Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you've heard of
eco-tourism; perhaps you've even been on a holiday specifically because it was
classified as 'eco'.
What you may not know, is that eco-tourism is just one little part
of something much, much bigger.
Over the past few decades 'green capitalism' become prevalent at
all levels of society. It emerged around the same time as neoliberal economic
policy in the 1970s and 80s and was built upon the same market principles.
The key idea underlying green capitalism is that environmental
degradation is a result of the undervaluation of the environment itself within
traditional markets (Castree, 2010). The reasons for this can be summarized
under the principles of the tragedy of the commons:
The Tragedy of the Commons:
Hardin's (1968) economic theory essentially discusses a common piece of land that
can be analogous for the environment as a whole. The land is shared between
members of a community for the grazing of each individual's livestock. The
dilemma he proposes is that since the animals are all individually owned, the
benefits reaped from grazing are reaped by individuals. However, the damage
done to the common by each individual's cows are shared among the community as
a whole. Since the individual benefits of grazing far outweigh the shared cost
to the land, it is economically rational in the short-run for farmers to graze
as much as possible. The issue: in the long run, the common becomes entirely
barren and the farmers are left with nothing to feed their cattle. What makes
this scenario a tragedy it occurs even when individuals are aware of what their
actions will lead to in the future; there is an incentive to use the remaining
resources before other individuals deplete them (Paavola, 2011). Individually
rational actions, do not always produce a collectively rational outcome
(Coleman, 1990)
Despite constantly being criticised for its actual applicability
to real life (this seems like a pretty common thing for economic theory and Elinor Ostrom actually won a nobel prize for her critical take on the theory),
an area in which is seems to apply quite nicely is climate change.
So then, how does this work. Well proponents of neo-liberal
strategies argue that the atmosphere can be thought of as a common, we all need
it in our carbon driven economies, but it is not individually owned by anyone.
It is essentially a sink for GHG emissions resulting from consumption and
production of goods. Climate change can then be thought of as an ultimate tragedy
of the commons since it is in each individual’s interests to profit from
exploiting the shared resource of the atmospheric carbon sink, yet the
responsibility for maintaining it at a sustainable level (whatever this level
may be) is a global burden.
This really falls into behavioral ideas of myopia again; as
humans we tend to prioritise what is immediately in front of us over the bigger
picture and more distant issues. This can specifically be thought of as selfish-actor myopia as exhibited by
this quotation from Hardin himself:
‘Each man is locked into a system that compels
him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the
destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a
society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons
brings ruin to all’ (Hardin, 1968 p.248).
This reminds me a bit of the opening monologue
to the fellowship of the ring, I wouldn’t be surprised in Hardin took some inspiration
from JRR Tolkien.
Selling Climate to Save It:
If we are therefore going to believe this idea, then the answer to
climate change (as a form of environmental degradation) needs to come from a
correction of this market issue.
In my next post I’m going to talk about the privatisation of the
‘commons’, focusing on exactly how a shared resource like the atmosphere can be
allocated to individuals.
Secret Link for LOTR fans
No comments:
Post a Comment