Last week's Radio National
science show discussion had a big impact on me, in
particular something Peter Cox said regarding the emerging debate around geoengineering.
He said "the governance is more difficult than the science".
Governance is a dusty word that doesn't usually ring many alarm bells,
but in this context it raises some of the most confronting ethical and
political dilemmas of our current existence. When every individual on
the planet will be directly affected, who decides on what course of
action we will undertake? And if one government, or organization of
governments has the means to alter the climate for us all, do they
share our priorities, our principles, and our belief in what is required
to eke out a satisfactory existence? The answer, historically at least,
is that they don't, and they can't.
The ramifications of this perceived need to make a decision, and fast,
potentially out weigh any previously faced global challenge. That the
need is perceived is evidenced by a recent flurry of books and studies
such as the Royal Society's
investigation into the governance of GE. In the words of John Shepherd who chaired the RS investigation into
geoengineering last year 'It is essential that we consider beforehand
what legislative mechanisms
and guidelines are needed, to ensure that any research that is
undertaken will be done in a highly responsible and controlled manner
with full international agreement where necessary'.
Okay - fair enough. But Copenhagen suggests that this might be very
difficult to achieve. If there can be no international agreement to
support mitigation measures because of the economic threat to our
current way of life it seems unlikely we will come to an agreement on
something as fundamental as altering the atmosphere we live in?
All of which takes me back to Bluebird. Governance is irrelevant if
people simply bypass governments. I'm interested to know what people
think about this?