I recently read an article written by David Schlosberg, Professor of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney. In it, he discusses the failings of the global community to tackle climate change and how solutions and examples are being made by local community groups who are learning to live by complementing the natural systems that surround us and nature intended to support us.
David Schlosberg believes that Prevention is no longer an option and we are essentially in a phase of damage limitation.
I have highlighted a few points I felt were worth making particular note of but I would encourage you to read the whole article.
Please also note that their is a disclosure message included, describing David Schlosberg’s work affiliations. This is to avoid any compromise to the content of the article. Being very open like this is essential to create clear and concise messages from the scientific community without worrying about secretive, non publicized benefactors, potentially corrupting information for personal gain or misguided values. This is especially relevant it seems, when discussing climate change.
Prevention is no longer an option. The natural systems that regulate climate on the planet are already changing.
Even if many national governments are not preventing climate change, there is a growing concern for adaptation at the local level.
We imagine we live in a rational, enlightened society. In such a place, experts would identify issues to be addressed, and goals to be reached, in response to our creation of climate change. Scientific knowledge would be respected and accepted (after peer review, of course), and policy would be fashioned in response.
The reality is that we frequently have direct intervention explicitly designed to break the link between knowledge and policy
Organised climate change denialists, and the political figures that support them, have done more to damage the ideals of the enlightenment than any so-called postmodern theorist.
One of the key challenges is going to be how the burden is distributed, and how we respond to the vulnerability of people to climatic shifts and adjustments – from drought and floods, to health issues ranging from disease to heatstroke, to food security, to environmental migrations
Local participation and deliberation – basic rights themselves – can help us to understand and determine the distinct and local environmental needs of various communities, and so plan for adaptation
For all of those conspiracy theorists who think climate change is a leftist conspiratorial plot to develop a UN-based world government – you have got to be kidding. The UNFCCC represents a failure of global governance on a scale we’ve never seen before.
We may be dealing with an issue with a level of complexity that human beings are simply not capable of addressing. Climate change will certainly challenge our adaptive abilities more than anything else the species has faced.
These new materialist movements offer alternative ways of relating to the nonhuman systems that sustain us, and illustrate the possibility of redesigning and restructuring our everyday lives based in our immersion in natural systems. After 30 years of failing in our response to climate change, we may yet demonstrate that human beings still have the capacity to adapt.
Our continued refusal to recognise ourselves as animals embedded in ecosystems has resulted in the undermining of those systems that sustain us.