Foreword by Prof. Dr. Simon Dalby
In December 2015, the world watched as delegates to
the Paris climate conference crafted an agreement to
attempt, finally, a comprehensive effort to tackle the
rapidly growing dangers of climate change. The
agreement marked at least some tentative innovations
in global governance. Its approach worked with what
states offered in terms of their intended contributions,
rather than trying to accomplish the traditional process
of drafting a “top-down one-size-fits-all” treaty. In
numerous side events to the main conference, corporate
actors, environmental campaigners and policymakers
compared notes on their programs and exchanged ideas
about how to construct a more sustainable world. Clearly after two decades of fairly
ineffectual efforts in climate policy, world leaders are starting to think about how to
proceed and doing so in ways that suggest, very tentatively, that traditional modes
of thinking are giving way to new ways of thinking about governance.
The Paris meetings emphasized the great difficulty that many contemporary
modes of thinking and policy analysis have in grappling with the climate question.
Conventional ideas of climate as a pollution problem, a matter for regulation and
environmental legislation, are now no longer enough to grapple with either climate
or many other sustainability issues. Discussions of earth system boundaries and a
safe operating space for humanity are now juxtaposed with the dawning realization
that at least some low-lying member states of the United Nations may be completely inundated in coming decades by rising seas. The conventional economic
development thinking of the twentieth century seems increasingly inappropriate in
the face of global change. Market-based measures may be part of the short-term
policy attempts to reduce carbon emissions and accelerate the uptake of renewable
energy systems, but clearly more is needed, much more than conventional economics has to offer.
vii
In December 2015, the world watched as delegates to
the Paris climate conference crafted an agreement to
attempt, finally, a comprehensive effort to tackle the
rapidly growing dangers of climate change. The
agreement marked at least some tentative innovations
in global governance. Its approach worked with what
states offered in terms of their intended contributions,
rather than trying to accomplish the traditional process
of drafting a “top-down one-size-fits-all” treaty. In
numerous side events to the main conference, corporate
actors, environmental campaigners and policymakers
compared notes on their programs and exchanged ideas
about how to construct a more sustainable world. Clearly after two decades of fairly
ineffectual efforts in climate policy, world leaders are starting to think about how to
proceed and doing so in ways that suggest, very tentatively, that traditional modes
of thinking are giving way to new ways of thinking about governance.
The Paris meetings emphasized the great difficulty that many contemporary
modes of thinking and policy analysis have in grappling with the climate question.
Conventional ideas of climate as a pollution problem, a matter for regulation and
environmental legislation, are now no longer enough to grapple with either climate
or many other sustainability issues. Discussions of earth system boundaries and a
safe operating space for humanity are now juxtaposed with the dawning realization
that at least some low-lying member states of the United Nations may be completely inundated in coming decades by rising seas. The conventional economic
development thinking of the twentieth century seems increasingly inappropriate in
the face of global change. Market-based measures may be part of the short-term
policy attempts to reduce carbon emissions and accelerate the uptake of renewable
energy systems, but clearly more is needed, much more than conventional economics has to offer.
vii