In the aftermath of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, many environmentalists and world leaders alike are feeling defeated and disillusioned. However, it is little surprise that attempts to draft an international agreement with any clout result in gridlock. What the international community is facing is a classic “tragedy of the commons” problem: it is in every nation’s short-term individual best interest to emit, but, the collective result of each nation’s self-interested actions translates into a less-desirable outcome for all parties involved. And according to some, the only way to solve this tragedy is through strict management of the commons (emissions in this case) through regulatory bodies. While this may work for a pasture (Garrett Hardin’s metaphor), global emissions are decidedly more complicated; no credible international body exists with the ability to act impartially and effectively. And even if such a body did exist, their task—namely overseeing and enforcing international emissions laws—would be a regulatory nightmare.
So, are we doomed? Not necessarily; Elinor Ostrom, awarded the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Oliver E. Williamson, is decidedly more optimistic with regards to governing common resources. In her book “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,” Ostrom uses case studies to show that, in some instances, private associations have avoided the tragedy of the commons and use resources efficiently. “For Ostrom, it’s not the tragedy of the commons but the opportunity of the commons. Not only can a commons be well-governed but the rules which help to provide efficiency in resource use are also those that foster community and engagement.” (from marginalrevolution.com)
So perhaps it is time, to borrow a phrase from JFK, to “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps, with the New Year approaching, we can all resolve to do our part to lessen our impact on the environment and become more responsible global citizens, rather than waiting around for the leader’s of the world to decide for us what steps need to be taken to save the planet. Besides, it is more enjoyable and empowering to decide for ourselves the steps we can take to make a difference.
Loading ...
Thanks for this positive spin on a huge challenge. I agree that we all need to take responsibility to do what we can now (including asking our government for change).
megan – excellent – this is a key issue and should be well understood by all!
This is a very nice commentary. I like the way you incorporate both Ostrom’s and Williamson’s works on the topic. I often wonder why in some cases (e.g. chloroflourocarbons and ozone depletion) we are able to overcome the tragedy of the commons (the Montreal Protocol) and in other situations (global warming), agreement is hard to obtain (Copenhagen). I have some thoughts, but I would be interesting to hear others….
Good question….
Perhaps because CFCs were never the lifeblood of the economy as fossil fuels arguably are. Nevertheless, it is interestingly frustrating that we can arrive at a consensus on one thing which threatens the health of the planet yet remain in the “consideration phase” on another for years.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
I think you have hit it on the head. Only a small number of firms were negatively affected by the CFC ban and there seemed to be some clear alternatives on the horizon (HCFCs). Large firms were not going to disappear because of the Montreal Protocol. In this case of climate change, a lot of firms’ cost structures could be affected and there will be clear winning industries and clear losing industries. If you are a potential “loser” and see that bankruptcy may be in your future because of climate change legislation, you have a strong incentive to delay and fight change.