Across climate governance, there is a persistent assumption that with enough data, better models, and stronger coordination, the problem can and will be sufficiently understood and managed.
This assumption is always in the background, and it shapes how issues are defined, how evidence is treated, and what kinds of responses are considered legitimate.
Beyond complexity
But what if the challenge is not just one of complexity? What if some aspects of the climate problem exceed what can be fully known in the first place?
A critique of climate governance might be that it is structurally incapable of moving beyond the limits of its own architecture, even though that architecture is a function of our thinking.
But it is the function through which institutions are organised, how what counts as evidence is determined, and through which decisions are made.
And that argument has some truth; governance does operate within a threshold of what it can recognise and act upon.
The hard limit of what governance can know
But there may be a second and harder limit. This is not just a limit of the system, but a limit of knowing itself.
Climate change is not a single, bounded problem. It is distributed across time and space. It unfolds in ways that cannot be fully observed from any single position. It interacts with ecological, social, and economic systems in ways that are only partially visible. [From this perspective, climate change is a hyperobject.]
And crucially, it will continue to evolve, regardless of how we attempt to describe it.
Governance and the unknowable
This means that even if governance were able to expand its frame to recognise long-term and underlying risks and uncertainties, to integrate more categories of knowledge, to act more systemically, there would remain aspects of the problem that exceed its grasp.
This introduces a different kind of challenge, and it’s something that cannot be resolved through better information alone.
From this perspective, the issue is not simply that governance fails to act on what it knows. Rather, it is that some elements of the situation cannot be fully rendered knowable within any governance frame.
This means that there are processes in flow that can be sensed, that can be partially described, and that can be inferred through their effects. But they cannot be fully captured or stabilised as objects of management.
This matters because much of climate governance practice (mitigation and most adaptation strategies) depends on the assumption that problems can, in time, be made fully legible, that uncertainty can be reduced, that ambiguity can be resolved and that the situation can be brought within the scope of control.
Rethinking governance
But if that assumption does not hold, then the implications are profound. Not because governance becomes irrelevant; in fact, it becomes much more relevant, but its role must change.
In this situation, the governance task is no longer to know and manage the problem; it is to act responsibly in the presence of something that exceeds understanding without pretending otherwise.
What this means for practitioners
For many climate governance practitioners, this shift is probably not abstract. It might be showing already up in moments where evidence accumulates, but confusion is rising in parallel.
The required shift is signalled when the analysis deepens, but confidence fades, or when action is understood to be required, but the basis for taking action feels fragile.
These are not always signs that more work is needed to “get to the answer”. But, they might be indicators that there is no final, stable answer to reach.
Changing questions for climate governance
If this is the case, then the question for climate governance changes from How do we understand and competently address this problem? to How do we remain responsible and effective in relation to something that cannot be fully known?
This is not a comfortable position, particularly in a system where confidence is a hard currency. It challenges some of the core assumptions on which governance is built.
But it is likely to be a more realistic and ethical starting point for the conditions we are now facing.
See the previous essay
Next essay
Share this on...