A paper in Nature that has attracted some attention this week reminds me that I've been meaning to write about why it is important for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, even though they represent only a few percent of the total world emissions. You sometimes hear critics of devoting resources to fight climate change say that reducing our emissions is not going to make any difference. However, "doing our part" to reduce emissions isn't like voting, obeying the speed limit, or playing a team sport. These examples are missing a crucial dynamic, that of competition and of a limited, public resource.
The problem of climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is an example of a tragedy of the commons. The image this term is meant to evoke is that of pastoral villagers, each with cows that graze on a shared grassy commons. What one villager's cows eat is lost to the others so every villager is tempted to use up the commons as quickly as possible. As for climate change, we all pay when someone uses the atmosphere (the commons) as a 'free' dumping ground. When a single person pays to reduce emissions, everybody else benefits. Sensible individuals might conclude that the best thing to do is to take advantage of the free dumping ground (burn fossil fuels) as much as possible. But if everybody were to think that way, everybody would lose in the end.
The way out of such a tragedy is cooperation. In the case of greenhouse gases, this might take the form of an agreement between all parties to limit emissions, or to pay for emissions. It is very important in this dynamic that everybody is seen by others to be cooperating. Nobody should be seen as 'getting ahead' by cheating because then everybody else would be encouraged to do the same and cooperation would break down.
This point is the key to why Canada must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has one of the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Cooperation can't happen when a few people are taking advantage of the commons a lot more than others. Cooperation is fostered by people providing moral leadership. In this respect the small, the weak, or the small-in-number have always, historically, had opportunities to lead.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Any agreement that does not include all countries is flawed. For instance the oil sands in Canada is one of the major producers and we are responsible because it lies in Canada.
But...
What if we were to sell the oil sands land to China and lease it back for 500 years. The co2 would then belong to China and because they are exempt the same amount of co2 could be produced but now no one is responsible.
China is now the largest producer of co2 in the world at about 25%. Canada is less than 2%.
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for your comment. It might surprise you to know that China and India have both signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. The Kyoto Protocol pretty much includes all countries, except for the United States. The agreement is that, to be fair, the rich developed countries have to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are the ones who have profited from the present elevated levels of CO2 that have accumulated in the atmosphere.
China and India may have ratified the accord but they are exempt from having to do anything. Of all the countries that signed the accord Canada was the one that actually had to do the most. We got sold down the river by a prime minister who wanted to be part of the group. Very poor negotiating skills.
Kevin,
As of the year 2000 Canada emitted about 24 tonnes of CO2 per person per year whereas China emitted about 4 tonnes per person per year and India about 2 tonnes. If we want to have global cooperation, we have to agree on what's fair. Don't you think that 'fair' might be somewhere in-between these two sets of numbers?
By the way, just curious, but I was wondering if you accept the premise that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced?
Post a Comment