7 minute read
Is Climate Change the Ultimate Tragedy of the Commons? by Olivia Moore and Samantha Tancredi
By Olivia Moore (Understanding The Tragedy of the Commons), JS Law and Political Science and Samantha Tancredi (Climate Change and Accountability: A Tragedy of the Commons?), JS Law and Political Science
Advertisement
Caithfidh sé a bheith cóir a rá gur tír í Éire atá bunaithe ar phobal. Is cuid luachmhar d’ár n-oidhreacht í. Tóg an seanfhocail “Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine”, mar shampla, a thaispeánann seo dúinn go soléir. Ach é sin ráite, ní féidir linn a rá go bhfuil Éire, ná aon tír eile dá ndéarfainn é, ag déanamh machnaimh ar an gcomhairle sin – go háirithe laistigh de cheist na timpeallachta.
(It must be fair to say that Ireland is a country based on community. It is an important part of our heritage. For example, take the old Irish phrase “People live in each other’s shadows”, that we rely on each other for shelter, which shows this clearly. But, that said, we cannot claim that Ireland, nor any other country for that matter, is taking this advice – especially where it concerns the environment.)
Understanding The Tragedy of the Commons
The Tragedy of the Commons is a concept that has been making the rounds since the days of Aristotle. However, the modern application of this model, and the one that most might be familiar with, is associated primarily with Mr Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist who published a famous article on the subject in 1968. In it, he details a situation in which the rational choices of individuals, acting independently and in their own self-interest, clash with the interests and needs of the larger community. This, he argues, will inevitably result in the depletion of resources against the long-term interests of both individuals, and the group as a whole.
Breaking this down further, the commons can be defined as any shared resource to which all persons have open, free, and unrestrained access. Examples might be the atmosphere, rain forests, outer space, oceans, fisheries, and public land. Thus, the tragedy aspect of his theory occurs when individuals act solely in their own best interests, but consequently to the worst interests of the broader population.
One of the most poignant examples of this phenomenon occurs in the realm of the environment - and more specifically, in problems of pollution. Here it is not so much a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in – sewage onto land, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water, or harmful and dangerous fumes into the air. However, the system remains much the same: the calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. And since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of “fouling our own nest” – provided we behave only as independent, rational, free enterprisers acting only in our own self-interest.
Climate Change and Accountability: A Tragedy of the Commons?
With the salience of the current climate crisis pressing our everyday, the urgency of change brings in the necessity to analyze the Tragedy of the Commons in conjunction with climate change. As is previously mentioned, it is the logic of the individual to act in his or her own self interest, which drives the exploitation of open lands, or the “commons.” Drawing this metaphor to a global scale, one must view the Earth’s atmosphere as the commons of the future. While the effects of climate change are unfortunately both plentiful and catastrophic, the magnitude of the phenomenon expands when considering the intrinsic economic and humanitarian consequences.
Theory Page 6 British economist Nicholas Stern highlights this exact concept, calling global warming “the greatest market failure of all time.” In the individualist spirit imposed by unregulated markets, people left to their own devices have failed to consider the harm imposed by their actions; at a grander level, this can be seen by replacing the individuals with countries - the actions of global leaders such as the European Union, the United States, China, and more, have all contributed to the current degradation and suffering of the global commons.
In slight irony, the most popular view amongst policymakers is that climate change governance should be collective, based on international agreements that involve most nations - despite collectivist strategy ultimately failing under Hardin’s theory. Examples include the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which act as cornerstones of international activism within environmentalism. However, having such broad international legislation imposes difficulty in their enforcement and ability to hold nationals accountable; for this to be so, the agreements would have to be adopted through national policies thus ensuring the given nation abides by its own rules. If rules are broken, then there is a specific legal consequence. As seen with The Tragedy of the Commons, there is a considerable lack of accountability held to one’s own self; it is far more economically satisfying and enticing to ask others to uphold commitments and instead take advantage of a lucrative situation for individual gain. As per Hardin’s theory, in acting according to one’s own will, the entirety is ruined for the greater good. Thus, within legislation, having loose, unenforceable international agreements is not enough.
To take a specific example, we now refer back to the collective commons of Earth’s atmosphere, intrinsically linked to climate change. Playing into Hardin’s theory, atmospheric sinks for greenhouse gases act as a common-pool resource, similar to that of a fishery. These sinks have the ability to absorb pollutants, replenished by a natural process; notably, a sink, or “unit,” used by one user is not available to others, which poses an immediate challenge in governing these atmospheric sinks and constraining their usage before ultimate destruction occurs. However, to even label “who is using what” in this regard is nearly impossible as the users potentially range from cattle owners to those who operate large-scale coal-powered electricity plants to those who own a car. There is no way to exclude individuals from using these sinks, but there is also no way to singularly hold one accountable over another; thus, the possibility of tragedy emerges as an unfortunate likelihood.
Page 7 Theory Hardin even calls the atmospheric sinks the “ultimate tragedy of the commons’’ due to this discrepancy; with so many individual actors abusing them, the ruins are inevitably going to be felt by all. This tragedy is further driven by the alarming idea that users are incentivized to use these sinks as they are currently available before they are depleted - yet any use pushes the collective into a much worse position.
It is therefore proposed that environmental collectivism is only functional if firstly, all international bodies agree, and secondly, all are bound to that agreement through punitive consequences. Protocols and meetings are promising on a surface level, but clearly may not be enough to prevent the ultimate tragedy of the commons that is seemingly inevitable if the international community does not hold each other legally accountable.
It is finally worth mentioning that all hope is not lost. The alarmism with which climate change is often addressed, specifically within relation to Hardin’s theory, is valid, yet may also be ameliorated by many reasonings and hopes, one of which is coined “Malthusian mistakes.” English economist Thomus Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1789, wherein the capacity of population growth is contrasted against the growth rate of food production, which he predicts will eventually result in famine and violence. However, Malthus’s prediction did not account for the possibilities of agricultural productivity, which has since allowed for Earth’s population to reach over 7 billion. Though carrying capacity is often mentioned in environmental literature, the current global population rate is actually reducing; with a closely stagnant global population, climate change, and by extension, the commons, is better mitigated. This also diminishes great concerns associated with Malthus’s proposal, and provides promise that ultimate doom may be avoided. In this collective realm, the effort against Tragedy of the Commons may be avoided if countries are able to enforce litigation and actually hold other nations, companies, and individuals accountable.
Climate change is already on track to become the ultimate, and most destructive Tragedy of the Commons the world has seen; accountability through legal measures and national responsibility is the most viable solution to the inevitability we are trying to run away from. With universal effort underpinning the environmental movement, the tragedy before us may be avoided.
