William Gibson once said "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." And he is quite right, since there is no cohesion between the countries in respect to fast implementation of best available environmental technologies. The formal presence of fancy strategies in every country in regard to biodiversity, carbon footprint reduction, climate change, etc., simply is not enough. The governments should motivate and support the movement towards better understanding by the industry of what should and needs to be done, supported by investing in greater acceptance of these measures by the public. Every other formal effort to play "green" would not be justified by the next generations.
Technologies, that could ease the difficult transition to the new green economy are already available and their implementation is not expensive. However, these emerging, high-tech technologies are not well advanced and propagated, and they are still not subject to standards and/or regulations. Therefore governments and international funds should not only improve their recognition of these technologies, providing timely reaction and support, but also should establish routes for their fast commercialization, through specifically designed measures.
The establishment of Emission Trading Schemes under the Kyoto protocol is a step towards the definition and implementation of a motivation mechanism for the carbon intensive industries. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are still inadequate for the needs of the innovators. The emission validation/certification methodologies are used only on paper and present abstract results as they rely upon the amount of fuel purchased by or delivered to the industrial installation, but not on the direct measurement of flue gases emissions. There are green technologies to offset carbon footprint that can demonstrate their economic value, applicability and efficiency, only if direct measurement of stack gases is applied to GHG emissions verification and validation. All this is discussed, bearing in mind the vast amount of funds, already invested by the EU for evaluation and possible implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which is too expensive and too risky to be applied... ever. There is a profound need for examination not only of a single technology related to climate change, but exactly the opposite ought to be done - the EU should support the generation, collection and analysis of as much as possible data, information and knowledge for the multitude of available technologies that could have positive effect on the environment.
The problem of being in the middle of a crisis that have never happened before is not its extent, but the lack of a reference point. Even if properly measured, the data could not be properly analysed and evaluated without a correct model. In the case of climate-range crisis, like the one we are now in, the model, could be defined only as wide interval of assumptions. But all of the models, based on fake assumptions, will fail in predicting our future. On the other hand, the problem with failing models is not an exception in model theory, except that in this specific crisis nobody will understand on time which was the incorrect trend. The fact is that we could not be further from answering the following question: "Is it just a crisis or is it a catastrophe?". This is why, just in case, green technologies should be defined as strategic resource and a matter of international security for the people of this planet. And this is why we need a fast track for green technologies.