The lay reader may be forgiven if geoengineering- the use of technology to manipulate the planetary climate system in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming- sounds like science fiction. The science of such interventions remains uncertain, but assessments are proliferating – and the implications for climate governance and policy could be huge.

The ‘free marketeers’ continue to take irresponsible risks, plunder the land, poison the seas, sicken whole communities, lay waste to entire regions, and pocket obscene profits.

At Copenhagen in December 2009, during the much-hyped leaders’ summit to negotiate a climate change deal, American hypocrisy met Chinese obstructionism. Americans demanded emissions reductions without a credible plan at home. According to most reports, the Chinese stripped the Copenhagen Accord of much of its early ambition, including seemingly distant commitments to 2050. The West plans carbon conditionality. The rest expect reciprocity, and some countries will be in a position to demand it.

In his seminal article The Tragedy of the Commons, Garret Hardin described a dilemma whereby individuals, acting independently and in rational pursuit of their own self-interest, will ultimately destroy shared, limited resources, even when it is accepted that this is not in anyone’s long-term interests. Today, climate campaigners see this unfolding before their eyes. But what does it mean for the study of advocacy politics?

For half a century, the Third World remained united in the face of a common threat, the influence of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union. But for least developed countries a greater enemy has now emerged, the threat to their survival posed by global warming, and they are no longer willing to subsume their demand that all the world’s polluters curb their activities beneath the imperative of maintaining the appearance of G77 unity.