Transcript Player 1

faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
‘Climate change is a simple
problem with a simple solution’
Sustainability Myth Busters 2016
Philosophy
12 September 2016
Stijn Neuteleers
1
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
What is the problem?
› Major environmental problems:
 Climate change
 Biodiversity loss
 Ocean acidification
2
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
3
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
4
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
5
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
6
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
7
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
8
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 |
Why so difficult?
› Why so difficult, wicked, sticky, complex, …?
› Why do we not just deal with it?
› Basically simple: emit less carbon, protect
habitats, etc.
› ‘Structural problems’: how the situation is
structured makes us behaving in that way
› Metaphor of the ‘perfect moral storm’
9
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 10
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 11
› Main idea: different structural problems are
interwoven and reinforcing each other
‘The three problems (or “storms”) are all obstacles to our
ability to behave ethically. Like the Andrea Gail, we are
beset by forces that are likely at least to throw us off
course, and may even sink us into the bargain’ (p.7)
› Interwoven collective-action problems
 Interpersonal and international
 Intergenerational
 Intrapersonal
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 12
The tragedy of the commons
› Hardin (1968)
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 13
Tragedy – stage 1: the
commons
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 14
Tragedy – stage 2: maximising
utility
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 15
Tragedy – stage 3: ‘ruin to all’
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 16
Underlying mechanisme: PD
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 17
Example beach
› Picknick on the beach
› Two options:
 Clean up your mess (effort)
 Leave mess (no effort)
› Others have same two options
› Result depends on choices others
 Optimal: everyone cleans up (reward: +2)
 Worse: no one cleans up (punishment: -1)
 Temptation: everyone except me (+3)
 Fear: I alone clean up (sucker: -4)
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 18
Example: beach
Player 2 (other)
(player 1, player 2)
Clean up
Player 1 (me)
Leave mess
Clean up
Leave mess
2,2
(reward)
-4,3
(sucker)
3,-4
(temptation)
-1,-1
(punishment)
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 19
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 20
Example beach
› Dominant strategy: whatever the other player
does, choose ‘polluting’
› Two motives:
 Temptation of extra benefit (free-riding)
 Fear of being the only one sacrificing
› Concerns free, fully-informed choices (!):
nonetheless choosing collectively bad outcome
› Examples: car-driving and carbon; fishermen
and fish stocks; antibiotics and resistent
bacteria
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 21
› ‘Tragedy’ of the commons: not so much the
outcome but the inevitableness
‘Therein is the tragedy. 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’
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 22
The tragedy: when?
Private goods:
1. Possible to exclude consumers (excludability)
2. Extra consumption has additional cost (rivalness)
E.g. bread, car, hairdresser
Public goods
1. Not possible or very difficult to exclude consumers (nonexcludability)
2. Extra consumers no extra cost (non-rivalness)
E.g. lighthouse, army, dikes, public roads, fire department
Crucial is non-excludability: allows free-riding and excludes creation
markets
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 23
The tragedy: when?
Third category
Common pool resources (cf. ‘The Commons’):
1. Difficult to exclude users (non-excludable)
2. Consumption decreases availablity (after certain level) for others
(rivalness)
- E.g. fisheries, air quality, biodiversity, ground water (often already
existing goods)
- Crucial is depletable: leads to tragic outcome
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 24
The tragedy: solutions
Two types solutions
- Creation market: privatisation
- E.g. enclosure
- Government ‘mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon’
- Legal regulations
- Financial sanctions and incentives
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 25
The tragedy: solutions
• Two standard solutions: market and government
• Something in common: both in need of an external
actor
• But often an internal solution possible: un-historical
example of Gardin
• Self-governance of the commons (cf. Elinor Ostrom)
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 26
But …
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 27
Cost distribution
› Characteristic of common examples:
 Benefitting and suffering for same group
› Cost distribution:
 Benefits and costs for different groups
 No incentive from within the group
› Solutions:
 Difficult to have self-governance
 Exceptionally: market (Coase, if no
transaction costs)
 Government
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 28
But …
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 29
Global problems
› Many environmental problems:
 Genuine global problems: climate change,
biodiversity loss
› Global common interest:
 Our Common Future (1987)
› Genuinely ‘common’?
 Variation impact
- geography
- wealth
 Variation in responsibilities
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 30
› Variation of impact and responsibilities
› Very strong case of cost distribution
› Main solution is state:
 BUT no global state
 Every proposal has to find support from the
bottom-up: common interests combined with
sense of justice
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 31
But …
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 32
Intergenerational storm
› Many environmental problems also long-term
consequences: hundreds or thousands year
 Climate change: much of current emissions
will stay for centuries in atmosphere
 High-level radioactive waste: thousands to
millions of years
 Species extinction: for all future lost
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 33
Intergenerational storm
Generation B
Generation A

Climate policy
BAU
Climate policy
2,2
-3,4
BAU
4,-3
-1,-1
In all generations’ interest to work
together (cf. commons problem): every
generation benefits from cooperation of
generations
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 34
Intergenerational storm

BUT: does not apply for first generation
- Whether other generations cooperate does
not affect first generation
- Incentives only depend on own choices and
not on choices other generations
- All theoretical solutions fall away: not
possible to ensure cooperation
(communication, punishment, making
cooperation visible)
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 35
Intergenerational storm
- Cooperation not only difficult in practice, but
impossible in principle (no reciprocity possible)
- Solution depends on other-regarding motives
(ethics, altruism)
- Reality confirms: limited action in climate
change seems aimed at limiting damage for this
generation
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 36
Intergenerational storm +
› Problem of moral motivation
 Accepting a moral rule
 Acting according a moral rule
› Moral motivations, non-moral motivations &
quasi-moral motivations (sympathy for others)
› Special motivation problem of future
generations
 No real image of future people
 Uncertainty: from science, about technical
solutions, about future cooperation
› Solution: value-based politics?
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 37
So far
› Problem type PD
 Solutions: state, market & self-organised
› Problem of cost distribution
 Solution: state
› Problem of global cost distribution
 Solution: global cooperation
› Problem of intergenerational cost distribution
 No cooperation through reciprocity; altruism
› Special problem of intergenerational moral
motivation
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 38
But …
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 39
› Suppose we have sympathy, strong sense of
justice, shared values, …
› Intrapersonal conflicts: procrastination
 E.g. writing book/thesis, smoking
› Conflict
 Global preferences (what we really want in
the long run)
 Preferences revealed in choices
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 40
› Ressembles collective-action problem
› Free-riding on future self
Future self
Current self
Writing
Looking TV
Writing
Looking TV
2,2
-4 (3)
3 (-4)
-1,-1
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 41
Puzzle of the self-torturer
Device with electroshocks: 0-1000; +1 to tiny to
experience; high settings very painful
 Start setting: 0
 Each week: period of experimentation
 Each week choice
- ‘do nothing’
- ‘+1=$10.000’ (but never retreat)
› Puzzle:
 Every week he tends to advance
 Certain moment happy to return all money for
keeping off pain

faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 42
› Crucial:
 Individually negligible
 Cumulative disastrous
 E.g. smoking
› No optimal solution: when to stop?
 Stopping at 50 results in $500.000, but why
not stop at 51?
› Applies also to collective level!
 E.g. one more year high productionconsumption versus carcinogenic
environment
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 43
› Solutions for procrastination:
 Clarify intentions (what, when, how)
 External constraints and incentives
 Dummy goals
 Self-imposed rewards and sanctions
 …
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 44
But …
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 45
› However, second-order procrastination
 Procrastinate implementing solutions
 For difficult decisions: costs are high and
solution vague (no bright line vs. quit smoking)
› Vagueness and high costs are very typical of the
big environmental problems of today: climate
change, biodiversity loss, etc.
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 46
Defeatist conclusion?
› Only defeatism remains?
› Certainty of Eco-Apocalypse?
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 47
› Risk of structural analysis
 Defeatism: doing nothing
 More subtle: as excuse (cf. Gardiner’s moral
corruption)
› Structural analysis reveals limitations of simple
solutions
 Only lifestyle changes (‘take shorter showers’)
› Challenge is to bring human (self-organised)
cooperation on a higher level: quicker, innovative,
mutlilevel & ethical
› Also for international, intergenerational and
complex (vague, uncertain) problems
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 48
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 49
› Questions?
› Reflection assignment
faculty of philosophy
07-06-2016 | 50
Challenge
Biodiversity loss
Groundwater
Smog
Fish stock depletion
Recycling
Traffic congestions
Green energy
Ozone layer depletion
Analyis
Collective-action
problem
prisoner’s dilemma
Cost distribution
International
distribution
Intergenerational
distribution
Moral motivation
Procrastination
Second order
procrastination