Share this newsletter: HOME WHO WE ARE LATEST POSTINGS GWPF NEWSLETTER CONTACT 20/06/15 Lord Lawson Criticises Papal Encyclical Club Of Rome Welcomes The Pope's Green Encyclical









“The present world system is certainly unsustainable,” Pope Francis says. Surely we cannot know this. If that word “certainly” is wrong, we should apply the “precautionary principle” so beloved of the catastrophists. The burden of proof is on them before we let them stifle economic growth. Papal advisers may feel that, by associating himself with environmentalism, the Pope is reading the signs of the times. The opposite could be true. He could be painting himself into a corner, as some in the Church did in the past when they denounced the theory of evolution. --Charles Moore,







The Papal encyclical on the environment is especially welcome at the Club of Rome which introduced the idea of “Limits to Growth” in the 1970s. “The Pope makes points that are indistinguishable from those that the Club of Rome has been making for years”, says Roberto Peccei, Vice President. Like the Vatican, the Club of Rome says that to solve our climate problems and build a fairer society, nature and society must be placed before economics and short term profit. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a member of the Club of Rome, presented Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment together with Cardinal Turkson on 18 June in Rome. --







When it comes to environmental and climate policy, Germany’s Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) is an influential advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The chairman of the council is Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In April 2011, the WBGU presented a report entitled “World in Transition – Social Contract for a Great Transformation”. The main theses: The current economic model (“fossil industrial metabolism”) is untenable. The WBGU admits frankly, that the decarbonization of society can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy. To carry out this utopian new vision, democratic institutions, the freedom of lifestyles and the right to material well-being is to be sacrificed. --Fritz Vahrenholt, The encyclical is a thoroughly reactionary document. A mixture of junk science, junk economics and junk ethics, what Pope Francis advocates would prevent the world’s poor from escaping from poverty – just as it would have prevented the industrial revolution, which enabled the western world to escape from poverty and squalor. I’m sure the Pope means well, but it is well known that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. –Lord Lawson, Ideacity Conference, 19 June 2015 “The present world system is certainly unsustainable,” Pope Francis says. Surely we cannot know this. If that word “certainly” is wrong, we should apply the “precautionary principle” so beloved of the catastrophists. The burden of proof is on them before we let them stifle economic growth. Papal advisers may feel that, by associating himself with environmentalism, the Pope is reading the signs of the times. The opposite could be true. He could be painting himself into a corner, as some in the Church did in the past when they denounced the theory of evolution. --Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph, 20 June 2015 The Papal encyclical on the environment is especially welcome at the Club of Rome which introduced the idea of “Limits to Growth” in the 1970s. “The Pope makes points that are indistinguishable from those that the Club of Rome has been making for years”, says Roberto Peccei, Vice President. Like the Vatican, the Club of Rome says that to solve our climate problems and build a fairer society, nature and society must be placed before economics and short term profit. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a member of the Club of Rome, presented Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment together with Cardinal Turkson on 18 June in Rome. -- Club of Rome, 19 June 2015 When it comes to environmental and climate policy, Germany’s Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) is an influential advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The chairman of the council is Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In April 2011, the WBGU presented a report entitled “World in Transition – Social Contract for a Great Transformation”. The main theses: The current economic model (“fossil industrial metabolism”) is untenable. The WBGU admits frankly, that the decarbonization of society can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy. To carry out this utopian new vision, democratic institutions, the freedom of lifestyles and the right to material well-being is to be sacrificed. --Fritz Vahrenholt, Die Welt, 27 Mai 2011









1) Lord Lawson Criticises Papal Encyclical - Global Warming Policy Forum, 20 June 2015



2) Charles Moore: The Holy Father Is Wrong To Say That Our Way Of Life Is Doomed - The Daily Telegraph, 20 June 2015



3) Club Of Rome Welcomes The Papal Climate & Environment Encyclical - Club of Rome, 19 June 2015



4) Fritz Vahrenholt: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber And Eco-Dictatorship - Die Welt, 27 Mai 2011









1) Lord Lawson Criticises Papal Encyclical

Global Warming Policy Forum, 20 June 2015



Press Release



In a speech at the



“The encyclical is a thoroughly reactionary document. A mixture of junk science, junk economics and junk ethics, what Pope Francis advocates would prevent the world’s poor from escaping from poverty – just as it would have prevented the industrial revolution, which enabled the western world to escape from poverty and squalor. I’m sure the Pope means well, but it is well known that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”







2) Charles Moore: The Holy Father Is Wrong To Say That Our Way Of Life Is Doomed

The Daily Telegraph, 20 June 2015



Pope Francis’s ‘green’ encyclical preaches only to the converted and is unduly gloomy In a speech at the Ideacity Conference in Toronto (Canada), Lord Lawson, the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, has criticised the papal encyclical:“The encyclical is a thoroughly reactionary document. A mixture of junk science, junk economics and junk ethics, what Pope Francis advocates would prevent the world’s poor from escaping from poverty – just as it would have prevented the industrial revolution, which enabled the western world to escape from poverty and squalor. I’m sure the Pope means well, but it is well known that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

The newly-elected Pope Francis Photo: Getty Images



St Francis wrote a famous hymn, quoted by the Pope, which praises “Brother Sun”, “Sister Moon”, “Sister Water”, “Brother Wind” etc to celebrate the union of all creation with God. He called the smallest of creatures “brother” and “sister” and would burst into song looking at them. But now, says the Pope, we have harmed Mother Earth by our irresponsible use of her goods. All creation is, as he charmingly puts it, “a caress of God”: we are arrogantly brushing that caress aside.



The encyclical is declaredly designed for all humanity, not just for Catholics. It seems to be timed to appeal to public opinion in the run-up to the next big UN climate change conference, in Paris in December.



If past form is anything to go by, Brother Wind will be working overtime at the Paris conference, but Mother Earth will not benefit. There is a fundamental reason for this, and I am afraid that the Holy Father does not confront it.



Why is the developed world rich? The answer lies in the name: it developed more than other places. Development happens by uniting the resources of the earth with the capacities of the human brain and the institutions of human society. The resulting innovations are driven by energy, the cheaper the better. Hence the overwhelming historic (and present) importance of fossil fuels.



Developing nations see this clearly. Countries like China and India have at last become industrially successful and internationally competitive. If their energy becomes more expensive, their development will stall. They scorn what they see as the hypocrisy of the West which, having done so well out of fossil fuels, now wants a binding global agreement to prevent them doing the same. They will accept green energy only if the price is right. At present, it isn’t. So they won’t agree to “save the planet” just because rich Westerners tell them they should. Even loyal, Catholic Poland will not stop its heavy use and sale of coal.



Pope Francis is therefore



He writes of “a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity”. Again, it is true that the two are not the same. But the regress of science and technology would be a human disaster, making the poor poorer, less healthy, less well educated and more oppressed.



The encyclical contains an attractive passage reminding us that Jesus himself was a carpenter, working with his hands “in daily contact with the matter created by God”, but it misses the interesting conclusion which lurks in that thought. What craftsman on the precarious edge of the Roman Empire would not have welcomed technology that improved the qualities of his tools, improvements in forestry that ensured the plentiful supply of wood, market demand increased by rich colonials? If you truly see things from the point of view of the have-nots, the desire to make natural resources work better in your favour becomes overwhelming: a tractor becomes preferable to an ox virtually every time.



The Pope upholds the right of peasants in his native South America to have not only their own patch of land, but also “access to means of technical education, credit, insurance and markets”. Amen to that. And where do such things best flourish? Not in a remote rural community, but in the sort of big bad modern city where the Pope tends to see only “megastructures and grey apartment blocks”. “Lack of housing is a grave problem in many parts of the world,” he writes, yet how are millions more houses to be built without the increased use of water, energy and land which he deplores?



“The present world system is certainly unsustainable,” Pope Francis says. Surely we cannot know this. If that word “certainly” is wrong, we should apply the “precautionary principle” so beloved of the catastrophists. The burden of proof is on them before we let them stifle economic growth. The encyclical barely mentions the argument – recognised even by some greens – that adaptation might be a better response to climate change than trying to reverse it. It does not consider the possibility that climate change need not be, for many of its “victims”, all bad.



Throughout Pope Francis’s argument runs a pessimism at odds with his sunny personality and his creed of hope. There is a lot of Prince Charles-like “It really is appalling” stuff about the world becoming “an immense pile of filth”. Any Christian is naturally shocked by the disparity between the advantages God gives us and the mess we make of them; but it should be acknowledged that modern industrial society does many things better than any previous form of social organisation.



One of these is self-correction. Even “bad” things sometimes have good effects. Petrified forests (otherwise known as coal) stopped us cutting down all the remaining living ones for heat. The scientific ingenuity which produced the internal combustion engine also developed the means to increase its fuel efficiency. It is true, as the song says, that you won’t get to heaven in an old Ford car, but it does not follow that our technocracy is sending us to hell in a handcart.



Pope Francis attacks the “utilitarian mindset (individualism, unlimited progress, competition, consumerism, the unregulated market)”. Utilitarianism is undoubtedly a dry, thin approach to life, but individualism is not necessarily selfish and competition is not automatically destructive. If you listen to the dawn chorus in early summer, you may well delight, like St Francis of Assisi, in the wonder of birdsong, but the actual reason for all that beautiful sound is that birds are marking out their territory against the competition.



Papal advisers may feel that, by associating himself with environmentalism,



Speaking as a Catholic, I am very impressed by those passages of “Laudate ti” which give a critique of materialist pointlessness. There is, for example, a perceptive passage about the importance of a day of rest and another about the beauty of saying grace at meals. Pope Francis paints a vivid portrait of a Western world simultaneously bored and hyper-stimulated by its own wealth and cleverness. Although just as much of a selfish consumerist as the next man, I want to be taught about how to grab less and appreciate more. On these matters, he speaks like a good shepherd, who knows his flock. But when, on the basis of some imperfectly digested science and contentious economics, he tells us that our way of life is doomed, I must sadly say that I don’t believe him.







3) Club Of Rome Welcomes The Pope's Green Encyclical

Club of Rome, 19 June 2015



The Papal encyclical on the environment is especially welcome at the Club of Rome which introduced the idea of “Limits to Growth” in the 1970s. “The Pope makes points that are indistinguishable from those that the Club of Rome has been making for years”, says Roberto Peccei, Vice President.



Like the Vatican, the Club of Rome says that to solve our climate problems and build a fairer society, nature and society must be placed before economics and short term profit. Both the Pope and the Club of Rome also agree that politicians need to do what they are elected to do – which means regulate, especially emissions and the finance sector. They argue that environmental degradation and growing inequity are clear signals that the world is moving in the wrong direction and that we need fundamental change.



The Club is currently working to answer the question: how can humanity shift to a better economic system without collapse? “Many people are trying to define a better economic system,” says Graeme Maxton the Secretary General, “but that is not much use if we cannot move from where we are without making the situation worse. We are on a treadmill of environmental destruction and widening inequality.” The Club argues that humanity needs a 20 year transition towards a better system based on renewable energy, more efficient resource use and different production systems that eliminate waste. It says we need to redefine work, create new jobs in emerging sectors, redistribute work and wealth and should limit trade when it is in the interests of society.

Like Mrs Thatcher on the steps of Downing Street in 1979, the Pope invokes St Francis of Assisi to help solve a crisis. When he got his current job, he took the name of Francis “as my guide and inspiration”. He takes the title of his new encyclical on climate change and the environment from Francis’ words “Laudato si, mi Signore” (“Praise be to you, my Lord”). Traditionally, the Catholic Church works to save souls. Now it is trying to save the planet as well.St Francis wrote a famous hymn, quoted by the Pope, which praises “Brother Sun”, “Sister Moon”, “Sister Water”, “Brother Wind” etc to celebrate the union of all creation with God. He called the smallest of creatures “brother” and “sister” and would burst into song looking at them. But now, says the Pope, we have harmed Mother Earth by our irresponsible use of her goods. All creation is, as he charmingly puts it, “a caress of God”: we are arrogantly brushing that caress aside.The encyclical is declaredly designed for all humanity, not just for Catholics. It seems to be timed to appeal to public opinion in the run-up to the next big UN climate change conference, in Paris in December.If past form is anything to go by, Brother Wind will be working overtime at the Paris conference, but Mother Earth will not benefit. There is a fundamental reason for this, and I am afraid that the Holy Father does not confront it.Why is the developed world rich? The answer lies in the name: it developed more than other places. Development happens by uniting the resources of the earth with the capacities of the human brain and the institutions of human society. The resulting innovations are driven by energy, the cheaper the better. Hence the overwhelming historic (and present) importance of fossil fuels.Developing nations see this clearly. Countries like China and India have at last become industrially successful and internationally competitive. If their energy becomes more expensive, their development will stall. They scorn what they see as the hypocrisy of the West which, having done so well out of fossil fuels, now wants a binding global agreement to prevent them doing the same. They will accept green energy only if the price is right. At present, it isn’t. So they won’t agree to “save the planet” just because rich Westerners tell them they should. Even loyal, Catholic Poland will not stop its heavy use and sale of coal.Pope Francis is therefore preaching only to the converted . He believes, obviously sincerely, that his is a cry for the poor against their exploitation by transnational corporations. Such exploitation certainly exists. He complains, for instance, about “the export of raw materials to satisfy markets in the industrialised north” because of the resulting mercury poisoning in gold mining and sulphur dioxide pollution in copper mining. He may well be right in those cases. But would it really be better for the world’s poor if the industrialised north did not buy their raw materials?He writes of “a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity”. Again, it is true that the two are not the same. But the regress of science and technology would be a human disaster, making the poor poorer, less healthy, less well educated and more oppressed.The encyclical contains an attractive passage reminding us that Jesus himself was a carpenter, working with his hands “in daily contact with the matter created by God”, but it misses the interesting conclusion which lurks in that thought. What craftsman on the precarious edge of the Roman Empire would not have welcomed technology that improved the qualities of his tools, improvements in forestry that ensured the plentiful supply of wood, market demand increased by rich colonials? If you truly see things from the point of view of the have-nots, the desire to make natural resources work better in your favour becomes overwhelming: a tractor becomes preferable to an ox virtually every time.The Pope upholds the right of peasants in his native South America to have not only their own patch of land, but also “access to means of technical education, credit, insurance and markets”. Amen to that. And where do such things best flourish? Not in a remote rural community, but in the sort of big bad modern city where the Pope tends to see only “megastructures and grey apartment blocks”. “Lack of housing is a grave problem in many parts of the world,” he writes, yet how are millions more houses to be built without the increased use of water, energy and land which he deplores?“The present world system is certainly unsustainable,” Pope Francis says. Surely we cannot know this. If that word “certainly” is wrong, we should apply the “precautionary principle” so beloved of the catastrophists. The burden of proof is on them before we let them stifle economic growth. The encyclical barely mentions the argument – recognised even by some greens – that adaptation might be a better response to climate change than trying to reverse it. It does not consider the possibility that climate change need not be, for many of its “victims”, all bad.Throughout Pope Francis’s argument runs a pessimism at odds with his sunny personality and his creed of hope. There is a lot of Prince Charles-like “It really is appalling” stuff about the world becoming “an immense pile of filth”. Any Christian is naturally shocked by the disparity between the advantages God gives us and the mess we make of them; but it should be acknowledged that modern industrial society does many things better than any previous form of social organisation.One of these is self-correction. Even “bad” things sometimes have good effects. Petrified forests (otherwise known as coal) stopped us cutting down all the remaining living ones for heat. The scientific ingenuity which produced the internal combustion engine also developed the means to increase its fuel efficiency. It is true, as the song says, that you won’t get to heaven in an old Ford car, but it does not follow that our technocracy is sending us to hell in a handcart.Pope Francis attacks the “utilitarian mindset (individualism, unlimited progress, competition, consumerism, the unregulated market)”. Utilitarianism is undoubtedly a dry, thin approach to life, but individualism is not necessarily selfish and competition is not automatically destructive. If you listen to the dawn chorus in early summer, you may well delight, like St Francis of Assisi, in the wonder of birdsong, but the actual reason for all that beautiful sound is that birds are marking out their territory against the competition.Papal advisers may feel that, by associating himself with environmentalism, the Pope is reading the signs of the times . The opposite could be true. He could be painting himself into a corner, as some in the Church did in the past when they denounced the theory of evolution.Speaking as a Catholic, I am very impressed by those passages of “Laudate ti” which give a critique of materialist pointlessness. There is, for example, a perceptive passage about the importance of a day of rest and another about the beauty of saying grace at meals. Pope Francis paints a vivid portrait of a Western world simultaneously bored and hyper-stimulated by its own wealth and cleverness. Although just as much of a selfish consumerist as the next man, I want to be taught about how to grab less and appreciate more. On these matters, he speaks like a good shepherd, who knows his flock. But when, on the basis of some imperfectly digested science and contentious economics, he tells us that our way of life is doomed, I must sadly say that I don’t believe him.The Papal encyclical on the environment is especially welcome at the Club of Rome which introduced the idea of “Limits to Growth” in the 1970s. “The Pope makes points that are indistinguishable from those that the Club of Rome has been making for years”, says Roberto Peccei, Vice President.Like the Vatican, the Club of Rome says that to solve our climate problems and build a fairer society, nature and society must be placed before economics and short term profit. Both the Pope and the Club of Rome also agree that politicians need to do what they are elected to do – which means regulate, especially emissions and the finance sector. They argue that environmental degradation and growing inequity are clear signals that the world is moving in the wrong direction and that we need fundamental change.The Club is currently working to answer the question: how can humanity shift to a better economic system without collapse? “Many people are trying to define a better economic system,” says Graeme Maxton the Secretary General, “but that is not much use if we cannot move from where we are without making the situation worse. We are on a treadmill of environmental destruction and widening inequality.” The Club argues that humanity needs a 20 year transition towards a better system based on renewable energy, more efficient resource use and different production systems that eliminate waste. It says we need to redefine work, create new jobs in emerging sectors, redistribute work and wealth and should limit trade when it is in the interests of society.









4) Fritz Vahrenholt: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber And Eco-Dictatorship

Die Welt, 27 Mai 2011



Germany’s green government advisors admit frankly that decarbonization can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy – both nationally and internationally.



When it comes to environmental and climate policy, Germany’s Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) is an influential advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The chairman of the council is Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.



In April 2011, the WBGU presented a report entitled



“The transformation to a climate friendly economy… is morally as necessary as the abolition of slavery and the outlawing of child labor.” The reorganization of the world economy has to happen quickly; nuclear energy and coal have to be given up at the same time and very soon.



A historical novelty

The decarbonization of the global economy is, according to these experts, comparable with the Neolithic Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. These were, however, unplanned, natural historical processes. The “Great Transformation” however, must be consciously planned and controlled. It would be a historical novelty.



All nations would have to relinquish their national interests and find a new form of collective responsibility for the sake of the climate: “The world citizenry agree to innovation policy that is tied to the normative postulate of sustainability and in return surrender spontaneous and persistence desires. Guarantor of this virtual agreement is a formative state [...].”



This strong state provides, therefore, for the “social problematization” of unsustainable lifestyles. It overcomes “stakeholders” and “veto players” who “impede the transition to a sustainable society.” In Germany, climate protection should therefore become a fundamental goal of the state for which the legal actions of the legislative, executive and judicial branches will be aligned.



“In order to anchor future interests institutionally, the Council recommends expanding the parliamentary legislative process with a deliberative ”future chamber”. To avoid interference by interest group and political parties, the composition of this chamber could be determined, for example, by drawing lots.



The study by the WBGU is utopian

What does this proposal tell us? The study by the WBGU is utopian because it requires a high degree of idealism, altruism and sacrifice by both individuals and society that goes beyond the normal dimensions of the reality of life. It is impossible to realize democratically.



Why should people around the world voluntarily give up their demands for material welfare and security? Consequently, the WBGU admits frankly, that the decarbonization of the society can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy – both nationally and internationally.



Internationally, the WBGU calls for a “World Security Council” for sustainability. The members of the proposed “future chamber” for Germany would explicitly not be chosen democratically and would limit the powers of Parliament.



The WBGU requests “civic participation” – but only for the implementation of the national objective of climate protection. The required “problematization of unsustainable lifestyles” would therefore quickly amount to their stigmatization. Those who do not share the ideas of sustainability would be outside of the new state eco-order – thus all the supporters of the modern industrial society.



Assumed general will to climate policy

The strong eco-state would follow a new social contract, which the WBGU derives from the natural law of enlightenment that also forms the basis of parliamentary democracy. This attribution is incorrect because the WBGU assumes a general will to climate protection and decarbonization.



The council justifies this general primarily from the higher moral insight of its expert knowledge. The WBGU is consequently more in the tradition of the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His concept of “volotonté générale” was the starting point of authoritarian and utopian Jacobinism in the Western state history.



The WBGU compares the decarbonization of the global economy to the Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution. It is wrong to claim that such a deliberately planned and radical transformation of economic and social systems is without precedent.



At least partial models of such transformations are the industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, or the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” in Mao’s China.



Deprivation for generations

Whether planned or not – revolutionary transformations of economic systems always involve large sacrifices for the generation that experiences them. Existing productive economic structures are demolished and new one will have to be built.



This is clearly demonstrated by history – for example by the “social question” in the Industrial Revolution, the temporary deprivation of the workers. The price of utopian climate Jacobinism of the WBGU is too high.



To carry out this utopian new vision, democratic institutions, the freedom of lifestyles and the right to material well-being is to be sacrificed. Instead, it would be reasonable to walk the path to a climate-friendly economy of the future over a sufficiently long bridge, supported by available and proven technology and market mechanisms. Only this way will climate policy have democratic consent.



Decarbonization means deindustrialization

In any case, there are growing signs that the driving force of the “Great Transformation” is flagging because the global warming trend has come to a halt during the last 12 years and scientific voices (outside of the WBGU and the Potsdam Institute) caution that we may enter a long-term cooling phase.



If Germany wants to do without nuclear energy, then the expansion of renewable energy will have be accompanied by both coal and natural gas in the long term. Otherwise, decarbonization will mean nothing else but de-industrialization. Sometimes one gets the impression that this is exactly what many political actors intend to achieve.



Fritz Vahrenholt was one of the founders of the environmental movement in Germany. He has served in several public positions with environmental ministries. He is the author of the 2012 bestseller The Neglected Sun and is Chairman of the German Wildlife Trust. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council



Translation Philipp Mueller

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a member of the Club of Rome, presented Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment together with Cardinal Turkson on 18 June in Rome.When it comes to environmental and climate policy, Germany’s Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) is an influential advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The chairman of the council is Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.In April 2011, the WBGU presented a report entitled “World in Transition – Social Contract for a Great Transformation” . The main theses of the WBGU are as follows: The current economic model (“fossil industrial metabolism”) is untenable.“The transformation to a climate friendly economy… is morally as necessary as the abolition of slavery and the outlawing of child labor.” The reorganization of the world economy has to happen quickly; nuclear energy and coal have to be given up at the same time and very soon.The decarbonization of the global economy is, according to these experts, comparable with the Neolithic Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. These were, however, unplanned, natural historical processes. The “Great Transformation” however, must be consciously planned and controlled. It would be a historical novelty.All nations would have to relinquish their national interests and find a new form of collective responsibility for the sake of the climate: “The world citizenry agree to innovation policy that is tied to the normative postulate of sustainability and in return surrender spontaneous and persistence desires. Guarantor of this virtual agreement is a formative state [...].”This strong state provides, therefore, for the “social problematization” of unsustainable lifestyles. It overcomes “stakeholders” and “veto players” who “impede the transition to a sustainable society.” In Germany, climate protection should therefore become a fundamental goal of the state for which the legal actions of the legislative, executive and judicial branches will be aligned.“In order to anchor future interests institutionally, the Council recommends expanding the parliamentary legislative process with a deliberative ”future chamber”. To avoid interference by interest group and political parties, the composition of this chamber could be determined, for example, by drawing lots.What does this proposal tell us? The study by the WBGU is utopian because it requires a high degree of idealism, altruism and sacrifice by both individuals and society that goes beyond the normal dimensions of the reality of life. It is impossible to realize democratically.Why should people around the world voluntarily give up their demands for material welfare and security? Consequently, the WBGU admits frankly, that the decarbonization of the society can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy – both nationally and internationally.Internationally, the WBGU calls for a “World Security Council” for sustainability. The members of the proposed “future chamber” for Germany would explicitly not be chosen democratically and would limit the powers of Parliament.The WBGU requests “civic participation” – but only for the implementation of the national objective of climate protection. The required “problematization of unsustainable lifestyles” would therefore quickly amount to their stigmatization. Those who do not share the ideas of sustainability would be outside of the new state eco-order – thus all the supporters of the modern industrial society.The strong eco-state would follow a new social contract, which the WBGU derives from the natural law of enlightenment that also forms the basis of parliamentary democracy. This attribution is incorrect because the WBGU assumes a general will to climate protection and decarbonization.The council justifies this general primarily from the higher moral insight of its expert knowledge. The WBGU is consequently more in the tradition of the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His concept of “volotonté générale” was the starting point of authoritarian and utopian Jacobinism in the Western state history.The WBGU compares the decarbonization of the global economy to the Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution. It is wrong to claim that such a deliberately planned and radical transformation of economic and social systems is without precedent.At least partial models of such transformations are the industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, or the “Great Leap Forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” in Mao’s China.Whether planned or not – revolutionary transformations of economic systems always involve large sacrifices for the generation that experiences them. Existing productive economic structures are demolished and new one will have to be built.This is clearly demonstrated by history – for example by the “social question” in the Industrial Revolution, the temporary deprivation of the workers. The price of utopian climate Jacobinism of the WBGU is too high.To carry out this utopian new vision, democratic institutions, the freedom of lifestyles and the right to material well-being is to be sacrificed. Instead, it would be reasonable to walk the path to a climate-friendly economy of the future over a sufficiently long bridge, supported by available and proven technology and market mechanisms. Only this way will climate policy have democratic consent.In any case, there are growing signs that the driving force of the “Great Transformation” is flagging because the global warming trend has come to a halt during the last 12 years and scientific voices (outside of the WBGU and the Potsdam Institute) caution that we may enter a long-term cooling phase.If Germany wants to do without nuclear energy, then the expansion of renewable energy will have be accompanied by both coal and natural gas in the long term. Otherwise, decarbonization will mean nothing else but de-industrialization. Sometimes one gets the impression that this is exactly what many political actors intend to achieve.Translation Philipp Mueller











