Various events and bits of work have got me thinking about complexity. Why do we often love the details when they're least helpful, then seek out simple answers when comprehensiveness is most needed?

Two quick examples.

Free software is generally available free of charge, a nice side benefit of the low costs of distribution combined with the freedom to share copies. Even at the launch of the National Open Centre, talking to people in good positions to understand the complexity of decisions regarding IT infrastructures, I hear arguments like "free software has a lower TCO because there aren't licensing costs". Those savings can be significant, but no responsible person or organisation is going to base their decision on such a factor, especially in smaller organisations where it becomes relatively minor. Free software advocates are best off talking about freedom -- how the free licensing puts you in control of your systems, how it frees you from vendor and format lock-in, and how you can work with and participate in the communities to meet your needs rather than waiting for the next release cycle to come round.

This big idea, this framework, sets the conditions for a healthy market that is in equal parts competitive and cooperative, and delivers the specific details that are attractive to people. It often means lower costs, more flexibility and better technology.

Another example - I've been working recently on BioRegional's response to the Building greener homes consultation. To tackle the ecological footprint of new homes we need to look at their place in the regional and national ecological context. How do they relate to existing housing stock that can be retrofitted, and to commercial and other building stock? How can planning and building regulations go beyond the building fabric to address lifestyle issues such as personal transport, thereby amplifying the effect of building fabric improvements? These details are lost because the government has succumbed to worthy but narrow-sighted lobbying from certain green groups in favour of decentralised energy. So the consultation exalts on-site energy generation, and suggests we deal with energy use in new homes in isolation.

A big idea - regional and national ecological footprint strategies - could provide the framework to tackle the carbon footprint of new homes most effectively. For example, if on-site energy generation isn't feasible, then the planning department should look to fit its energy needs within the local/regional energy strategy, rather than forcing developers into the "all or nothing" game that the consultation could lead to.

Both cases make me think that people are really quite good at adopting the right solutions when the questions are framed correctly. Get the big picture right, with all the detailed analysis and synthesis required, then design markets and through smart regulations. The rest will follow, as competitive and cooperative approaches emerge organically.

Radical libertarians would have us believe that a completely unfettered market can deliver solutions, which is of course complete hogwash, any applied economist will tell you as much. Mainstream politicians love to tout technology as the saviour to our problems without any real evidence, whilst some deep greens fail to account for its potential. At the Reith Lecture tonight Jeffrey Sachs talked a great deal about technology delivering solutions to climate change that would cost less than 1% of the global economy -- hardly realistic! We are stuck with politicians, academics, NGOs and all the rest advocating details in absence of a framework, complexity without coherence.