The current approach – governments decide As custodians of the planet for all species (our generation of people is the first of us or any species to have that role), our approach to the problem of climate change involves many things. But to supervise it all, we rely on annual attendances by our governments at United Nations arranged international climate conferences. In the past few years our representatives have gone to UN run conventions in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban with the express purpose of developing a framework for urgently combating climate change. These have all been well attended by the well intended - on our behalf, and with all our interests at heart - to be sure. But in the end, what have they produced? More hot air than they have saved. To be clear, we have sent our politicians and government officials in to bat at the big climate conferences for us three times in the last three years, and they have struck out three times. Why are they failing to deliver for us? There are many possible reasons. But one probable source of their failings could be that they have been attended by government officials with agendum to save the world, but on a condition, being that it is not at the expense of their national economic fortunes. Because, after all, each government attending has to return home and face their people, in an election usually, who will judge them as much on whether their nation’s living standards have been compromised, as whether the cause of curbing greenhouse emissions has been advanced. No government wants to risk losing power by returning with a reduced competitive advantage against other countries. Whether it is true or not, governments believe they will be removed if they deliver such an outcome. Governments have an interest in survival, like people. And if they compromise on their economies, governments will more likely die sooner. People, on the other hand, have a greater interest in climate conferences producing strong outcomes. Our interests extend beyond the next election. People are not as attached to the idea of their government remaining in power as their government itself. And so it can be seen that the interests of governments and the interests of people on long term issues, like climate change, are in conflict. Consistent with this is the sense that we are generally more uneasy with the outcome of a climate conference as a whole, than we are with our nation’s, often modest, emission reduction commitments. It is as if our interests as national citizens and our interests as global citizens just do not coincide. An alternate approach – scientists decide One solution we may have to start considering is whether we, as a global people, simply remove supervisory power on climate change action vested in governments, by requiring them to delegate it to those with no interest in hanging on to power - the scientists. After all, scientists have the added benefit of understanding best what action is required to reduce climate change to the planet as a whole. Imagine if we were represented at the next UN climate conference (Qatar, 26 November 2012), not by national delegates from each government, but by the top earth scientists of the world, wherever they be from. If we required of our governments that they, on our behalf, relinquished power to make decisions as to what needs to be done to combat climate change to them? It is not difficult to think that we would see far more drastic action required of countries than we are presently witnessing. It is true that out personal lifestyles may well be compromised by the drastic actions that may be required of our governments by such a group of scientists. But we have seen, in recent times, the consequences of deferring austerity to a later date. The world would not end, nor governments. Governments will still have a major role in helping to overcome climate change. But it will not be to make the soft (or no) decisions that will