When I wrote an article for a scientific publication more than twenty years ago, one of the reviewers negated the sense of referring to the Lisbon Strategy in the text, pointing out that it was beginning to become a thing of the past. Indeed, today few remember that it was the strategic goal of the European Union adopted in 2000, and its implementation was subordinated to the forward-looking activities of the time.
As a goal, it was pointed out that the European Union would become the most dynamic and competitive economic region in the world, growing faster than the United States. It was postulated to increase the efficiency of economies, invest in research and development, reduce bureaucracy, increase productivity and competitiveness of the labor market. The strategy quickly encountered resistance from individual countries and societies unwilling to bear the effort to achieve this ambitious goal. In 2004, a report was produced summarizing the strategy's results to date. The conclusion was pessimistic, pointing to an overly broad program, poor coordination, conflicting goals, and a lack of political determination on the part of member states. This flagship policy of the Union at the time was gradually but effectively abandoned and no one remembers it anymore, and the reviewer's remarks proved correct in retrospect.
What next for the Green Deal and European climate policy?
© Piotr Średniawa
Today we are experiencing another déjà vu, witnessing how another EU strategy - the Green Deal and climate policy, which was adopted as a long-range program of inclusive and sustainable development - is probably dying before our eyes. Back at the beginning of the year, such a statement would have hooked one into political fiction and proclaiming the twilight of the Green Deal would have had the character of heresy unsupported by any argument. It seemed that our Eurocentrism was unshakeable and it was Europe that was and would be giving direction to the transformation of today's world. That direction was to be a climate policy that extended to countries outside Europe, reflected in the Paris Agreement signed in 2015, which was ratified by 55 countries responsible for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including the United States and Poland.
The set climate target was then subordinated to hundreds of European commission directives implemented by country after country. It seemed that this policy would be a long-term one, and that individual sectors of the economy, including land use, architecture and urban planning, would be subordinated to it. This was the direction in which the discussions and projects of the green-blue transformation of cities, smart city, the fifteen-minute city, circular architecture, or the demand for the use of existing resources with a limit on the expansion of new development were heading.
Suddenly, this year, it appeared that we had gone from functioning at the center of the world setting ambitious goals for changing the model of life, to finding ourselves on the side of the world. Radical decisions, taken in a short period of time by the new US president, turned over - seemingly, despite the war in Ukraine, relatively stable - the table of the geopolitical situation. The negation of climate policy, vague declarations of providing security and a protective umbrella for European countries, and the shifting of the burden of US domestic and foreign policy have changed the picture of our world, including the situation in which European countries and Poland find themselves. The ongoing real, rather than hypothetical, threat of expansion from the east overshadowed the deferred climate threat and influenced a complete change in the policies of European countries. While the Lisbon Strategy died a gradual death through the omissions of successive governments (and, in fact, serious implementation was never begun), the Green Deal died a violent death. None of the politicians want to post an obituary for the time being, and there may still be some sham activities in the form of directives of regulations, but the topic has undoubtedly fallen off the agenda. This is a very serious change with consequences that are unknown today and difficult to predict. Undoubtedly, however, we are already operating in a different reality and completely different from the optimistic prospects offered (at least in theory) by the Green Deal, replaced almost overnight by the demand and narrative of security unfortunately understood in the worst, i.e. military terms.
Questionable acceptance of the Green Deal
Symptomatically, in Poland, discussions about the Green Deal were dominated by the narrative: will the EU do this or that, will it make this or that decision, or will it postpone it? In contrast, the discourse never emerged: do we as a society want to make changes and implement the Green Deal as our program, or do we consider it an externally imposed requirement? In our architectural community, too, the discourse has manifested itself in a reactive approach on how to implement and adapt to the new requirements, rather than what constructive initiatives arising from indigenous characteristics we should raise. Articles and statements on Green Deal implementations appeared in the professional media and press, remaining at a theoretical level, but lacking a wider reception in real design activity, at best using greenwashing slogans. The program's failure also turned out to be the reaction of this social group, which , it would seem , should naturally accept and fit in with its assumptions. That group was farmers. Increasing bureaucratization, bizarre demands for fallowing, high requirements for organic production, and at the same time low purchase prices enforced by global trade and distribution chains caused large protests by farmers, who saw in the Green Deal an increasing threat to their income. It was then, more than a year ago, that it became apparent that the Green Deal had begun to function, as it were, alongside societies.
What's next for the Green Deal and European climate policy?
© Piotr Średniawa
One gets the impression that the Green Deal was not a conscious democratic choice of the public, but a political decision of the Brussels elite. The lack of dialogue with the public was and is the biggest weakness of this strategy. This shows the consequences of taking action in a democratic society without public participation. It was never indicated what the long-range goals of climate policy and the Green Deal are in Poland. There has been no effort to convey to the public that these are not abstract goals, but prospective improvements in the living conditions not only of each of us, but also of our children and grandchildren. The accompanying sterile argument between both sides of the political spectrum, far from a substantive discussion, deepens the impression that the Green Deal is just another element in the political game. Meanwhile, reality lives a life of its own, and the doe-eyed urbanism that balances on the verge of a robbery economy continues, the development of the most valuable landscapes continues, or the Homeric battles with omnipresent smog. The other sin aggravating the problem is bureaucratic procedures, bringing nothing meaningful in the eyes of citizens except administrative requirements, such as energy certificates for houses and apartments, necessary for their sale, or thethe equally incomprehensible ETS2 emissions trading system, which will take effect from 2027 and will cover carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion, emissions from buildings, road transport and industry not covered by the existing EU ETS. Instead of a serious discussion, what emerged were selective regulations and provisions, as usual not forming a meaningful whole, additionally not understood by most people.
So, is there anything to regret if our society, for the most part, did not and does not treat the Green Deal as a program for life? It would be a shame to give up the dream of living in a better world.
dark prospects for armaments
Will the new, uncertain political situation bring about any significant changes in architecture and urban planning? Probably postponed or abandoned will be the calls to achieve zero-carbon buildings by 2030, the introduction of building taxonomy, which for economic reasons and due to pressure from developers would probably not be implemented anyway, because they would increase the already high prices of investments. Electromobility is also likely to slow down.
The current rapid shift in priorities, both political and the budget shifts they generate, also in our country does not create good prospects for a change in the quality of space. Increased spending on armaments and defense will adversely affect the ability to invest in public facilities, regeneration of the existing fabric and infrastructure investments, including those that improve water retention, and the discourse on the impact of architecture on climate change is proving secondary to the real threat of war. Perhaps, paradoxically, it is not the conscious choice of the postulated limitation of new investments in favor of regeneration and use of existing resources, but the necessity arising from the reduction of spending that will make one of the demands of the Green Deal come true? The beginnings of these changes are already visible, the government's announcements report the possibility of creating a Security and Defense Fund worth PLN 30 billion. These funds are to come from the NIP, and more specifically from the Green Transformation of Cities item, with which there were such high hopes. It was pointed out that the reallocation of PLN 30 billion from the NIP to defense requires urgent cooperation between ministries, and that the fund will benefit local governments, which will receive support for dual-use investments such as roads and shelters. Investments will also include defense research and production by Polish defense companies.
What's next for the Green Deal and European climate policy?
© Piotr Średniawa
As history shows, defense spending has never changed space for the better, regardless of the era. In architecture, the legacy of military facilities, while technically impressive, does not represent the pinnacle of architectural achievement. Of the Vitruvian triad, we can attribute to them the attribute of permanence, with a complete lack of beauty and denial of usefulness to societies. From the medieval period, the grim ruins of defensive castles and remnants of city walls remain. The 17th and 18th centuries left especially many forts, fortresses and fortifications. Throughout France one can find defensive structures, citadels, forts and fortresses erected by the brilliant engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban, which are the pinnacles of engineering craftsmanship and models for such structures in Europe. Poland is left with the great fortresses in Klodzko and Srebrna Gora, or the gigantic concrete fortifications remaining after World War II, such as the Maginot Line, the Siegfried Line, the bunkers of the Atlantic Wall, or thethe monstrous concrete fortifications of the Międzyrzecz Fortified Region, Wolf's Lair in Gierłoż, or the bunkers of the Wehrmacht command in Mamerki, all of which are preserved on current Polish territory. Today they are tourist attractions, but neither at the time when they had military functions, nor now do they enhance the quality of the spaces in which they are located. Their grim appearance and atmosphere evoke memories of the worst events in the history of Europe, devastating wars, bloody sieges and efforts to dominate one country over another. Like Giovanni Battista Piranesi's depressing Carceri, they are but a memento of the expenses and efforts of humanity embroiled in local and global and conflicts. Time has obliterated the causes and effects of these conflicts, while material legacies of monstrous scale and frightening expression still linger in our landscape.
This new situation does not encourage optimism, on the contrary. For architecture carrying humanistic messages, conflict and turmoil is a bad time, it can only be realized in a peaceful world. Therefore, it is to be hoped that the now necessary and indispensable expenditures on armaments will not be in vain in accordance with the old maxim Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Piotr Średniawa
Chairman of the Council of the Silesian Chamber of Architects,
Member of the WKUA and MKUA in Katowice,
Since 2003 he has been running the Office of Studies and Projects in Gliwice with Barbara Średniawa
