If climate governance is operating at the limits of what it can know, then this question follows: what kind of judgment is required in that situation?
Much of governance is built on the idea that better knowledge leads to better decisions.
- Clarify the problem.
- Reduce uncertainty.
- Identify the optimal course of action.
This works when the situation is fully legible. But what happens when it is not?
When the problem exceeds what can be fully known, judgment cannot rely on a material understanding. And yet, the need to act does not go away.
What this asks of practitioners
This creates a different kind of demand on practitioners, not just to analyse and decide, but to remain engaged with a situation that cannot be fully resolved.
For many, this may already feel familiar. For example, in moments when the available evidence is substantial but not sufficient, when the implications are significant but not fully defensible within existing categories, or when acting too quickly risks oversimplifying the situation, while waiting for clarity risks inaction (and accusations thereof, undermining legitimacy).
These are not always gaps to be closed, and instead are the conditions to be worked with.
Redefining judgement
This suggests a shift in how judgment is understood from applying established knowledge to a defined problem to navigating a situation where the limits of knowledge are part of the problem itself.
This kind of judgment does not eliminate uncertainty, but stays in relationship with it. It resists the pressure to reduce complexity prematurely into something recognisable and manageable. It’s a type of judgment that can feel when available responses maintain coherence rather than address what is emerging.
It is an awareness-based judgement, aware not just of the issue being governed, but of the frame through which it is being understood, and of what that frame may be excluding.
Governing at the boundary of knowing
There is also something else happening at this boundary. The limits of governance are not to be known abstractly. They are encountered and known through practice, and often at the level of the individual.
It is through the practitioner’s experience that the boundary of the system becomes most visible. Not as a concept, but as a tension, a contradiction, an anomaly that doesn’t sit easily, or a sense that something is present but cannot be fully brought into view.
In this sense, the individual is not outside the system, but the site through which the limits of the system run and where they are most directly identifiable. And while this is often uncomfortable, it may also be where new theories of action become visible.
New possibilities for governance
When established categories no longer fully hold, and where that is seen, perception is less mediated by them. Questions can arise that would not otherwise be asked. Responses can be considered that do not neatly fit within existing frames.
This is not a solution to the problem. But it may be one of the few places where the constraints of the system loosen, even temporarily and where imagination has more freedom. This is not because the limits disappear, but because they are being inhabited directly.
This is not about rejecting the norms of governance, such as evidence, analysis, or institutional process. These remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient on their own.
What is to be done?
The task becomes twofold:
- To resist paralysis and act within the system, while remaining aware of its limits.
- And to make decisions, while honestly recognising what cannot be fully decided.
This is not a position that governance systems are designed to support. It can feel exposed, difficult to justify and at times, isolating.
And yet, it may be where some of the most important work now sits.
What this might mean for practitioners
For some practitioners, this is probably less about adopting a new method and more about consciously cultivating a particular orientation.
It can hold uncertainty without resolving it, remain aware of and open to what does not yet fit and can act without the reassurance of full understanding.
There is no clear template for this. But it may already be present in practice in moments where something remains unresolved, when the available words feel insufficient or where the stakes seem larger than what can be formally acknowledged or made operational.
Differentiating signal from noise
These moments are easy to move past, but they may also be where a different kind of governance begins that can discern signal from noise, not by overcoming the limits of the system, but by learning to recognise and work responsibly within them.
First essay in the series
Share this on...