Mike Hulme argues that we need more disagreement instead of consensus on questions which extend far beyond science.
For example on questions like:
- How do we value the future, or in economic terms, at what rate should we discount the future?
- In the governance of climate change what role do we allocate to markets?
- How do we wish new technologies to be governed, from experimentation and development to deployment?
- What is the role of national governments as opposed to those played by multilateral treaties or international governing bodies?
These are not really new arguments, but there is still missing a serious debate about what such terms like "disagreement", "values" and "more vigorous politics" actually mean - the return of the political into the climate debate hasn't even started yet.
(The photo above was used by the editors to illustrate Mike Hulme's article. The subtitle goes "Kiribati: island in danger. copyright: United Nation photo." Maybe we should also question the iconography of climate change).