4 ms·
Game Theory can bring some understanding here: the situation is similar to the Prisoner's dilemma [1]. If no one reduces emissions, everyone will suffer high co
by krcz 7y ago
Game Theory can bring some understanding here: the situation is similar to the Prisoner's dilemma [1]. If no one reduces emissions, everyone will suffer high costs. If everyone reduces emissions, no additional costs appear. But if everyone but you reduces emissions, your single decision doesn't change the outcome that much - so the optimal strategy is not to reduce emissions and hope others still do.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
- jmull 7y agoThe prisoner’s dilemma isn’t a good fit here. The problem is, it assumes the prisoners can’t talk to each other and don’t have an ongoing relationship beyond the one transaction. In fact, in general, social issues — from the personal level in up to global level - rarely, if ever, restrict he flow of information like that.”
- shkkmo 7y agoYes, the correct game theory analogy would be the classic "tragedy of the commons" where each player's behavior places a small cost on everyone but produces a larger benefit for themselves. When every player chooses to over utilize the commons, overall rewards decrease significantly.
- dleslie 7y agoAnother option is to continue producing fossil fuels for the world markets, and using the revenue to protect yourself from the disaster you helped create. This model is fairly popular with Tories in Canada.