What sticks in my head the most is how relevant each of the three “complexity parameters” are to the climate debates :

1) Systemic complexity, whereby cause and effect are far apart in space and time (the generational issue in climate change)

2) Social complexity, whereby each actor has a fundamentally different worldview and perspective (developed vs developing nations, anyone?) 

3) Generative complexity, whereby we are dealing with situations that have never occurred before (when was the last time we had to put together a truly global, multilateral, mutually acceptable, binding agreement on anything?)

Adam’s approach to his work as a facilitator rests on the thesis that to attain a successful outcome, you basically need two things: power and love. Love, defined as “regard for others”, and power, as defined by the “drive of all things living to realize themselves”.  To some degree, we are seeing both love and power demonstrated at the summit, which is good news.

What is not so good is that the premise of stakeholder directed problem solving requires sufficient time to address both the complexity of the problem and do it in a way that takes the power/love approach.

And time is indeed in short supply.