4 ms·

The only way to combat a Tragedy of the Commons problem is through collective action. Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other part

The only way to combat a Tragedy of the Commons problem is through collective action. Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case).

eloff 7y ago
> Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case). I fail to see your logic. If many people consume less petroleum maybe the price goes down and others consume more, but I don't see how they're going to consume more than what was the state of things in the first place. Honestly it seems like a shallow rationalization to avoid taking personal responsibility for your actions. That might sound harsh but I'm a firm believer in extreme ownership as espoused by Jocko Willink. I'm allergic to excuses and rationalizations.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  It's very simple. If Country A reduces CO2 production by closing a few factories, and Country B increases CO2 production to replace that market demand, Country A will have spent economic resources in making that change, and Country B would simply be producing what A+B produced before. It's a net negative for the world.
  - eloff 7y ago
    I see, you're talking not about unilateral personal choices, but unilateral country choices. It's not that simple, there are many unilateral choices a country can make that would not have a net negative effect. For example if you close a coal power plant in Virginia, China is not simply going to build one and sell the power to the US - there are physical limitations there. You have a valid point that a country needs to think about unintentional consequences of their decisions, something politicians are notoriously bad at, but claiming that all unilateral action is net negative is such a ludicrous strawman that I don't actually beleive that's your position on the subject.
skybrian 7y ago
How do you know there is a negative effect? I can see some people buying more because something is on sale, but that's temporary and overall a smaller market should consume less.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Because there is a cost to not using that common good and pursuing an alternative energy source.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    Even for the cheapest approach, there is still a cost to consuming more rather than less. Energy isn't free.
graeme 7y ago
The thing is, the people blaming others also tend to strongly oppose collective action solutions. Eg a carbon tax is better than individual action. And if combined with an international effort to apply it to imports, it would be even more effective. But the people in question tend to say “oh, it could never be done. Others would oppose. [let’s do nothing]”

eloff 7y ago

> Unilateral changes actually have a net negative impact because other parties simply consume more (CO2 in this case). I fail to see your logic. If many people consume less petroleum maybe the price goes down and others consume more, but I don't see how they're going to consume more than what was the state of things in the first place. Honestly it seems like a shallow rationalization to avoid taking personal responsibility for your actions. That might sound harsh but I'm a firm believer in extreme ownership as espoused by Jocko Willink. I'm allergic to excuses and rationalizations.

koheripbal 7y ago
It's very simple. If Country A reduces CO2 production by closing a few factories, and Country B increases CO2 production to replace that market demand, Country A will have spent economic resources in making that change, and Country B would simply be producing what A+B produced before. It's a net negative for the world.
- eloff 7y ago
  I see, you're talking not about unilateral personal choices, but unilateral country choices. It's not that simple, there are many unilateral choices a country can make that would not have a net negative effect. For example if you close a coal power plant in Virginia, China is not simply going to build one and sell the power to the US - there are physical limitations there. You have a valid point that a country needs to think about unintentional consequences of their decisions, something politicians are notoriously bad at, but claiming that all unilateral action is net negative is such a ludicrous strawman that I don't actually beleive that's your position on the subject.

skybrian 7y ago

How do you know there is a negative effect? I can see some people buying more because something is on sale, but that's temporary and overall a smaller market should consume less.

koheripbal 7y ago
Because there is a cost to not using that common good and pursuing an alternative energy source.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Even for the cheapest approach, there is still a cost to consuming more rather than less. Energy isn't free.

graeme 7y ago

The thing is, the people blaming others also tend to strongly oppose collective action solutions. Eg a carbon tax is better than individual action. And if combined with an international effort to apply it to imports, it would be even more effective. But the people in question tend to say “oh, it could never be done. Others would oppose. [let’s do nothing]”