Sometimes I have been blamed in this blog for turning into doomwatch mode.
It’s true that, from one editorial to the next, since many years, I have
alerted here, sometimes, on dangers of all kinds. Anyone who will look over
these editorials and their contents will be sadly surprised to find how many
announced disturbances effectively occurred. I would rather be wrong more
often. Take just a recent example, on what I said, contrary to all editorial
writers, on the London summit, which unfortunately turns out to be founded:
each passing day shows that nothing that was announced so triumphantly is
being set, and in particular that the United States and Europe are getting
further away on everything, instead of setting up a global governance, which
is so urgent. This was a comedy, as I had feared and written about.
Furthermore, from editorial to editorial, I also try to show that, in many
areas, some groups, some countries, some scholars, some artists, are in the
process of finding the answers to these challenges. This is the case for
renewable energies, it is the case in the suburbs and the case also in what
I see every day, around the world through microfinance.
Finally, if I offer some solutions to problems which I report, I do not
return constantly on their implementation. I do not want to sign every week
the same editorial, I try to be coherent, without stuttering.
The role of an editorialist, is to find a new angle, a point of view, a new
idea. To be ahead. At the risk of not howling with the pack of
wolves. At the risk of not singing with all the choirs. At the risk of
making a mistake.
Many promises are smiling at us; many disasters are threatening us. We are
at the same time in 1933 and 1945. It’s by becoming aware that we can
best avoid the worst and achieve the best. It is by modeling those who dare
and succeed, that we will be able to make this planet the happy, exalting,
peaceful, livable place, for all, that it can still become.