copenhagen”  will later be known as the “Guilty Men”.

Here are some of the first reactions to the US-China-led deal:

Polly Toynbee in the Guardian: “This is the way the world ends, in communiques expressing insufficient commitment”. But it is not all politicians fault, says Toynbee. Citizens are just not willing to accept that they have to change their lifestyles and therefore politicians have no guts: “If politicians ask voters, "Do you sincerely want the planet to survive?" the answer is by no means obvious. Eat, drink, fly and be merry, hope for the best, cling to the comforting deniers. Imagining three generations ahead is a stretch. If voters cared about people drowning in Bangladesh, more aid would have been sent decades ago. If 20 million climate refugees arrive in boats, fend them off”.

George Monbiot gets angry in his comment (also from The Guardian): “Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest. It was nice knowing you. Not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns”.

Climate deniers, on the other hand, are over the moon. In a third Guardian contribution, Benny Peiser calls the Copenhagen fiasco “inevitable” and predicts “an indefinite moratorium on international climate law-making”. He also rejoices at the end of the green movement: “the biggest losers of the Copenhagen fiasco appear to be climate science and the scientific establishment who, with a very few distinguished exceptions, have promoted unmitigated climate alarm and hysteria.It confirms beyond doubt that most governments have lost trust in the advice given by climate alarmists and the IPCC. The Copenhagen accord symbolises the loss of political power by Europe whose climate policies have been rendered obsolete”. Well, I suppose Peiser might have a good point declaring the end of the climate hysteria and he could even be right that climate change will disappear from the political agenda in the next years (I have predicted that myself at several occasions, but for other reasons). That said, the climate and energy collapse and the “long descent” will just continue its course with all of us happily whistling in the dark. Live well and prosper!

With the Copenhagen summit on the verge of failure, it might be a good time to rethink our approach to dealing with global warming.

Why do we have a complete lack of planetary awareness and solidarity at Copenhagen and an inherent nationalistic reflex where each country or continent tries to put the blame on others and demands others to carry the burden? Because our political leaders are still thinking within their national boundaries and national interests. They call this “sovereignty”. Even their discourse on the need for more globalisation is embedded in a defensive reflex of “adapting” to this trend instead of actively trying to rethink a country’s interest in an age of global interconnectedness and dwindling resources.

From this 20th century perspective of “my country first”, the climate/energy revolution becomes a competitive sacrifice. All political leaders and lots of business chiefs still firmly believe that “who moves first, loses” (see the debate on border carbon taxes to compensate for the competitiveness loss when one country moves faster than another in terms of climate mitigation). It is time to leave this old thinking behind.

As Thomas Friedman argues well in his book “Hot, Flat and Crowded”, first mover countries (and companies) will be the long-term winners, not losers. In a recent interview with CNBC, Friedman said he told Chinese leaders to wait with the energy revolution, so that all the green technologies and innovations to deal with the future energy challenge will be developed in the US. This is exactly the new knowledge which should inspire political as well as business leaders. Unfortunately, the trend is going in the other direction as China seems to become the world leader in lots of areas of the green economy, and Western economies hesitate under the increasing counter-revolution of business lobbying. One can even wonder whether the Chinese do not have an interest of having the Copenhagen process fail or at least by delayed as long as possible. Because, in the end, it can force through the transition to a green, resource-constrained economy without having to deal with strong lobby groups or unwilling citizens. As such, it seems more and more clear that authoritarian regimes are more capable of dealing with the “unsustainability” challenges.

The transition to a new low-carbon, low-resource throughput society will be inevitable. It can be postponed by bad decisions but there is no escaping it, so you better prepare for it early and go for the immediate short pain than the long decline in the future.What we need is a new race, like we had the “race to the moon” and the “arms race”; only this time it will be a race to a new age of low-resource-use prosperity. The countries (and businesses) which will take the leadership in this race, will be the ones surviving and prospering in the 21st century.

The positive thing is that lots of new entrepreneurs as well as sub-national political elites in towns and cities seem to have understood this much faster than our national so-called leaders (look at the rise of the Transition Towns movement, the actions of the C40 coalition of cities and the leadership of some regional leaders – e.g. Schwarzenegger in California).

Let’s follow their example and get ready for the sustainability race. May the best country win

The debate about the necessity to introduce a European border adjustment tax or border carbon tax heats up. Today two interesting contributions highlight some of the elements of the interesting debate.

A Financial Times’ editorial calls it the “easy way” to start “the biggest trade war since the Great Depression”. The author of the article puts forward two arguments to make his case:

“First, it is not easy to estimate the extra cost that, say, a cap-and-trade scheme imposes even on a domestic company. And given disaggregated supply chains, it will be all but impossible to calculate which country added which bit of the overall carbon content of the end product, and hence what the weighted average final tariff should be”. Seems a good argument indeed to me.

Second and more interestingly: “it is far from clear that carbon leakage is a serious problem. Most studies show some impact, though not a huge one, on very energy-intensive industries such as paper, glass and steel, but little effect on the economy as a whole. This is worth neither starting a trade war nor imperilling the future of the environment about”. OK that’s what I thought but then we also do not need all the free allowances the EU wants to give to these industries in the first place. I wonder what Business Europe will think about this FT position

The second contribution comes from the excellent VoxEU blog where a series of high-level EU economists comment on policies. In it, CEPS’ (Centre for European Policy Studies) senior economist Daniel Gros defends the idea of a border tax, not to “’level the playing field’ for EU industry but to protect the global environment” and improve global (versus national) welfare. The article is a bit technical but the main policy recommendations are sound and attractive:

“The economics of a carbon import tariff is clear. The politics is rather messy. A massive increase in EU tariffs against developing-country exports would certainly make them feel disadvantaged. While global welfare would increase, they might lose. However, there is an easy way out of the political problems. The EU could simply promise to use the proceeds from the tariff to help poorer exporting countries reduce the carbon intensity of their economies.”

In all the hyperbole about the COP15 meeting in Denmark, you might be forgiven to think that this event is the last chance of humanity to save Planet Earth.

Well here is the good news: I am convinced that the planet does not need saving. Gaia can take care of itself, thank you, even with all the plagues we are trying to throw at it. What is at stake is not the planet but the future of our societies. You see, I am not even saying “humanity”, because – fortunately or maybe unfortunately -, we are a resistant breed and I am sure before we reach Venus-like runaway temperatures, our current economic system will have collapsed and new (probably agricultural) societies will re-emerge. It will be a difficult process with some serious die-offs but on the whole the planet will survive and lots of species will survive – including species man.

Now for the bad news: the problem with Copenhagen is that the most important questions facing our human future are not even on the table. Or, at least, not all of them. Climate change is just one of the heads of the “unsustainability” hydra (remember the Greek mythology beast that grew two new heads when you chopped off one?).

So what is not being discussed at Copenhagen?

• the energy descent and the declining Energy Return on Energy Invested of new, so-called energy solutions. No there is no silver bullet, there is not even a bullet with which to kill the fossil-fuel devil. All “energy solutions” (even renewables) will be unable to replace the greatest gift of Mother Nature ever: oil. The energy density of oil is what made our Western lifestyle possible.
• the constant and dramatic decline of biodiversity and eco-system services, the physical basis of all our life on this planet;
• the regional shortages of fresh water;
• the soil, fisheries, food challenges;
• the growing population taboo
• and so on, and so on.

Get it? As long as we cannot as one humanity of this Spaceship Earth formulate what is really the problem, how we would be able to come up with effective solutions?

Is there a way out? Yes there is, it is called lifestyle revolution, just redistribution and new global governance. It is called “prosperity without growth”.

Are we ready for it? Unfortunately not. Copenhagen will confirm that

The International Energy Agency just launched a new publication on the role of cities in greenhouse gas reduction and energy security. The new study called “Cities, Towns and Renewable Energy – Yes In My Front Yard” showcases good practices in several cities and towns for introducing renewable energy technologies. Read the IEA’s press release.

Yes according to a study undertaken by Sandbag, a UK-based climate change think tank. The organisation calculated that industry giant Arcelor-Mittal is expected to reap windfall profits of over 1 billion pounds by 2012 as a result of lax targets and free allowances in the European Emissions Trading scheme. See the Sunday Times coverage on 6 December.

This example confirms the case against the current implementation of the ETS. Due to the power of heavy lobbying, industry has been able to turn a cost into an opportunity. Good business for sure, but good for the planet?

Sandbag calls upon Lakshmi Mittal, CEO of Arcelor-Mittal to cancel the 80 million surplus permits and become the world’s biggest climate philanthropist.

Read Sandbag’s full report (“ETS S.O.S”)  on the flaws in the ETS.