Climate Change mitigation as a Red Queen Dilemma and a Wicked Problem.

Ashton's speech (see prior post), the line, "things are going to have to change around here if we want them to stay the same”,  has started me thinking again about rapid climate change being another red queen's dilemma,* politically and socially. I think it is pretty much clear that it is a great example of a wicked problem.
But it is also a RQ dilemma because: Given the rate of change, it would probably take all deliberate possible effort at mitigation to try and maintain what we "have".

Given its wicked problem status,i.e.,

1. "There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is itself a wicked problem).
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate)."

and, given that actually working on mitigation would benefit some and harm others relative to the Socially Obligate Economic Boundary Condition (making money),
 "all deliberate effort" is not a probable state of affairs.



*the longest science study area using the phrase is rather interesting.