Climate Change Management and Risk Governance

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

No one can deny it – natural and manmade hazards are increasing. Industrial accidents and the threat of cyber-attacks continue to trouble our minds – humanity is threatened every minute, every second by the forces that all seem to be manmade. Terrorists can make use of nature and technology in unleashing weapons of mass destruction. Climate change is more than a threat – it creates risks that are difficult to control because of the many factors involved, including old and new beliefs and how to deal with it. New social actors now play a key role in managing risks. Traditional actors are decreasing and the recently emerging non-state actors are at the forefront of risk governance.

The climate change regime started in 1990 and concluded in 1992, with the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Scientists convinced the world that humanity and its economic and global activities strongly influenced the global climate, and anthropogenic greenhouse gases generated climate change. These findings and the world belief led to the formation of the Kyoto Protocol, which then replaced all the other treaties on climate change (Petersen 2011).

The treaty commits the Parties to reduce their GHG emissions at a level that would reduce natural catastrophes. Critics contended that the Kyoto Protocol was not supported by reliable data. But it has been proven that climate change is the major cause for the natural catastrophes the Earth is experiencing (Sluijs & Turkenburg 2006). The Parties or the COP 21 (organizations and countries) met in the 2015 Paris summit to finally decide the amount of temperature to be reduced to mitigate climate change. As a result, the Parties created the Green Climate Fund and promised more cooperation and flexibility in GHG mitigation activities (Molina-Perez 2016).

Climate change had occurred even in what scientists called geological past when there were changes in the Earth-sun distance, the sun’s temperature, meteor impact, volcanic eruption and ‘continental drift’ (Sluijs & Turkenburg 2006, p. 246). Before this period, approximately 8,000 years ago, there was no such disturbance on the Earth’s climate, which made humanity to flourish over the Earth’s vast resources. As the earth’s population grew, humanity brought unprecedented changes in land use and vegetation configurations.

Forests disappeared while agriculture and cattle vastly increased, along with the production of different commodities of all kinds. Greenhouse gas emissions also increased that affected the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. High impact events have been identified, such as a change in the ‘thermohaline ocean circulation and sea-level rise,’ including loss of several species of animals, altering of the ecosystems, and human migration or environmental refugees, extreme weather conditions, new technology, food scarcity and changes in the distribution of diseases (Sluijs & Turkenburg 2006).

This essay deals with the causes and outcomes of climate change, and what society and organizations are doing to deal with it. First, we discuss the factors of natural hazards that can lead to natural catastrophes. The use of fossil fuel, nanotechnology, biological terrorism, and many aspects of economic development all alter the global climate. The contexts of risk management and governance have evolved, and the key actors are not any more government agencies and institutions but organizations. The literature will discuss how these actors play in the different activities involving risk governance.

Climate Change Perspectives and Future Challenges

Policymakers tend not to agree in the context of anthropogenic interference; or, developed and advanced countries just want developing (and underdeveloped) nations to follow what they want to do. Both developed and underdeveloped nations argue that controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is about slowing down economic development as many of these economic activities need fossil fuel. Climate change policy is a global challenge, which involves economic, political and social issues, including cultural factors in the sideline (Tarraf 2012).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides policies aimed to control climate uncertainty (Tribbia 2012). Various summits on climate change were convened, and the last one was the December 2015 Paris summit known as COP 21, whose goals to cut GHG emissions to prevent anthropogenic interference with the earth’s climate system are still difficult to attain. GHG emissions are globally generated, and mitigation requires international coordination and agreement by no less than the developed countries. The United States for one is still doubtful about the outcomes of all those talks and treaties on climate change (Worland 2015).

Climate change is not the issue – it is the causes that should be dealt with and the outcomes that should be managed and controlled. The environment surrounding the debate is “highly polarised,” to quote Petersen (2011). Since it is debatable with many issues to contend to, scientists have to ask policy-makers and politicians to help control climate change. What scientists have found is that dealing with climate change is a vicious cycle, and convincing the world with politicians on the helm is another vicious cycle (Leiserowitz 2006).

In a wider definition by the IPCC (cited in Gramelsberger & Feichter, 2011), the climate is different from the weather, and it includes “the statistics of weather … and the state” (p. 9). To avoid this confusion of climate and weather, Gramelsberger and Feichter provide details on the background of climate change when the Earth still enjoyed a relatively stable climate some 12,000 years ago. The Holocene period (Stott, cited in Gramelsberger & Feichter, 2011) triggered the growth of civilization, the invention of agriculture and the increase of the world population (Gupta, cited in Gramelsberger & Feichter, p. 10). The early civilizations also experienced ‘regional climate changes,’ such as what the Mayan culture encountered.

Greek philosophers then identified the Earth’s climate zones according to temperatures, and these were used as map markers. But the climate in the pre-historic era was stable. In the nineteenth century, the idea of climate change was triggered by the formation of continental glaciations (Gramelsberger & Feichter 2011). The present understanding of climate is that it includes the atmosphere, the ocean, and the Earth’s zones, including the biosphere. This is different from our understanding of weather which, in the present belief and context, is a part of climate.

In the concluding years of the nineteenth century, the physicist Svante Arrhenius (cited in Gramelsberger & Feichter, 2011) fostered the idea that carbon dioxide (CO₂) exacerbates the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect occurs when the atmosphere allows light rays of the sun but retains the ‘dark rays from the ground’ (Gramelsberger & Feichter, 2011, p. 16). However, during the time Arrhenius fostered his theory, there was a common belief among scientists that another Ice Age would occur. This triggered research on climate change and not the so-called anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Scientists’ opinions again changed when they found that the trend was going towards global warming (Gramelsberger & Feichter 2011, p. 16). Global warming, which is interchangeably used with climate change, was first mentioned in a paper by Wallace Broecker (cited in Trenbath, 2012).

Global warming exacerbates climate change, causing all kinds of natural catastrophes. Economic development is another. Along with economic activities, the world population is also growing (Perrow 2007, p. 14), and environmental migration is inevitable.

Scholars recommend sustainable development, but this is easier said than done. Some countries are beginning to doubt the treaties that they have signed, such as the ones who signed the Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Summit (Worland 2015). Developing countries would like to cooperate, but they say “What about our development?” There can only be economic progress if there is enough energy, and there can be slow progress if we use renewable energy. Fossil fuel speeds up economic activity (Lawson-Remer 2010).

Unclear global climate policy

The Brundtland Report in 1987 introduced the concept of sustainable development, i.e. countries should protect the environment and think of the future generations while improving their economies. Sustainability is a multi-factorial endeavor and is associated with the concept of preserving the earth’s ‘carrying capacity,’ which involves people’s behavior to preserve the environment. Protecting the environment through mitigation of GHG emissions and restoring the earth’s carrying capacity is a global challenge, but it should be by socio-political values (Næss 2001). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) was born, along with ways to deal with climate change. The Parties agreed but only to a certain extent.

Global climate policy is still unclear because it is young (Vasa & Michaelowa 2011, p. 127) and it provides uncertainties in introducing ‘pro-active measures’ (Bizikova et al. 2011, p. 171). A conclusion in the December 2015 Paris summit was that it was difficult for developed and developing nations to agree on what measures to take that should become binding on the majority of the countries.

Since the beginning of the climate regime, the question revolved around the issue of who were to provide the finances. The ‘who’ might refer to the developed countries and the important industrial sectors since they have to bear the large responsibility in the climate change problem, although they would gain in the emission trading.

Ahrens and Rudolph (2006) noted that not only is there an increase of natural disasters, but also the number of people affected by these disasters has significantly increased. In the tsunamis that devastated the coastal countries of Asia, i.e. Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, etc., there were three times as many people affected than the disasters in the 1970s. The economic losses also multiplied almost five times.

Indeed, crises and natural disruptions that affect two or more countries are now increasing (Wachtendorf; Quarantelli, Lagadec & Boin; Quarantelli, Lagadec & Boin; Boin & Rhinard; Alemanno, all cited in Tierney, 2012, p. 343). These are known as “trans system social ruptures,” and two famous examples include the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). SARS threatened an epidemic proportion across many countries, while there are other emerging and floating viruses in the air.

The de-localization of jobs and products give rise to ‘transnationalisation,’ a new phenomenon in the internationalization of markets (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006). This is the impact of several factors like technology and the Internet, globalization, and the new context in risk management and risk governance. Some authors would like to call this living in the ‘global village,’ or a world without borders.

Transnationalisation does not lead to abrogation of rules and regulations; in fact, Levi-Faur and Jordana (cited in Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006) calls the present time the golden age, where rules and regulation are modified and enhanced with the emergence of private regulatory organizations and ‘governance activities’ (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006, p. 1). As mentioned earlier, the government’s authority and power have lessened, leading to the rise of the new social actors and new ways.

Ahrens and Rudolph (2006) relate the gravity of disaster and underdevelopment with poor governance. The poor in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to disasters. The authors cited the UNDP (2004, cited in Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006) statistics which state that 53% of recorded deaths belonged to the poor people exposed to natural hazards.

Perrow (2007) advises countries to focus not only on preventing and coping with the outcomes of disasters but also in reducing the size of vulnerable targets. But we cannot just reduce our targets; instead, we have to face natural disasters. Disasters are a part of life and how we manage to deal with them will test the social structure and culture that we have built through the centuries (Perrow 2007, p. 3). Social theorists consider anticipation as key to managing and dealing with risk, i.e. anticipating what is to happen. When risk is at hand, it is a catastrophe (Beck, cited in Hutter, 2010).

Risks management

Organizations and society are more focused on risk management because of the increase of risks and dangers (Power 2004), whether natural or manmade. Economic development encourages and enhances risks. This means that risks are the fault of governments and society for, as Perrow (2007) argues, there are risks not applicable to some, for example, Holland and Venice had been dealing with risks, building dikes and preventing water to enter their territories since the sixteenth century.

Risks preoccupy most of the plans and activities of organizations and society. These plans may deal with what is going to happen and how to deal with an expected happening. Rent (2008) indicates that ‘potential and chosen’ action in risks could be what philosophers call ‘contingency’ (p. 1). Risks are inevitable most of the time, especially when individuals or organizations act according to their objectives. And for taking actions, there can be positive or negative outcomes.

Beck (1998) says that risk is an outcome of modernity, but also of development, of the quest to be in the forefront of progress, of humanity’s want to be comfortable. Risks become controllable if decisions are good. Risks indicate uncertainty. Uncertainty is a significant aspect of global warming since its inception (Held 2011). Risks are everywhere and in all aspects of human life, in every interaction, in the simple act of allowing our children to go to school to get an education. In climate and finance, risks are the cause and effect.

Michael Power (2004) stresses the relevance of regulation for the accountancy profession, the rise of the corporate governance codes, new legislation and the liability setting, all provide emphasis on what he calls ‘secondary risk management’ (p. 58). The auditing profession has been focusing on risks, but professions like accountancy, insurance, and government are also at risk as they avoid responsibility and possible penalties.

Power (2004) theorizes that the aim of ‘risk management of everything’ centers on secondary risk management, i.e. a change in the equilibrium between ‘primary and secondary risk management’ and a focus on internal control (p. 59). After the collapse of the Barings bank and the decision problem of Shell about its company in the North Sea, risk management has never been so focused. In journal analyses of firms, the word risk has always been affixed.

Risk management has been applied with qualitative applications to deal with risks and firms are benefitted strategically (Power 2004). For firms, risk management is the responsibility of accountants and auditors. Corporate failure is blamed on internal control and the public calls for more reliable corporate reporting. Internal auditors play a key role because they keep the board, senior management, and external auditors informed and aware of risks.

Risk management is a responsibility of internal control which, according to Power (2004), is now a major part of ‘the moral economy of organizations’ (p. 59). Internal control has the responsibility of detecting, preventing, and checking fraud risks and adding value to the risk management function as part of the organization’s corporate governance structure (Nicolaescu 2013). The internal control shift is to make known what the public asks for.

The objective of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted as a reaction to Enron and other corporate failures, provides more focus on internal control, with the public constantly and properly informed. Companies are required by the SEC to evaluate their internal controls, specifically auditors in the process of informing the directors. Financial reporting should be properly examined.

The state is also a risk manager as it is concerned with managing risk (Berke 2007). The health crisis on foot and mouth disease and the systems problem in the UK passport office were dealt with risk management ideas. Risk management in the context of public policy concerns ‘management of political risk to government’ (Power 2004, p. 60).

Risk governance

To closely monitor risks and mitigate disasters, the new trend is to combine risk management and governance, or risk governance (Asselt & Renn 2011). Governance refers to the work of a group of individuals to provide decisions that might become binding to the governed. The conventional belief of governance is that it involves an interaction between governmental institutions, economic factors, including civil society groups. Governance does not include superior authority but the decisions can become binding (Rosenau; Wolf, cited in Asselt & Renn, 2011, p. 431). Risk governance has taken several steps ahead and in different directions. This is so because it has not been the usual or traditional approach of dealing with risks, but is now more on involving various sectors in the context of governance, such as the non-state actors (NSAs) (Thompson & Rayner 2007).

Can risk management and governance mitigate climate change and global warming? It would depend on who is going to do it and how.

The concept of disaster governance evolved from carrying out of functions by public entities to a combination of the private and public sectors along with civil society groups (Agranoff; Goldsmith, cited in Tierney, 2012). Disaster governance is based on societal governance mechanisms. Governance, on one side, includes deep organizing, experienced and expert people in environment and regulation issues, civil society and corporate people (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006, p. 7).

Disaster governance can be sub-categorized under the risk governance because it involves governance principles and risk reduction (Renn; Renn & Walker; Walker et al., cited in Tierney, 2012, p. 343). Disaster governance is affected by social, economic, and political issues. This is not to mention globalization and the political factors affecting the world system. Features of disaster governance systems include difficulty in the various functions, inconsistency in terms of the different sectors’ participation across the various stages of the hazards environment, exhaustiveness, and combination across the different hazard categories (Tierney, 2012).

Theorists contend that anticipation is the key, that is, in dealing with risk. Beck (cited in Hutter, 2010), one of the most quoted scholars on the subject of risk governance, differentiates risk and catastrophe: risk should be anticipated before it becomes a catastrophe. Risks threaten the environment and people because they are a possibility of what is to happen and the “potential losses” (Luhmann, cited in Hutter, 2010).

Rise of the non-state actors (NSAs)

The inefficiencies of state regulatory bodies and a significant increase of people affected by disasters led to the ‘energetic activity by non-state actors’ (Grabosky 2012, p. 115). Non-state actors are private individuals or entities who are now playing a key role in risk management and governance.

Regulatory pluralism or the involvement of non-state regulatory bodies to draw more regulatory compliance has become a trend (Szerszynski 1996). The government or the agencies of government no longer implement laws alone but cooperate with non-state actors to regulate or impose environmental laws. Several private institutions can be used as regulatory bodies; the markets for one can exert pressure on suppliers in their unsuitable environmental practices. Buyers can become meticulous at times in examining products by tracking how the product was manufactured, whether the workers in the factory were fairly treated, including the environmental sustainability of the manufacturing process, and so on (Grabosky 2012, p. 116).

International standards organizations act like they are the “new authority,” providing guidelines for standards and benchmarks for organizations, whether profit or not-for-profit, to ‘straighten’ their paths or to become model for other organizations. ISO standards and international certification are new trends in private regulation as private, international organizations provide certification to organizations about products and services. Certification standards may include efficiency, product or service quality, ethical and environmental standards, and many other areas that need improvement and important to consumers and organizations around the world (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006, 1).

Okereke, Bulkeley, and Schroeder (2009) provided two theories regarding the emergence of non-state actors – constructivism and global governance. The authors contend that constructivism is aided by concepts of those who are involved, their objectives, and “what the content of social structures might be” (Okereke, Bulkeley, & Schroeder 2009, p. 60). The global governance method refers to processes that should lead to international policies, but these activities might have originated from real authority. The non-state actors involved are international organizations, global social groups, NGOs, multinationals, and other private organizations of international status.

The organization has made a presence in many aspects of social life, “responsibly and autonomously controlling and coordinating complex activity in complex environments” (Drori & Meyer 2006, p. 36). This is known as the scientistic of the organization, the new environment that sees a new science or scientist formulating new rules and assuming new roles on “a global scale” (Drori & Meyer 2006, p. 31). The new organization is composed of professionals (lawyers, doctors, policymakers), functioning as a bureaucracy, although not the old bureaucracy because this is gone and replaced by the modern organization. These professionals work for the success of the organization. The organization is empowered and responsible for social actors with new goals and plans, and with the increase of power and responsibility change is inevitable.

Institutional Change

Senn (2011) associates regulation as the role of government agencies and relates this with civil society composed of individuals and groups concerned with institutional roles and change. The purpose of regulation is the aim of governance, although regulation and governance are nor the same. Senn (2011) stresses that regulation is dynamic, which means that it evolves, depending on formulated policies and socio-technological factors. Regulation is more significant this time because of globalization which has also paved the way for the emergence of non-nation state actors or ‘private autonomous regulatory regimes’ (Senn 2011, p. 6).

Regulation is multi-faceted. Civil society expects high from government agencies, and now from private institutions when they perceive market failure. Once individuals and groups see trouble in the market, they would always ask for market intervention. Regulation is important in coordination efforts, particularly in affecting economic activity, and relevant issues about the quantity and quality of certain products. Regulation also affects ‘information asymmetries’, where information is regarded as a product (Senn 2011, p 8). In the financial sector, for example, information asymmetry is abhorred, thus transparency is a must, and efficiency in the market relies on how transparent is the sector.

Development and technology multiply risks

We are in the age of technology but technology should not lead to more risks, rather technological innovation should enhance progress but help in dealing with risks. Renewable energy technologies help in fighting climate change (Young 2004, p. 11). Risks are reduced through research and development and will benefit society and enhance sustainable development (MacLeod 2007).

Science has been questioned because of the emergence of genetically-modified (GM) foods, nanotechnology and the ambiguity of expertise between science and technology (Wilsdon & Willis 2004, p. 15). The GM Nation is still feeling blurred over the benefits of GM crops and foods and disadvantages to the environment are seen (GM nation: history of GM nation 2015). GMOs have brought a new focus on risk management (Kokotovich 2014). On the GM debate, some issues on a new technology’s impact on the environment might not be raised if it is already there since “political, economic and organizational commitments” might already be dealt with by those responsible for it, and there will be no time to alter its progress (Wilsdon & Willis 2004, p. 18).

More problems are perceived with the innovations given by genomics, neuroscience, computing, and artificial intelligence. These are areas for debate but the usual response is to listen and more debate. Scientists recommend education as a temporary solution, but Wilsdon and Willis (2004) argue that this too is not enough.

Nanotechnology has made things smaller but this does not mean that these technologies can be placed in the pockets of a few; it should aim for the greatest number of people. The Nanotechnologies Engagement Group discusses the governance of new technologies (Involve Web Editor 2007, para. 2).

To bridge the gap between science and technology, scientists should promote the public understanding of science (PUS) as many are still in the dark about what science is (Royal Society Report, cited in Wilsdon & Willis, 2004). PUS is still failing as it perceives the public as ignorant although science is easily understandable. In the 1970s survey by the US National Science Foundation, the people were still in doubt whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa (Jasanoff, cited in Wilsdon & Willis, 2004). Demos (cited in Wilsdon & Willis, 2004) is a non-profit but for-knowledge organization that aims to provide knowledge in different themes and perspectives. Demos’s projects encompass ‘research on science, technology and sustainable development’ (Wilsdon & Willis, p. 9).

The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC)

The IRGC is an international independent body which aims to improve the overall understanding and management of current systemic risks that are affecting the environment and the inhabitants thereof, including the economy and society as a whole. The IRGC (2005) defines systemic risks as those entrenched in the larger settings that generate severer results and are at the crossroads between natural happenings, economic and technological growths, and institutional activities.

The Council’s risk governance framework in managing and dealing with risks involved 5 interconnected stages, such as: “pre-assessment, appraisal, characterization and evaluation, management, and communication” (IRGC: An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework 2005). The framework helps in guiding complex and ambiguous risk situations and spots current and possible defects in the risk governance system. The process starts at “pre-assessment,” where the significant aspects of the risk and how they are planned by the stakeholders involved are there present and positively identified.

Climate governance

The 2015 Paris Summit tackled “differentiation and financing,” with a focus on important issues, such as the quantity of GHG to be reduced by developed or developing countries. Year 2020 is the Paris summit’s target period where countries should have cut their gas emission that would lead to a 2 degree-Centigrade reduction of the global temperature, equivalent to the temperature just before the industrial revolution began. Some countries criticized the Kyoto Protocol and the succeeding summits as it threatened their very existence (Petersen 2011, p. 92), and they reasoned that economic development is closely related to energy spending. Climate change is not only a natural phenomenon but also human-induced and related to the economy (IPCC, cited in Hey, 2001).

Contrary to critics’ claim, anthropogenic climate change has been assessed and scientifically proven that long-term outcomes might be irreversible (Mattor 2013). Scientists cited the closing down of the ‘Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic current,’ the rise of sea temperature threatening colossal floods and other natural devastations. What the scientific community is not so sure are the ‘causality, timing, probability, and magnitude’ (Sluijs & Turkenburg 2006, p. 245) of all these consequences.

Schomberg (cited in Sluijs & Turkenburg, 2006) proposed the ‘Precautionary Principle,’ where a scientific assessment is provided, proving that there is a possibility of undesirable natural consequences, although scientific doubt persists, provisional risk management measures with cost-benefit analysis prioritizing human health and the environment should first be on hand, to protect the community before further scientific evidence is available, and before waiting for the adverse effects to become a reality.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Art. 3.3) (cited in Sluijs & Turkenburg, 2006) provides that the Parties (composed of countries and organizations) should make moves to ‘anticipate, prevent or minimize’ the factors that exacerbate climate change and reduce its adverse effects. In case there are serious threats and irreparable consequences, there should be no cause or alibi of scientific uncertainty to postpone such cost-effective measures, which should benefit the greater population (Sluijs & Turkenburg 2006, p. 245). The reality, however, is that actions and the cost-effective measures are always delayed and postponed. The Paris Summit has been challenged, whether the agreed measure to reduce world temperature was binding on all countries.

One smart way of dealing with climate change is to insure it. Ensuring climate change means insuring the outcomes. Attributes of climate change are regarded as risks, which can be defined as ‘the product of the probability of the occurrence of an event and its potential damage’ (Huber 2011, p. 145).

Conclusion

The title for this essay is a question that does not need a direct response but a narration of facts and events about humanity’s interactions with society and Mother Earth. We have established that climate change has anything to do with natural hazards and catastrophes happening all around us.

The climate change debate has many opposing views, but there are points to agree with. Climate change is a risk that might cause a natural catastrophe, but there have been natural events, countless of them, that occurred even without those manmade causes and risks, such as extreme use of fossil fuel, terrorism, nanotechnology, and, above all, economic development. All of these activities cause risks. So, how do we deal with them, or how do we reduce the risks to avoid the catastrophes?

Risk is an outcome of modernity and economic development, of the quest to be in the forefront of progress, of humanity’s want to be comfortable. Risks become controllable if decisions are good. The simple solution is to work for sustainable development, but this too has a difficult agreeable plan. Risk management methods have been weakened because of the great uncertainty involved.

Governments and organizations have contributed to the climate change regime by formulating plans, signing treaties and executing workable solutions to deal with risks. The discussion focused on risk management and the causes and outcomes of climate change. When risks are carefully managed and controlled, the challenges and outcomes are minimized. Natural catastrophes can be dealt with at manageable levels, meaning without great damage.

Finally, the world is convinced that climate change is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases or excessive use of fossil fuel. Recently, the Paris climate summit sent the majority of the countries to agree on reducing GHG emissions to control world temperature at the level below the pre-industrial era. If decisions are workable, we might be able to meet the demands of changing the outcomes.

This essay gathered some of the most innovative concepts of risk management and governance and provided scientific evidence that climate change is the ultimate cause as a result of human activities committed in the name of development. If risk management and risk governance are meticulously and religiously followed, there might be some reduction of increasing temperature in the atmosphere that has caused climate change. The question now is: will all of the countries involved follow?

References

Ahrens, J & Rudolph, P 2006, ‘The importance of governance in risk reduction and disaster management’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 207-220. Web.

Asselt, M van & Renn, O 2011, ‘Risk governance’, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 431-449. Web.

Beck, U 1998, ‘Part I: environment, knowledge and indeterminacy: beyond modernist ecology?’ in S Lash, B Szerszynski, & B Wynne (eds), Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology, Sage Publications, London, pp. 1-26. Web.

Berke, P 2007, ‘Reducing natural hazards risks through state growth management’, Journal of American Planning Association, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 76-87. Web.

Bizikova, L, Burch, S, Robinson, J, Shaw, A & Sheppard, S 2011, ‘Chapter 8: utilizing participatory scenario-based approaches to design proactive responses to climate change in the face of uncertainties’, in G Gramelsberger & J Feichter (eds), Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty, Earthscan, New York, pp.171-190. Web.

Djelic, G & Sahlin-Andersson, K 2006, ‘Introduction: a world of governance: the rise of transnational regulation’, in M Djelic & K Sahlin-Andersson (eds), Governance: institutional dynamics of regulation, Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 1-28. Web.

Drori, G & Meyer, J 2006, ‘Chapter 2: scientization: making a world safe for organizing’, in M Djelic & K Sahlin-Andersson (eds), Governance: institutional dynamics of regulation, Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 31-52. Web.

GM nation: history of GM nation 2015. Web.

Grabosky, P 2013, ‘Beyond responsive regulation: the expanding role of non-state actors in the regulatory process’, Regulation and Governance, vol. 7, pp. 114-123. Web.

Gramelsberger, G & Feichter, J 2011,’Chapter 2: modelling the climate change: an overview’, in G Gramelsberger & J Feichter (eds), Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty, Earthscan, New York, pp. 9-90. Web.

Held, H 2011, ‘Chapter 4: dealing with uncertainty – from climate research to integrated assessment of policy options’, in G Gramelsberger & J Feichter (eds), Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty, Earthscan, New York, pp. 113-126. Web.

Hey, E 2001, ‘The climate change regime: an enviro-economic problem and international administrative law in the making’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 1, pp. 75-100. Web.

Huber, M 2011, ‘Chapter 6: insuring climate change – managing political and economic uncertainties in flood management’, in G Gramelsberger & J Feichter (eds), Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty, Earthscan, New York, pp. 145-158. Web.

Hutter, B 2010, ‘Anticipating risk and organising risk regulation: current dilemmas’, in B Hutter (ed), Anticipating risks and organising risk regulation, Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 3-22. Web.

Involve Web Editor 2007, Democratic technologies? Web.

IRGC: An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework 2005. Web.

Kokotovich, A 2014, Contesting risk: science, governance and the future of plant genetic engineering, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota. Web.

Lawson-Remer, T 2010, Essays on economic development, property rights, and natural resource governance, PhD Thesis, New York University. Web.

Leiserowitz, A 2006, ‘Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values’, Climate Change, vol. 77, pp. 45-72. Web.

MacLeod, M 2007, Forging private governance of climate change: the power and politics of social responsible investment, PhD Thesis, Queen’s University. Web.

Mattor, K 2013, Evolving institutions of environmental governance: the collaborative implementation of stewardship contracts by the USDA forest service, PhD Thesis, Colorado State University. Web.

Molina-Perez, E 2016, Directed international technological change and climate policy: new methods for identifying robust policies under conditions of deep uncertainty. Web.

Næss, P 2001, ‘Urban planning and sustainable development’, European Planning Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 503-524. Web.

Nicolaescu, E 2013, ‘Internal auditors’ role in detecting fraud’, Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 106-111. Web.

Okereke, C, Bulkeley, H, & Schroeder, H 2009, ‘Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime’, Global Environmental Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 58-78. Web.

Perrow, C 2007, The next catastrophe: reducing our vulnerabilities to natural, industrial, and terrorist disasters, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford. Web.

Petersen, A 2011, ‘Chapter 3: climate simulation, uncertainty, and policy advice – the case of the IPCC, in G Gramelsberger & J Feichter (eds), Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty, Earthscan, New York, pp. 91-112. Web.

Power, M 2004, ‘The risk management of everything’, The Journal of Risk Finance, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 58-65. Web.

Renn, O 2008, Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world, Earthscan, Sterling, Virginia. Web.

Senn, M 2011, Non-state regulatory regimes: understanding institutional transformation, Springer, New York. Web.

Sluijs, J van der & Turkenburg, W 2006, ‘Climate change and the precautionary principle’, in E Fisher, J Jones, & R Schomberg (eds), Implementing the precautionary principle: perspectives and prospects, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK, pp. 245-269. Web.

Szerszynski, B 1996, ‘On knowing what to do: environmentalism and the modern problematic’, in S Lash, B Szerszynski& B Wynne (eds), Risk, Environment and Modernity, Sage Publications, New York, pp. 104-138. Web.

Tarraf, H 2012, Exploring the relationship among corporate governance, risk taking and financial performance during the 2007-2008 financial crisis: evidence from U.S. bank holding companies, PhD Thesis, Lawrence Technological University, Michigan. Web.

Thompson, M & Rayner 2007, ‘Risk and governance part I: the discourses of climate change’, Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 139-166. Web.

Tierney, K 2012, ‘Disaster governance: social, political, and economic dimensions’, The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 37, pp. 341-363. Web.

Trenbath, T 2012, Undergraduate students’ conceptions of natural and anthropogenic climate change: a case study approach, PhD Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder. Web.

Tribbia, J 2012, What’s so local about global climate change? PhD Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder. Web.

Vasa, A & Michaelowa 2011, ‘Chapter 5: uncertainty in climate policy – impacts on market mechanisms’, in G Gramelsberger & J Feichter (eds), Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty, Earthscan, New York, pp. 127-144. Web.

Wilsdon, J & Willis,R 2004, See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream, Demos, London. Web.

Young, B 2004, ‘Foreword’, in J Wilsdon & R Willis (eds), See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream, Demos, London, pp. 11-12. Web.

Worland, J 2015, How the U.S. became an unlikely hero at the Paris climate summit. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!