The hypothesis we make here is that what is at stake with the climate issue is a way of living and even civilization. Try to show it and to understand the implications. What is a way of living? A superficial but very common apprehension in economics and management reduces the way of life issues to lifestyles, that is to say, ways of consuming. Marketing produces a huge quantity of studies in this area, including on environmental issues: individuals are categorized as being frugal, calculating (as ecology could mean decreasing expenses) or activists etc. The general framework is about individuals who, within a space of choice, follow different trajectories, based on different consistencies. Changes in consumption obviously involves changes in production. This is why the UN Rio summit in 1992 was evoking the theme of change in "production and consumption patterns." The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the general framework within which these choices take place is not a problem, being flexible enough to adapt to any issue. In economics this assumption is called consumer sovereignty. Several objections can be made that start to complicate what is meant by a way of life or a civilization. A first objection is simply that information is limited, and therefore rationality is also limited, as shown by Herbert Simon in the 70s. The consumer makes his choice in a limited information space. This space is profusely studied and "mined" (such as datamining) by companies. The more they learn on the consumer, the best they can design their offer. More than 1000 billion dollars are spent annually in marketing, 600 billions only in advertising. Companies are not equal in this respect. Some have powerful means to present themselves as being 'the' natural solution to a "latent need" of the consumer - such as electric car. Others cannot find any access to a market, even if they can virtually make an enormous difference. One can have a look to the way renewable energy is seen in France. Most people asked in the street will claim that renewable energy is too costly, weakly reliable, with huge problems linked to intermittence. In short, reneweable energy could be a good solution, but in a few years or decades, more research is needed. In other countries such Germany people are strongly convinced by this kind of energy, here and now. From this point of view the climate negotiations can be understood as a gigantic trade negotiations, everyone is trying to present itself as the solution, as everyone can see it the Gallery at COP21 where there are essentially large groups. A second objection lies in the material constraints. Information is not the only way to limit the choices. Ivan Illich proposed in the 70's the "radical monopoly" theory, highlighting the importance of networks. Behind competition in a given sector, businesses may indeed have a common interest in defending one network solution over another. The development of automobile use was a key part of supermarket strategy, for example. Without cars, such big shops cannot settle. With the massive use of cars, it becomes difficult if not impossible to use walking or cycling, since the habitat becomes very spread. The car then began to be the only one solution for mobility. The case of information technology is similar, as it is difficult today to do without a cell phone or computer, which did not exist in our daily lifes, only two decades ago. Being grasped into broad categories, our needs remain unchanged : we need to move, to learn, to eat etc. But means are more or less in a state of radical monopoly. Easiest ways to meet the needs are limited and narrowly focused. One should make efforts to reach other solutions. The third level of constraint is in the strategy of firms and states. A growing GDP provides recipes and ways to deploy an army or organize events such as the Olympic games, which gives the state a certain rank in the concert of nations. Being born on a given territory provides firms directly or indirectly economically an advantage, as they can rely on an internal market of significant size, which guarantees some sales. Negotiations on trade and market framing are the places where these issues are decided. These issues appear only indirectly in the climate negotiations, where the problem is taken by the end. Nobody emits greenhouse gases for its pleasure, it is a by-product from dynamic incurred for many other purposes. What about these purposes? Are they usefull, do they meet needs etc. ? Unfortunately many of these discussions are located outside the climate negotiations. This is one major reason why the COP advances only very slowly. The real negotiating forum is one that is set up in Rio in 1992. The Framework Convention on climate issues was only one among many. Rio + 20 has shown how the differences were large, between states and economic interests. The growth was at the heart of the discussions. These three levels of constraints show that consumer's choice is not as free as neoclassical economics supposes. A choice is possible, but quite limited. The concept of "lifestyle" takes then a slightly different direction. The issue is not only consumer's choice but also the framework or structure in which this choice is made. UN classifications show that what is at stake is development. The reference is developed countries, a model that developing countries are called to imitate. Whatever is the starting point, only one future is conceivable for all. The INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) indicates this point clearly enough. INDCs, taken together, aren't compossible between themselves. Compossibility is a leibnizian concept. It means that the worlds each country sees for its future could be possible, one taken apart from each others, but they are not compatible, taken together. What is development? The model is theorized in countless textbooks, and is the background of most of more specialized studies. The French theorist Marcel Gauchet who studies modernity gives a very detailed account, which could be found again as being in the background of countless other authors. Nicolas Sarkozy's speech in Dakar in 2007 further illustrates this fact. "The tragedy of Africa is that the African man has not entered enough in history. The African peasant, who for thousands of years, lives with the seasons, whose life ideal is to be in harmony with nature, knows only the eternal renewal of time punctuated by the endless repetition of the same gestures and same words. In this imagination where everything always starts again, there is no place for human adventure or for the idea of progress. In this universe where nature controls everything, man escapes the anguish of history that grips modern man but the man remains motionless in the middle of an immutable order where everything seems to be written in advance. Never man soars into the future. He never comes to the idea of ​​leaving the repetition to invent a destiny. The problem of Africa and Africa allow a friend to say, it is there. The challenge for Africa is to go further in history. This is to tap into it energy, strength, desire, willingness to listen and to marry his own story. The problem of Africa is to stop always repeating, always rehashing, to break free of the myth of the eternal return, is to realize that the golden age that never stops regret, will not return for the reason that it never existed. Africa's problem is that she lives too in this nostalgia for the lost paradise of childhood. The problem in Africa is that too often they judge this against a totally imaginary purity of origins and nobody can hope to resuscitate. Africa's problem is not to invent a more or less mythical to help support this but to invent a future with the means of its own." For Nicolas Sarkozy as for many of our contemporaries, such as Marcel Gauchet, among others, modernity has brought a radical extraction from nature as well as relig