”Waiting for a single worldwide `solution´to emerge from global negotiations is also problematic.”
Elinor Ostrom

When policymakers speak about climate change, one gets the impression that the global warming problem is so clear and so tidy, that we're merely a few stubborn votes away from a one-sized-fits-all solution that'll save the world. Anyone with an understanding of the principles of ecology, however, knows that top-down mandates are hardly compatible with the ways of Mother Nature.

We had certainly hoped that the Nobel committee's recognition of Ostrom's and WIlliamson's work would encourage more people to explore the possibilities of market solutions and local decision making. It may take time for policymakers to catch up, but it's refreshing to see so many scholars getting attention for asking the right questions.

Thanks to research institutions like the Stockholm Resilience Center (which, it should be noted, was founded in 2007, before the Nobel committee had cottoned onto the idea), there's ever more literature available on the importance of adaptability as we face extreme weather patterns and other challenges of climate change.

In an older article on the resilience of societies for governing complex socio-ecological changes, Jonas Ebbeson suggests that when it comes to climate change, we need to learn to deal with uncertainties and surprises because we can't control nature. What does that mean? To summarize Sanford Gaines, we need:

flexibility in social systems
transparency of institutions
local decision making
effectiveness multilevel governance
promotion of learning
social structures which don't restrict options

In other words, following Mother Nature's lead, we need to facilitate the right conditions for experimentation, and watch what evolves.