Since the late 1970s, over 140 global environmental assessments (GEAs) have been completed. But are they any longer fit for purpose? Some believe not. Compelling arguments have been advanced for a new assessment paradigm, one more focussed on problem-solving than problem-identification. If translated into new assessment practices, this envisaged paradigm could prevail for the next several decades, just as the current one has since the late 1970s. In this paper, it is contended that the arguments for GEAs 2.0 are, in fact, insufficiently bold. Solutions-orientated assessments, often associated with a ‘policy turn’ by their advocates, are undoubtedly necessary. But without a ‘politics turn’ they will be profoundly insufficient: policy options would be detached from the diverse socio-economic explanations and ‘deep hermeneutics’ of value that ultimately give them meaning, especially given the very high stakes now attached to managing human impacts on a fast-changing planet. Here we make the case for GEAs 3.0, where two paradigmatic steps forward are taken at once rather than just one. The second step involves the introduction of political reasoning and structured normative debate about existential alternatives, a pre-requisite to strategic decision-making and its operational expression. Possible objections to this second step are addressed and rebutted. Even so, the case for politically-overt GEAs faces formidable difficulties of implementation. However, we consider these challenges less a sign of our undue idealism and more an indication of the urgent need to mitigate, if not overcome them. In a world of ‘wicked problems’ we need ‘wicked assessments’ adequate to them, preparatory to so-called ‘clumsy solutions’. This paper is intended to inspire more far-reaching debate about the future of GEAs and, by implication, about the roles social science and the humanities might usefully play in addressing global environmental change.

自1970年代后期以来，已经完成了140多项全球环境评估（GEA）。但是它们不再适合目标吗？有些人不相信。对于一种新的评估范式，提出了令人信服的论点，该评估范式更着重于解决问题而非识别问题。如果将其转化为新的评估方法，这种设想的范式可能会在未来几十年盛行，就像当前的范式自1970年代后期以来一样。本文认为，GEA 2.0的论点实际上不够大胆。毫无疑问，以解决方案为导向的评估通常与倡导者的“政策转向”相关。但是如果没有“政治转向”，它们将远远不够：政策选择将脱离最终赋予其含义的各种社会经济解释和“深刻的诠释学”价值，特别是考虑到现在管理快速变化的星球上的人类影响具有很高的风险。在这里，我们介绍了GEA 3.0，二向前迈出了范式的一步，而不仅仅是一个。第二步涉及对存在性替代方案进行政治推理和结构化的规范性辩论，这是战略决策及其执行表达的前提。解决并驳斥了对此第二步可能提出的反对意见。即便如此，政治上公开的GEA仍面临巨大的实施困难。但是，我们认为这些挑战不是我们过度理想主义的标志，而是更多地表明了减轻甚至缓解挑战的迫切需要。在一个“邪恶问题”的世界中，我们需要对其进行充分的“邪恶评估”，为所谓的“笨拙解决方案”做准备。本文旨在激发有关GEA未来的更深远的辩论，并暗示