The Тragedy of the Climate Change ‘Commons’
By: Ross Carter-Brown
Tags: Climate Change, Sustainability, Bias, Psychology

Climate & Sustainability

Climate change is perhaps the most widely-discussed topic of the 21st century. Sadly, the devastation to our planet is increasingly clear. The ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and not enough is being done to prevent further damage.

The Australian ‘Black Summer’ of 2019/20 serves as a stark demonstration of the impact that climate change can have. Fires are a natural part of the Australian weather cycle, but the 2019/20 fire season was far more severe than usual. During the ‘Black Summer’, temperatures in Australia were 1.52 °C above average; 2019 was one of the hottest years on record for the country. It’s easy to see that global warming is among the most significant factors for the increased intensity and frequency of forest fires. The 2019/20 season burnt an estimated 186,000 square kilometres of land, caused at least 34 direct and 445 indirect deaths, and destroyed over 5,900 buildings.

The Severe Impacts and Reasons of Climate Change

Climate scientists have been warning us about global climate change for decades, and its realities are now undeniable. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which consists of more than 1300 scientists from different countries, predicts that these changes are likely to be significant and increase over time. Moreover, the IPCC forecasts a temperature rise of 1.4 to 5.5 °C (2.5 to 10 °F) over the next century.

The future impact of this temperature rise is terrifying. According to some models, natural events such as hurricanes, droughts, and heatwaves are likely to become much more intense. Areas like the Arctic are predicted to become ice-free, resulting in sea levels rising between 30 and 240cm (1–8ft) by 2100. In short, climate change poses perhaps the most significant threat to our way of life and future.

So, who is to blame for the crisis we now face? Which elements demand the most attention? While the myriad factors influencing climate change are multi-faceted and diverse, it would be naïve to overlook the most significant contributor — human activity. Broadly speaking, climate change is influenced by two factors, one is natural and the other is anthropogenic. The latter describes the effects of human activity.

The natural causes of climate change include volcanic eruptions, solar radiation, and changes to the Earth’s orbit. While it can be tempting to cite these natural factors as evidence that global warming is out of our hands, anthropogenic factors are accelerating the process at a rate that could prove fatal. Human activity is driving the climate out of control.

Data shows that although some changes to the climate occurred before the 20th century, the mid-20th century is where we see these changes accelerate most rapidly. The industrial revolution and its consequences for our planet are increasingly apparent.

“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. — Garrett Hardin

What’s more, altering the natural influences on climate change would be a far greater task than changing human activity. So why then has climate policy at large failed to adequately address the situation? It’s no secret that the threat of global warming is very real, so why haven’t governments and citizens of the world risen to the task? Unfortunately, the status quo has, thus far, reigned supreme.

This article submits that climate change has become a ‘tragedy of the commons’. In the following sections, we will explore this concept and what it means for the future.

Iceland, Melting Ice Sheets. Image by Gabriel Kuettel on Pexels

What Does ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ Mean?

The ‘tragedy of the commons’ is a widely-used concept in economics that describes a situation where a shared resource is exploited to exhaustion. When no single party owns a resource, each individual does their best to exploit it before someone else gets there first. In effect, it’s a race to use, abuse, and exhaust the resource. In this way, a common good can be spoiled through collective action.

The concept was first introduced in 1833 by the British economic writer William Forster Lloyd. The term ‘tragedy of the commons’ was later popularised by American ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. While describing the concept, Lloyd introduced a hypothetical example in which he asked: “what would happen if every shepherd, acting in their own self-interest, allowed their flock to graze on the common field?”

In contemporary economics, ‘commons’ refers to any resource which is shared, unregulated and universally accessible. This could be oceans, rivers, ocean fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator.

Within the context of this article, our atmosphere can be considered a ‘commons’. We all have access to it, have a right to enjoy it, but are not individually responsible for its maintenance or health. This shared, and therefore lost, responsibility is a monumental factor in the global climate crisis. Thus, global society is facing ‘the tragedy of the climate change commons’.

The smoke plume of Australian bushfires viewed from International Space Station, 3 January, 2020

The ‘Tragedy of the Climate Change Commons’

Scientists and engineers from around the world monitor the Earth’s climate and weather using several observational systems like satellites, thermometers, and weather balloons. They have collected a huge amount of evidence that the global climate is changing. According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activity. Humanity impacts climate change in several ways, but the most devastating factors are deforestation, burning fossil fuels, and pollution.

Between 15–18 million hectares of forest are destroyed each year, the main driver of which remains agricultural expansion. 40% of tropical deforestation that took place between 2000–2010 was used for large-scale commercial agriculture. 30% was for local subsistence agriculture. Other causes of deforestation include the need for building materials and fuel, as well as the clearance of land for use by livestock and crops.

Tropical and subtropical forests suffer more severely from deforestation. One of the greatest victims of this devastating activity is the Amazon rainforest. An area the size of a football pitch is cleared from it every minute, with the majority of the cleared land being used for agricultural use such as the rearing of cattle. This means that forests are also being cut using the slash-and-burn method that involves not only cutting the trees, but also burning the local flora. This contributes far more significantly to wildfires.

2020 Brazil rainforest wildfires. Large smoke plumes are another indicator of deforestation fires. Image was taken by NASA’s Aqua satellite on August 1, 2020.

Another critical factor is the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting pollution. The exploitation of our natural resources for fuel has a severe impact on the global climate. Data shows that climate change since the mid-20th century has been caused mainly by the greenhouse effect. This effect, largely exacerbated by human activity, traps the sun’s rays within our atmosphere, warming the Earth’s surface significantly. Human industrial activities produce heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide that worsen the natural greenhouse effect and thus contribute to global warming. Measurements of carbon dioxide from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 parts per million (ppm) in 1960, to passing the 400 ppm milestone on May 9, 2013. The current observed amount of carbon dioxide exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.

Scientists have already predicted the severe impacts these changes may cause to our planet in the future. This is why there is so much concern within the scientific community that not enough is being done. The ‘tragedy of the commons’ sees a world that is being eaten alive by culprits who refuse to be the first to stop gorging.

The Way We Harm Our Planet Doesn’t have a Direct Impact on Us

When launching a project, business idea, or something else important, it’s entirely reasonable to assess the potential risks. If no immediate damage is predicted, why wouldn’t you continue? The issue is that in the context of climate change, our individual actions are perceived as inconsequential; even larger activities don’t necessarily yield negative results straight away. The immediate effect of our activity isn’t always perceptible.

In fact, many may outlive the more severe consequences of climate change. Perhaps true tragedy will strike in another 40 years, when many of us are no longer around. In other words, not everyone has to reap what they sow.

People make “smart” individual decisions that end up being “dumb” for all.

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm).

Source: Kenneth E. Kunkel, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites — NC

The Role of Attribution Bias

Attribution bias is a concept in psychology describing the tendency for people to attribute the behaviour of others to their internal characteristics, while describing their own behaviour in relation to their circumstances. It is particularly relevant when discussing climate change inactivity. People may treat their own climate inactivity with less scrutiny than the behaviour of others.

The following anecdote demonstrates this bias in effect. During climate protests, a protest leader gives a rousing speech on the importance of individual responsibility. They describe how crucial it is that every citizen takes responsibility and stops littering, polluting, and harming the planet. One protester in the crowd is particularly passionate. They clap and cheer in agreement throughout the speech. Once the group begins to disperse, this individual looks around for a place to throw their half-empty water bottle. After finding no suitable bin, they toss the bottle on the ground and shrug. Here we see the attribution bias in full effect. This protestor was more than willing to criticise the behaviour of others while remaining unable to identify those same faults in their own behaviour.

If this individual were to see someone else dropping a water bottle, their response may well have been to criticise them. This article is written, in part, to suggest that this anecdote is one of billions happening across the world. Generally, people readily acknowledge that something must be done, but seem unable to recognise that their behaviour is also at fault.

The Bystander Effect — One Other Reason for Inaction

The bystander effect is another critical factor at play. Picture someone being mugged in broad daylight in a crowded street. It may seem reasonable to assume that the attacker will soon be apprehended by the multiple witnesses of the event. Unfortunately, the bystander effect dictates that the more people who share responsibility for action, the less likely it is that anyone steps up to the plate.

This unfortunate effect also effects global climate change efforts. If everyone is responsible for recycling, picking up litter, and everything in between, then no one is. Once a precedent becomes established, it is much harder to make meaningful change possible. The ‘tragedy of the commons’ means that the status quo is one of environmental destruction.

Governments as Bystanders

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of this problem is the inaction of governments. During the last season of Australian bushfires, many leading scientists criticised the government for not taking any serious action against global warming and climate change. They mentioned that these catastrophic fires should have been a “wake-up call” for the government.

“They’re burying their heads in the sand while the world is literally burning around them and that’s the scary thing. It’s only going to get worse.” — Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate scientist “There needs to be increased attention on the impact of climate change and it’s relationship with fire and how that threatens humans as well as nature and the environment.” — Euan Ritchie, a wildlife ecologist at Deakin University

Sadly, this was not the case; any serious actions concerning climate change are yet to be taken. Governments tend to prioritise the economy over everything else. Curbing climate change means reducing the use of available resources and risking a decrease in economic output. Most governments acknowledge that something needs to be done, but none of them want to be the first to disadvantage themselves. The global economy is characterised by competition. That’s the essence of ‘the tragedy of the commons’; unless 100% of governments and a majority of their populations take action, no one will.

How Sensitive is New Zealand to Climate Change?

New Zealand is also facing the consequences of climate change thanks largely to its geographic features. To understand how climate change influences, or may influence, the country, it’s necessary to introduce the key aspects of its society, geography and ecology that are at risk.

As an island nation, New Zealand is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. The melting ice caps, rising seas, and warmer temperatures also pose the risk of a change in local water chemistry. This could cause significant damage the country’s rich marine biodiversity. New Zealand benefits greatly from its fishing, aquaculture, marine recreation, and iconic wildlife which makes the threat of climate change particularly terrifying.

The New Zealand population is spread mostly across its coasts and floodplains. The consequences of rising sea levels in this context are obvious. Natural disasters like flooding are already frequent in the country. Over the coming years, many citizens are likely to be displaced. The central areas of the island will have to be repurposed as living spaces. Heritage sites across the country are at risk of being abandoned. It should come as no surprise that these changes could prove devastating to the nation’s economy.

The streets of the North Island town of Edgecumbe in New Zealand, flooded, April 6, 2017. Image Source: voanews.com

One of the most severe consequences of climate change would be the contamination of clean drinking water. Access to freshwater forms a cornerstone of New Zealand’s economy; the looming water crisis could prove devastating. Decreased rainfall, increased droughts, more frequent wildfires, and unprecedented water demand could wreak havoc on the country.

New Zealand’s unique ecosystems are also exposed to danger. There are more than 50,000 endemic species across the island. They are unique to New Zealand and cannot be found elsewhere in the world. Because of the expected climate dangers, these species are at risk of displacement.

The risks outlined above are far from exhaustive; climate change could transform everyday life for many citizens.

What Can We Do?

In recent years, the narrative has shifted from one of prevention to mitigation. Humanity has already set the wheels of climate catastrophe in motion; it’s our job now to slow it down. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to linger for more than a century. If we were to stop all harmful activities today, we would still face significant challenges. The good news is that if the global effort improves, a significant proportion of the damage can be mitigated.

Alongside mitigating changes must also be policy framed around adaptation. Adaptation here refers to adapting to changes that are already too late to stop. Without both mitigation and adaptation, the outlook is bleak.

So governments, first of all, should take steps to minimise the number of greenhouse gasses that are released by human activity. Furthermore, radical action must be taken to transform our approach to energy production and global consumption.

But along with these actions, each individual should also take responsibility and care for the planet. People must realise that while their decisions appear “smart” today, they may prove “dumb” for all of humanity in the future. Radical change is hard, but everyone on Earth must make difficult, inconvenient choices for the good of our collective future. It’s easy to see the actions of an individual as inconsequential. The actions of 7 billion individuals, though, will forge our path out of the ‘tragedy of the commons’.