On Martin Rees' ''Why the end of the world may be nigh''

Sir,

Martin Rees paints a disturbing picture of mankind’s future. I agree that our civilisation faces many dangers, predominantly the spread of (nuclear) terrorism, pandemics and climate change. I think we have a chance of literally saving the world, but only if the powers-that-be cast off free market ideology. For far too long the so-called Washington consensus meant that free trade, deregulation and liberalisation have been our overriding goals. The cost of this is now abundantly clear. It is also evident that the challenges of the future cannot be resolved by the market. Unless a set of governing institutions adopts more socially responsible values, our planet and our people are at risk.

Political scientists like David Held have argued convincingly that we need to change the current world order. In his book "The Global Covenant – a social democratic alternative to the Washington Consensus" he explains why this is the only way to solve many of the world’s problems. I agree with him. In my daily work as an MEP I see how many of the political troubles that we face can only be tackled if we work together across borders and across continents too.

Climate change is one example where progress is being made. By the end of this year we should reach an international agreement to curb future carbon emissions which will cover and subsequently regulate most countries of the world, including the U.S. Not many years ago, this idea would have been considered Utopian; now it is happening.

Worldwide action on climate change shows there is reason to hope for a better tomorrow. The future of the world, and the wellbeing of its citizens, will be more secure if we create global institutions and agreements that seek to regulate the market and remedy co-called “negative externalities.” While pollution is the main topic today, one day we may also be able to resolve problems of inequality, human rights, poverty and other social issues.