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
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s