In today’s global financial crisis, the image of a black swan has become a symbol for the seemingly impossible that somehow occurs, turning the world upside down. This year will afford us ample opportunity to examine the black swans that are already among us and to prepare for the arrival of even more.
November, for example, marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The night of Nov. 9, 1989, marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union and its empire and thus also of the bipolar world that had, for five decades, divided Germany and Europe. A year before, few people considered this world-shaking event even a remote possibility. Yet it happened and the world changed almost overnight.
After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the bipolar world order, victorious Western capitalism, under the leadership of the only world power, the US, reigned supreme in global politics and even more so in the global economy. Nothing and no one, it seemed, could stem the global triumph of the market, with its transcendence of all previous limits on wealth — that is, until Sept. 15, the fateful date when Lehman Brothers went bust and the meltdown of the global financial system began.
While a distraught world is still trying to fathom the consequences of this global crash and to mitigate its impact, the call of the next black swan can already be heard: the global climate disaster.
It seems to be part of human nature to willfully deny the possibility of great crises, or at least to downplay them. “Impossible” or “It won’t be all that bad” are the two magic formulae on which we tend to rely.
And we refuse to learn the lesson of the black swan even when the next one is already visible for all to see! Although the generations alive today have witnessed two completely unexpected crises of epic proportions within the last 20 years, we indulge in a shocking collective repression of a climate disaster with far more serious — and foreseeable — consequences.
But, in fact, by linking the answers to the global climate and economic crises, we can find a way out of both. The solutions to the climate crisis are already well known, the money is available, and so are the technologies, or where they aren’t, they could be developed. What is lacking is the strategic vision and determined action of the major political players.
As for the economic crisis, bailouts and stimulus packages on the order of billions of dollars, euros, yen or yuan have been planned or implemented to stem the further slide of the global economy. But, while references to the Great Depression are justified, the lesson of that crisis, and of the New Deal, is that effective programs can at best cushion the fall and bring about stabilization. The real economic recovery — and this is the bad news — came only with World War II and the long Cold War that followed.
Rather than relying on war as an economic mega-project to end today’s recession, the international community should bet on the fight against the climate crisis, because globalization will continue, rapidly increasing the threats to the world’s climate.
In 1929, there were slightly more than 2 billion people living on the planet; today, there are 6.7 billion, and in 2050 there will be 9 billion. All of them, thanks to globalization and new communication technologies, will strive for the same standard of living, give or take, which will necessarily lead to an overstretched global ecosystem.
The question of whether to use coal or nuclear power is simply no longer apposite: without a breakthrough in renewable energies, global energy demand cannot be met, not to mention the dangers of a new Chernobyl.
Where this will lead the world can be seen even today: China already has the world’s most ambitious scheme for expanding nuclear energy, and every year it builds coal-fired power plants whose electricity output is roughly equivalent to the capacity of the entire British power grid.
So the black swan of the climate crisis is already preparing to land. To fight the climate crisis effectively demands nothing less than a green revolution of the global economy, the mega-project of the 21st century.
Only the rich industrial nations of Europe, the US and Japan can afford to pay for the necessary investments in emerging countries. But this green revolution must be about more than spending money; it must also be about laws and standards, about political regulation and new technologies, as well as new products and markets, which mean new economic opportunities.
This year, a new global climate agreement will be negotiated in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol. This is effectively the last chance to prevent the next black swan from landing. But we must understand that Copenhagen is also a big chance to revive the global economy.
All of the relevant powers of the 21st century are represented in the G20 and they should see the success of Copenhagen as part of their direct responsibility. This time, unlike at the London G20 meeting, they should do the job properly — both to protect our climate and to reboot the global economy.
Joschka Fischer, a leading member of Germany’s Green Party for almost 20 years, was Germany’s foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 until 2005.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/INSTITUTE OF HUMAN SCIENCES
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS