"What would be a whole-of-government approach to global development by the world's leading states?"
In early December 2009 – around the time of the infamous Copenhagen Conference – Olga Sorokina was prompted to give an answer to this question herself when Sara Staats, the Director of Policy Outreach at the Centre of Global Development, published an article entitled "Dear White House: All I Want for Christmas Is a Global Development Strategy."
Olga is not US citizen but lives in Israel. As a global citizen, she was also preoccupied with this question. She wrote that "I am striving for this as well. So are thousands of people all over the world as well and especially it is important for peoples in Israel." And she has good arguments for believing that the role of the USA in global development is particularly important.
Olga Sorokina is a marine biologist that studied for her PhD at the Russian Academy of Sciences and so naturally looks at complex issues with the eyes of a scientist trained in an evolutionary paradigm. This perspective can reveal refreshing insights into intractable social problems that political scientists and pundits will easily miss.
Not so long ago she moved from Moscow to Israel. This relocation gave her a closer look into a prism of social relations that we are all familiar with (although maybe at the same time not so knowledgeable about?): namely the Middle East. Before that, in Russia, she used to job for the World-Wide Fund for Nature and later for the Ecotourism Development Foundation. That institution was collaborating with many USAID projects and as well as programs of the UN Environmental Program. So her life experience and education made her reflect as a change leader and in terms of a 'Darwinian' evolution of social structures, leading her to compare and analyze human societies as an ecologist would study animal populations.
At the moment – due to personal circumstances – she has a lot OF time to read across different subjects. Since her interest had been draw to the bigger topics preoccupying many thinkers in the world, attracted by alarms of crisis over political, social, financial, ecological and environmental issues, Olga put her mind to work as a trained biologist. In particular she has been thinking and corresponding with others about the evolution of human societies, examining topics such as the 'clash of civilizations in the remade world'. As a result, the theme of global development had also been an on-going interest, for which she draws for analysis on various data sources accessible to her via the Internet.
Many prominent experts, such as Professor Peter Turchin from the University of Connecticut and Santa Fe Institute, William Halal, and other scholars, emphasize that the sensible analysis of global issues and the current situation would not be possible without applying a trans-disciplinary approach. So Olga was determined to frame an examination of the heart of global issues free from political influence with a multi-disciplinary approach.
In order to engage with topics of wider concern, rather than just adding another abstract academic reflection, she began by examining the work of public intellectuals who writing in the wider circulation media and who are participating at live events, lectures, and debates at the world's top universities, think tanks and conferences. Especially American intellectuals were of interest, since their ideas are closely related to public reflection and discussion over the role that the US could and maybe should take on the global scene.
So for instance, she carefully studied op-ed columnist like Mrs Brooks and Mr Friedman who are publishing regularly in the New York Times on the subject of the role of the US and the latest social changes in the word. Articles such as "The Next Culture War" and "Where did 'we' go" correspondingly were those that inspired her when she was writing up her ideas. Another well known thinker offering new perspectives is George Monbiot, writing in the UK Guardian International.
Her conclusions are provocative and offer a fresh perspective on what may seem a set of unsolvable problems the world is confronted with at the moment. Olga argues that the time for a paradigm change is upon us.
Why Copenhagen had to fail: The misplaced expectations of science
Copenhagen produced poorly disguised disappointment for many interested parties that had invested energy and expectations in the process. As an international problem solving exercise it has spectacularly failed to either deliver answered questions or even answerable questions that can satisfy a heated public debate. Even if the debate is simplified by media into opposing camps of environmentalists and deniers, the politics of climate change are a critical test case for democracy and public deliberation in the 21st Century.
The gathering of representatives and political leaders from 193 countries was characterised by polemic and debate. Participating countries were caught up in political diplomacy, inconclusive debates and back room negotiations. In public forums, through the media and even out on the street, competing interpretations and opinions were argued. The subjects of these debates were a disputed science of climate change, and, more importantly, the cost and respective contribution for fixing the problem. Who pays and who benefits is fundamentally a political question. The drama of the last minute deal brokering only emphasized the inability of the world's science and political practitioners to deliver the leadership that the scale of the event imposed. Whether appropriate or not, the inability to restore order on board of a doomed ship uncomfortably evokes a Titanic comparison.
Beyond climate management, the perceived failure of the political elite so far to deliver sought after goals such as financial security, good health and environmental sustainability, does not bode well for public support in future decision making. But perhaps the reason for these disappointments lies much deeper than easy assumptions about the fallibility of politicians. An integral part of the contemporary model of political government is the enlightenment reliance on objective expertise. This idea of science as a non-political source of knowledge, dates back to the formative years of European culture at least, the positivist hey days of the 19th century.
If science is examined as what it is made out to be in education and media, then a contradiction becomes apparent that can help explain in part the drama that took place in Copenhagen. Science is expected to be an objective informant of political debate and as such only a by-product of a greater project, which is the search for predictable knowledge. For science to fulfil such roles, it must conform to the positivist view of scientific work that has entered school curricula more or less directly from the technological and industrial revolution that began in earnest in the 19th Century. The prowess of science that built railroads across continents and made electrical, medical, and cultural miracles possible, then followed in the 20th Century by nuclear physics and the green revolution, must also be extendable to all remaining problems of the natural world. However, actual experience has caused many cracks in such an edifice of technological confidence.
Science cannot offer all the solutions, and so unsurprisingly an uncritical faith in technology was left behind in the oh-so-short post war boom years of the 1950s and 1960s. Scientists have been warning all along that the most critical problems confronting humanity – be that the risk of nuclear war or catastrophic environmental destruction – do not simply lie in the area of science and technology. For example, Garret Hardin, author of the now classic 1968 article The tragedy of the commons, the "population problem" is a prime member of the class of problems without a technical solution. And as Hardin showed in his often cited tract, in the face of inexorably growing population, the hope to find a fix that addresses the core issue of overpopulation without infringing on existing privileges and advantages is technologically impossible. And that is the heart of the paradox which poses impossible problems for science – i.e. to harness an objective science to simply assure more of the good life that has led to a population explosion in the first place is not possible without political decisions.
There are a number of assumptions that underlie the relationship of science and politics. Copenhagen has made these visible.
1. The unity of scientific method: A universal logic of inquiry that applies in all disciplines
Science has historically utilised very effective knowledge production methods, that have explained puzzling phenomena from lightning bolts to plant nutrition uptake, and it has done so in ways that made it possible to improve weather prediction and increase food production. But in all domains of research, the limits of simplistic models in complex situations has been shown to also limit the extent of predictability. A journey through the journals of many scholarly disciplines, not only touching on climate science and agricultural technology but equally for example on nuclear physics and political studies, can quickly collect critical reflections that warn of the limits of the classic scientific method of analytical methods and falsifiable hypotheses, especially in the human sciences where most important categories of description cannot be reduced to instrumental measurements.
Trying to apply the scientific method to the complexity of human-climate interaction with the expectation to deliver scientifically verifiable predictions can only deliver frustration. There are several reasons for this. A universal method assumes that any given problem situation can be reduced to a determinate number of variables which in complex systems is contradictory. And even if these variables can be isolated, a methodological universalism requires these variables to be measurable and 'interpret-able' in a meaningful way. To then link interpretations back to a real world context makes assumptions about the stability and autonomy of a situation under investigation. Climate processes on a global scale are an excellent example that show how futile that objective really is. Lastly, if science is asked to move beyond explicating relevant factors in complex processes to provide reference points for political decision making then it faces the impossible challenge of making abstract research results commensurable in decision making processes spanning multiple, interlocking domains of natural and social processes.
2. Explanations hold the power of foresight: If all variables are known, an event can be predicted.
Another assumption that is integral to a shared understanding of science is the relationship of explanation with prediction. The intuitive notion that knowledge makes prediction possible lies in contrast with the everyday experience of science as raising the number of possibilities rather than reducing possible answers. What science has proven most effective at is to identify new variables and alert to other possible futures. If the predictability of weather has only improved in a statistical measure of likely 'extreme weather events' then this disappoints an expectation for improved science to earmark sunny holidays well in advance.
There is of course another way to conceive of the increasing multiplicity of possibilities that universities of the 21st Century are emitting like industrial smog. While on the one hand opening for the accusation of reducing levels of visibility for policy makers with unnecessary complexity, on the other the growing realm of hypothetical propositions can be seen as a necessary intermediate stage of an ever improving science. In reality, the inevitable uncertainty of the scientific method diminishes its authority in the political realm, but if that is so, then it was a false authority in the first place.
3. Theory, that is science, informs political decision making but must always remain objective and value-neutral.
The authority of science as basis for informed decision making rests on significant assumptions of infallibility that science cannot fulfil. While a range of issues can be reformulated as questions precise enough for scientific inquiry to deliver practical answers, this disguises the limits of science. Beyond the scope of delimited questions lies a world of interlocked processes that cannot be isolated in experiment or natural studies. Science becomes a profession of raising possibilities and politics then is about risk management. But does that reflect the relationship between science and politics?
In democratic societies, government is explicitly thought of as representing multiple interests of diverse citizenships. Representational politics relies on competing constituencies to use public forums of government to raise concerns and resolve conflicting claims. But scientists are citizens as well. Moreover, simply by choice of career path, scientists express respect for the significance of knowledge in social life. How can science be value neutral and assume to offer information as if would not touch on the lives of scientists themselves, or have critical insights relegated to a 'democratic' encyclopaedia sorted without value preference from a to z?
These points illustrate that the common perception of science as a vale-free, objective informant of democratic decision making is flawed. The reality in a complex world makes science a social endeavour that is placed at an objective distance from political governance at the risk of preserving out-dated institutions of public decision-making. Maybe the fault is not with a science unable to deliver its part but a politics which is unable to deliver in a world of increasing complexity.
The expectation for Copenhagen was to agree on a management plan for the climate. But in the face of climate complexity and unresolved political differences, this is a problem that is ill suited for a science based politics. What then are the alternatives? Firstly, the indeterminacy of the science of complex problems must be more fundamentally recognised and institutionalised. Politicians then, must turn to science not in expectation of definitive answers, but as one source of several, albeit a critical one, to highlight the risks and opportunities that alternative decisions open up. Seeing other view points not as potential obstacles, or in need of education, but as informants of potential obstacles, opens the canvas of possible pathways that must be mapped out. We live in a risk society, where increased technology has not so much reduced the threats of the unexpected, but rather has dramatically increased the scale of risks – be they in our financial systems or in our global climate systems. Proceed with caution, should be the maxim.
BRUSSELS — European environment ministers began Tuesday to plan a new strategy for tackling climate change after "disastrous" UN climate negotiations which the US and China did their best to undermine, the Swedish EU presidency said.
"I call this a disaster, it doesn't at all match the needs of the world and that is what we have to discuss," said Sweden's Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency until the end of the year. AFP: EU seeks way ahead after 'disastrous' UN climate talks
From an Indian perspective, it is less a question of blame and rather a Morning After effect. India wakes up to the implications of being graduated to the 'developed' class. What Copenhagen agreement really means to India
Also from the Gulf, a more measured assessment:
"The showdown between China and the United States has introduced for the first time at the highest political level moral questions about climate change. " No pact, but it's not the end of the world
The COP15 outcomes remain open for interpretation, and after the weekend has passed, positions are clarifying. CLIMATE CHANGE: "We're Not Finished Yet," Civil Society Warns - IPS ipsnews.net
"... the fact that negotiators at the Bella Center were unable to reach an agreement even within their own conception of how to address climate change is proof that it is a failed model. That's why it is very important to go forward and tell a different story of what happened here in Copenhagen. That story must be that their model reveals itself to be a spectacular failure even according to its own terms," Canadian journalist and researcher Naomi Klein said. "And because their model failed, it's our turn now. So don't allow yourselves to get depressed," she added.
Meanwhile NZ PM John Key has returned home and ecided there was a little good in the effort after all (remember, he had not wanted to go until days before the event because he had expected it to be a waste of time all along). PM: Climate accord process must change
Photo: Britain's Ed Miliband saved a deal he admits is 'by no means perfect'. / AP
Britain's Ed Miliband saved a deal he admits is 'by no means perfect'. Photo / AP
The deal finally hammered out had been expected to commit countries to deep cuts in carbon emissions. In the end, it fell short.
Instead, a draft agreement put forward by China - and backed by Brazil, India and African nations - commits the world to the broad ambition of preventing global temperatures from rising above 2C.
Yesterday some delegates openly attacked China.Asked who was to blame for blocking the introduction of controlled emissions, the director-general of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Lars-Erik Liljelund, replied: "China. China doesn't like numbers." This was a huge step on from our work in Kyoto
John Prescott is more realistic about the outcome, given that his predictions hagve come true.
'The "test" for many journalists and NGOs was whether there'd be a legal agreement, which was never a possibility, just as we didn't get one at Kyoto. No. The real headline is that Copenhagen has become the first global agreement on climate change.'
Ed Miliband agrees, but is candid about where the problem. The road from Copenhagen
The talks were chaotic, at times farcical. But in the accord there were real gains we can build upon.
"this is one of the straws in the wind for the future: the old order of developed versus developing has been replaced by more interesting alliances." says Miliband.
National Business Review - The deal reached at global climate change talks in Copenhagen has disappointed politicians and scientists worldwide, while reaction has been mixed in New Zealand.
20 Dec 2009: Foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, describes outcome as 'significant and positive' despite accusations China had systematically wrecked the negotiating process.
20 Dec 2009: Talks an 'important breakthrough' says US president but decried as a waste of paper by critics on both sides of the debate.
In the end, maybe the NZ Youth Delegation offers the best interpretation available, writing from Copenhagen Sunday 20 December: "Hope"nhagen? Or "Flop"enhagen?
On Saturday we made an urgent call for people to contact John Key tellikng him the Copenhagen Accord was insufficient.
Now, with the conference ended, the Copenhagen Accord is the only result. Many NGO's are incensed, some countries refused to accept it and news media are calling the conference a flop (see here) This Accord is not binding, so countries may choose whether or not they adopt it. Further, it sets no targets for how much countries need to reduce their emissions. It was produced by back-room negotiations, and provoked outrage from some countries - Sudan went as far as to make references to the Holocaust.
In the words of our youth delegate, Kirk Serpes "Voluntary reductions are like voluntary taxes."
However, we at NZYD still have some "Hope"enhagen. We have seen millions of people mobilised the world over. As we speak, NGO's world wide are launching a campaign reminding leaders that"We are not done yet." Most importantly, we saw a real desire from politicians to take action. 192 countries will always have difficulty agreeing, but in Copenhagen we saw genuine disappointment when the talks failed. Governments wanted a positive result, and that desire will be built on in the coming months.
The email began dramatically: "As we sit here at almost 5am Danish time we urge you to take positive action on climate change NOW. "The Copenhagen Accord" has just been released by China, US, India, South Africa and Brazil. It fails to provide the world with what we urgently need - a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal."
This moment in time will go down in history!
Look forward to the future,
The New Zealand Youth Delegation
"Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits."
Guardian Weekly columnist George Montbiot sees a profound opposition that goes well beyond old ideological divisions between left and right. That may well be, but it is still a fight between those who can and those who can't.
There are ideological divisions at the bottom of the climate debate. Copenhagen is bringing that out explicitly. While the polemic at times may seem conservative or idealistic, there is a fundamental clash of world views. If this is not addressed then the ideological conflict will remain unresolved.
Pullitzer winning columnist Charles Krauthammer writing in the Washington Post makes it very explicit how he sees the political threats brewing in Copenhagen.
- "The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism. One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.
Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt." (Read the rest here: The Environmental Shakedown)
Then, for the other side, compare this political analysis by Naomi Klein:
- "The big criticism of the movement the media insisted on calling “antiglobalization” was always that it had a laundry list of grievances and few concrete alternatives. The movement converging on Copenhagen, in contrast, is about a single issue—climate change—but it weaves a coherent narrative about its cause, and its cures, that incorporates virtually every issue on the planet. In this narrative, our climate is changing not simply because of particular polluting practices but because of the underlying logic of capitalism, which values short-term profit and perpetual growth above all else." (Read the full article here: Copenhagen: Seattle Grows Up)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5f36a017-c493-4011-902f-9157eaca7df9)
