Climate Change: The Tragedy of the Commons

 --by Stewart Vriesinga

Many of us have at least heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, likely as not from an all but forgotten economics class in our youth. Rightly or wrongly I thought the lesson was to show why communal property was likely to be decimated by users over-use of common resources. The example used was un-owned pastures on which the beneficiaries, acting in their own self-interest, put their livestock out to graze. Without ownership there was no oversight as to how many sheep or cattle could be pastured there, and consequently the pasture was trampled and grazed out of existence.  The land remained, but the pasture didn’t. 

Today we still have “the commons”; communal pastures may be pretty scarce these days, but our oceans, the air we breath, and the stratosphere and climate we all share are the “commons” today. They are not the private property of any individual, government, corporation, or any other entity. I thought I should revisit the lesson of The tragedy of the Commons. Full disclosure: I enlisted the help of Perplexity AI. Here is what it came up with:

 

Q:  Please explain "The Tragedy of the Commons".

A    (Perplexity AI):

 

The Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and environmental science problem where individuals have access to a shared resource and act in their own interest, at the expense of other individuals 6.This can result in overconsumption, underinvestment, and depletion of resources 5. The concept was first presented in an essay written in 1833 by British economist William Forster Lloyd, and later popularized in a 1968 article by Garrett Hardin 5.The tragedy of the commons occurs when a resource is rivalrous in consumption, non-excludable, scarce, and a common-pool resource 2. In other words, it occurs when individuals with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource 1. 

The tragedy of the commons highlights the conflict between individual and collective rationality 5. Individuals tend to make decisions based on their personal needs, regardless of the negative impact it may have on others 1. In some cases, an individual’s belief that others won’t act in the best interest of the group can lead them to justify selfish behavior 1. To prevent the tragedy of the commons, there should be some restrictions to the amount of usage, for example, property rights must be affixed 6. Exercising restraint would yield benefits for all in the long-term, as the shared resource would remain available 6.

(The numbers are clickable links to the AI's sources)

"...it occurs when individuals [or countries, or corporations] with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource." Deplete what? Our soil? Our oceans? The stratosphere? All of the above? That does indeed sound tragic! 

The thing is, there are things we can do to mitigate the damage. We know what they are. There are also reasons those things aren't being done. The problem is political. The problem is that everyone--I mean everyone, rich or poor, wants a "just transition". What constitutes a just transition depends on who you ask and on where they fit into the global scheme of things. Poor countries which have done nothing to cause climate change want compensation for damages caused by climate change--wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc.  --a polluter-pay proposition;  Low-lying and island countries want assurances that they won't be submerged by rising sea levels; Oil workers want new green jobs of equal pay in the new green economy. (Anything less than that would not be construed as a just transition); oil producing countries want to keep producing oil;  etc . It is not surprising that after 27 COP summits the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is unable to come to a consensus. The United Nations, under whose auspices ICPP falls, is the closest thing we have to a world government, and has been sounding the alarm ever more shrilly with increasing frequency, but to no avail. CO2 emissions continue to rise. 

Given the general consensus on the part of COP participants that climate change represents a major threat to all life forms on the planet, one might assume that arriving at a consensus on what to do about it should not be that difficult. Not so. The decision-makers, most of them elected, must take into account how their constituents will respond to whatever they agree to at a COP summit. As such they are unlikely to commit to anything that would hinder their prospects in the next election. For example, here in Canada asking constituents to hand over the keys to their internal combustion vehicles, or to stop flying, is a non-starter. Not even the Green Party would go there. In the case of the former the way of life of most Canadians remains reliant on internal combustion vehicles. In the case of the latter, the tourism industry and airlines, not to mention much of the general public, would find such commitments totally unacceptable. What would be acceptable? Enter net zero emissions. 

The genius of net zero targets, usually set for some time well after the next election, is that it allows oil-exporting countries to keep right on exporting oil while still meeting their targets. This is achieved by passing responsibility for emissions from exported fossil fuels on to the end consumer countries. The only emissions oil-exporting countries are responsible for are those that occur on the exporters' own soil. These can be off-set through the acquisition of carbon credits--protected forests, wetlands, carbon capture technology, a reduction in local emissions, etc. This policy was agreed upon, so oil-producing countries are under no obligation to stop extracting and exporting fossil fuels. This may do little to protect the commons--to reduce global emissions, but allows exporting countries to keep right on extracting and exporting. These net zero targets also go a long way toward mollifying increasingly alarmed constituents who are living and/or witnessing the ravages of climate change. Similarly the construction of electric vehicle and battery plants holds out the hope that car-owners can continue to drive uninterrupted, while simultaneously protecting the environment. 

Another way of meeting emission targets is by excluding CO2 emissions from the total. This year--2023--the emissions from Canada's wildfires was more than twice the amount resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Our carbon sinks are turning into carbon sources. The decision to exclude these emissions from the total makes some sense because the increase in frequency, duration, intensity and devastation caused by wildfires cannot be attributed to Canada's emissions alone. Nevertheless they are part of the global total, and as such will not be without consequences. 

Whether or not a consensus on the part of all COP participants is necessary is somewhat debatable. While all countries are suffering the consequences of climate change, only a few of them are responsible for the lion's share of emissions. Once again I will enlist the help of Perplexity AI to make my point. (For those of you who are skeptical about the reliability of the AI answers, I encourage you to click on the AI sources--the numbers--and to do your own independent research.) Here is what Perplexity came up with:

Q:  How many countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions? Which countries are the least responsible?

A    (Perplexity AI):

According to the search results, a few countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions. The US and EU have caused the most GHG emissions historically, with a combined total of 37% cumulative emissions globally 2,  China, the US, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan were the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters in 2014 5.  However, when looking at historical emissions per capita, the US and Russia have the highest per capita emissions, while India's per capita emissions are the lowest 2.  

On the other hand, many of the world's poorest countries are the least polluting but the most climate-vulnerable 3.  The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) were estimated to account for about 1.1% of total world CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and industrial processes in 2019 6.  Even in per capita terms, LDCs' CO2 emissions barely reach 9% of the world's average 6.

It seems that an agreement among those few worst polluting countries would go a long way toward engendering an appropriate response to the problem. But that is not going to happen until they are more focused on protecting the environment than they are on protecting their respective economies. There is also the matter of how influential oil industry lobbyists are at these COP summits; they far outnumber many governmental delegations. 

So the question remains: Can we prevent the tragedy of our commons--our water, land, and stratosphere--from occurring? Or will what remains of the ecosphere go the way of the dodo bird? The answer is entirely contingent on whether or not the decision-makers stop pursuing their own national, corporate, or individual self-interest, thereby destroying the hand that feeds us; or instead seek and implement solutions that will respect and safeguard all of humanity along with the other lifeforms with which we share this planet.  Undoubtedly the planet will survive, but without radical change in priorities on the part of the decision-makers, most life-forms, including humans, will not survive this current tragedy of the commons.

The Great Net Zero Green-Washing Deception: A Path to Oblivion

"Net Zero" has become the new buzzword for setting emission targets. Countries and corporations alike have set net zero emission targets to convince us that they are "doing their part" to reduce global emissions. But what is net zero exactly? Are they really doing their part? What, exactly, is the difference between net zero and zero emissions? Instead of reducing emissions to zero, with net zero one can buy a license to emit through the purchase of carbon offsets. But this leads us to the next question: What are carbon offsets?

Carbon offsets are devices that capture and sequester carbon. Some offsets are biological, some are technological. The former includes things like forests, wetlands, peat reserves, etc. These can be purchased and protected, locally or abroad, or created through reforestation and reclaiming of wetlands etc. 

Technological carbon offsets are ways of capturing carbon at the source of emission, or removing it from the atmosphere. The latter has not yet been achieved on a large scale, but is being invested in by corporations and countries on the assumption that they can developed in time for them to meet their net net zero emission targets. Theoretically captured carbon must somehow be sequestered in a way that it cannot be re-released into the atmosphere. This is usually done using deep underground deposits, often utilizing already depleted oil wells. 

The main problem with net zero emission targets is that they do little to discourage global consumption of fossil fuels; they only provide incentives to reduce those emissions emitted in a particular country or by a particular corporation. Fossil fuels extraction intended for export markets can continue unabated provided they exporters are, or assumed will be in possession of enough carbon offsets to offset emissions that occur as a result of extraction. This allows a corporation or country to meet its emission targets while continuing to extract fossil fuels for export, because it disregards emissions that occur after export. Once the fuels are out of their domain--once they have been exported to other end users--it is no longer the extractor's responsibility; it is the purchasers who must account for those emissions. Net zero emissions are extremely attractive to fossil fuel exporting countries and corporations. Exxon Mobile is one example of this: 

The plant’s main function is to process natural gas from a nearby deposit. But in order to purify and sell the gas, Exxon must first strip out carbon dioxide, which comprises about two-thirds of the mix of gases extracted from nearby wells.

The company found a revenue stream for this otherwise useless, climate-warming byproduct: It began capturing the CO2 and selling it to other companies, which injected it into depleted oil fields to help produce more oil.

--Inside Climate News

Oil companies have found a way, not only to meet their net zero emission targets, but to make a handsome profit while they're at it by cashing in on generous government subsidies for emission reductions,  while also selling the carbon they've captured to smaller companies who pump it into depleted wells to extract even more oil! This double-dipping actually increases global fossil fuel consumption rather than reducing it.  

The oil industry is not the only one to use deceptive accounting methods. Banks, for instance, can set a few solar panels on the roof and maybe hook up a couple of other alternative energy sources, and then claim to be carbon neutral, while their huge loans to fossil fuel industries continue uninterrupted. Net zero targets take the onus for emission reductions off of the fossil fuel and other industries in possession of carbon offsets, and externalizes  responsibility for these emissions to countries who import fossil fuels, in much the same way that industry is outsourced to overseas supply chains to reduce labour costs, avoid taxes, worker protection laws, and local environmental standards, etc. 

The problem with this nationalistic approach is that global warming is a global phenomenon. Corporations and nation states externalizing the cost of carbon emissions is not going to reduce global emissions. We all live on the same planet. And countries that must import fossil fuels and sell off their own carbon offsets--forests, wetlands, etc.-- are usually less able to bear the costs of transitioning to cleaner renewable energy than the countries they import the fuel from. Similarly, large oil producers are selling off their most carbon intensive operations to smaller wholly-owned private operators who do not trade on the stock market and are therefore not subjected to same scrutiny and regulations. Furthermore, divesting themselves of carbon intensive holdings qualifies these large global operators for huge government subsidies as a reward for "reducing" their carbon emissions:

 

Exxon Touts Carbon Capture as a Climate Fix, but Uses It to Maximize Profit and Keep Oil Flowing

The company sells the CO2 to other companies that use it to revive depleted oil fields and has relentlessly fought EPA oversight of the practice.

In 2008, when concerns about climate change led Congress to pass a tax credit meant to encourage companies to capture and store carbon dioxide, Exxon was presented with another way to make money from the technology. The massive amounts of carbon dioxide captured at its Wyoming facility put the oil and gas giant in a position to claim more credits under the tax break than any other company.

In the ensuing years, Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits, according to estimates based on publicly available data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a global think tank that tracks the technology.

--Inside Climate News

So, as we can see, Net Zero targets are a clever and useful way of accounting for, or, more precisely, not accounting for carbon emissions. Consequently those who want to appear serious about reducing their carbon emissions may in reality be doing little if anything at all to reduce global emissions. Are there better ways of measuring, accounting for, and reducing fossil fuel emissions? Ways of more accurately measuring a country's global carbon footprint and setting emissions targets accordingly? Yes, there certainly are!

A big part of the problem is that instead of recognizing and naming climate change as a cost of production, the cost has been externalized. Wealthy and fossil fuel producing nations are using net zero targets, not as a way of reducing global emissions, but rather transferring responsibility for existing emissions onto poorer countries and pretending that this somehow will reduce global emissions. It won't. Just as offshoring production is used to reduce the cost of labour, so too offshoring responsibility for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel producers to fossil fuel consumers obfuscates the true cost of extraction. The former will reduce the cost of labour for production, while the latter will reduce the cost of fossil fuel extraction by transferring responsibility for emissions from sellers to buyers. Offshoring production costs does not reduce the global amount of labour required to produce a commodity; it may increase it if reduced labour costs forestall automation. So too, offshoring fossil fuel extraction and consumption costs to end consumers does not reduce the total amount of global emissions. The consequences this faulty net zero accounting are largely borne by those least responsible for CO2 emissions, and those least able to afford it. By off-loading responsibility for emissions onto those least able to afford it, instead of reducing global emissions net zero targets actually increase emissions. 

Not only does this practice increase emissions; they constitute a grave injustice to those who suffer the consequences of global warming and climate change. If the car we are driving jumps the curb and kills innocent pedestrians we expect the driver to take responsibility, and insofar as compensation for damages the driver is liable. Why should it be any different for for the drivers of CO2 emissions?