 know that some governance arrangements do better than others. We know plenty about the reasons for failure, and in theory quite a bit about arrangements that ought to work better.
What climate governance at all levels really needs is a capacity to deliberate about its own reform. In this light, effective governance is not just a matter of securing cooperation among all those with the capacity to act—it also requires opportunity for contestation in governance systems, to promote social learning about what does and does not work. Nobel prizewinner Elinor Ostrom spoke of a ‘polycentric’ approach to climate governance, involving many different kinds of initiatives at all scales, from the local to the global, but we also need ways to join these forms to common purposes through effective and open communication.
Climate change is now a permanent feature of the human condition, our constant companion as we move into a more unstable environmental era. It is too late to stop it completely, but we can bring it under control, and adapt our social, economic, and governance systems to cope with its effects. Climate change is a mirror in which humanity can see its best and worst sides. If the worst currently seems to dominate, it does not have to stay that way. This is our challenge.
Professors John Dryzek (Australian National University) and David Schlosberg (University of Sydney) are co-authors, with Professor Richard Norgaard (University of California, Berkeley), of Climate-Challenged Society, to be published in October 2013 by Oxford University Press.