The upside of global catastrophe: A long-term strategy?

The people of the United States now own more than a third of the world's largest bank, Citigroup, and the shrinkage of the US GDP was revealed to be near an an believable 7% in 2008. The Dow-Jones index is now hovering below 7,000 -- half the value it had only two years ago -- the possibility of all-out collapse of the US stock market is on some minds, I kid you not.

And here I thought that the collapse of global fisheries within the next 30 years, coupled with catastrophic climate change that will flood a third of the world's cities and cut European food production by more than half, was a serious threat to our way of life. Now I know the real problem is that our money is disappearing.

Just ask Labour MP Ed Balls in the UK. He caused a political stir when he said on February 10th that the global economic downturn is "the most serious global recession for over 100 years." Harkening back to 1909 is indeed strong stuff, considering that this period encompasses the British recession after WWI, the German crisis of 1920s, and the Great Depression. According to The Guardian, he warned that events were moving at a "speed, pace and ferocity which none of us have seen before" and banks were losing cash on a "scale that nobody believed possible".

This international crisis may not be the end of free-market capitalism, but it sure as hell is a pause in the action. And it will be the political frame of reference for at least the next 15 years, maybe 20. Is this a problem for those of us who are pushing for climate policies that would see the total 'decarbonization' of OECD energy systems by 2040? Is environmental concern now a thing of the past?

Hardly. Fifteen years of economic downturn is enough time to move ahead with 'sweeping change' (as Barack Obama termed it) -- to 'revalue' what is 'normal' for our society, both in domestic and foreign policy. And the backside of a financial crisis is a good moment to be questioning the real value of consumption in wealthy societies -- just the kind of debate that deep ecology has implied but that environmentalists themselves have eschewed for fear of being shut out of government roundtables and industry consultations.

In short, this crisis will last long enough to allow a whole new way of thinking to take root, making equity and sustainability the touchstones of progress, and 'gross domestic happiness' the measuring stick of civilization. It isn't long enough to achieve all of what we strive for, but it is enough to lay healthy soil for new developments to take root.

Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin puts it this way:

“We should be practicing a sustainable approach to economics that takes advantage of the ability of markets to allocate scarce resources while explicitly recognizing that our economy is dependent on the broader ecosystem that contains it.”

But do we have the skills or the guts to plan and implement a strategy over that timeframe?

Many of the 'progressive' advocacy groups in Canada, whose job is to dramatically change our frame of public discourse on key issues, have resolutely stuck to the lessons of the 1980s, focusing inordinate resources and energy on their organizational capacity and reputational capital. This may be a good strategy for reactionary times, but with everything to play for now, it can only be described as the 'feet of clay' approach -- 'we'll get there eventually'.

No, actually, you won't. Without significant rethinking by the leadership of popular groups, and much more alliance building across a broad front of social, economic, and institutional reform, Canada will remain a laggard in progressive politics.

More to come in future posts, including some points on how the US situation is more hopeful.