This post draws from a chapter for a book I wrote in 2020: “Overcoming the tragedy of distance – cooperating with our friends’ friends” in Living with the Climate Crisis ed. Tom Doig. Bridget Williams Books, Wellington, New Zealand
I believe that finding ways to work more intensively and effectively with people with very different resources, cultures and life experiences is critical to rapid global decarbonization.
For me, the unprecedented challenge from climate change is that most mitigation has to occur in countries with fewer resources. Key high-emitting countries such as India, China, Indonesia and Brazil, as well as smaller countries such as Laos, Ethiopia, and Peru are all projected, in business as usual forecasts, to have rising emissions as they develop.
These countries have strongly competing priorities, as they also need to address poverty or resolve internal conflict. They are unlikely to mitigate greenhouse-gases fast enough without help. Yet, to stabilize the climate, those countries and all others must reduce their emissions to net zero and the faster the better.
Models by EDF(2019, pp. 200-232) and IETA(2019) suggest that we could double the amount of global carbon dioxide mitigation to 2035 with no extra cost if richer countries can support emerging and developing countries effectively, but that’s hard. ‘International trading’ of mitigation, where richer countries, or their companies, support developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, has long been a goal, but it has not yet lived up to its promise.
We will all benefit if we can resolve this together. I also think those of us with more resources owe it to poorer countries to help; they are the most vulnerable to climate change, to which they have contributed little. It seems deeply unfair to also expect them to bear the full burden of their transition to net-zero.
Tragedies of climate change
Humans however often struggle with cooperating and sharing with people who are far away from them, in either a physical or social sense. I struggle to empathize with people in India whom I will never meet, but who will need support when they replace coal-fired power plants with renewables as India moves toward net-zero emissions. I don’t think I’m alone in this and I imagine they feel the same about people like me who are not taking rapid action on climate change even when we can afford it.
Is our fundamental problem in mobilizing resources to support developing country decarbonization this “tragedy of distance?”
“Tragedies” are situations where we humans are brought down by our own flaws. These tragedies make climate change particularly challenging to address.
The “tragedy of the commons” suggests that if we can’t exclude people from use of a common resource, we are doomed to destroy it through overuse. For example, the fish stock in a particular area isn’t destroyed because people can’t see what is happening, but because if others are going to over-fish, whatever one individual does, it is in each individual’s personal interest to go fishing while the fish are still there. They feel they can’t protect it. That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The “tragedy of the horizon” suggests that individual and collective myopia and selfishness lead us to take actions now although they will cause our future selves and future generations to suffer. The phrase was coined by Mark Carney (Former Governor, Bank of England) for climate change, but another classic example is most countries’ inability to invest enough of the wealth that they extract from non-renewable minerals, like oil, to sustain their citizens’ well-being in the future. Again, we can see this coming but struggle to avoid it.
These tragedies are not inevitable. Some communities solve them impressively (e.g., the many examples from the work of Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues, or Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund). Others find partial solutions. New Zealand avoids the worst problems of overfishing by limiting catches through the Quota Management System, a system which, though imperfect, has now lasted for more than thirty years. Humans also have relatively good ‘institutions’ for making intergenerational decisions. Families tend to have strong bonds for at least a couple of generations. We may not make “efficient” decisions for our own future selves and our descendants, but we do, generally, care.
Climate change is an issue where all tragedies—of distance, of the commons, and of the horizon—are fully engaged. Climate change is global and cumulative, with extremely long-term, long-lived impacts. Although it is now clear that people alive today are already experiencing the impacts, the major benefits from our mitigation actions today will be experienced not by older people like me, but by our children and grandchildren.
We have worked hard for nearly thirty years to build institutions at the international, national and local level to coordinate mitigation efforts. We need to keep doing this. Despite our lack of obvious success so far, we have made considerable progress. However, these approaches depend very much on a hierarchical approach. That approach is appealingly elegant and logical in responding to a global problem, and is a critical part of the solution, but it’s not working fast enough. And having only one coherent institutional approach is inherently fragile.
We need both coordination and cooperation
United Nations climate agreements try to replicate the success of economic institutions in managing human activity. However, in contrast to institutions that aim to address climate change, many international economic institutions, such as those that govern commerce and banking are essentially addressing a coordination problem. Their success is not easily replicated when dealing with a global cooperation problem like climate change.
Maybe the approaches of more traditional and Indigenous societies have something to offer us as a complement. These societies have broad networks of relationships that extend into the natural world and rely on these and shared belief systems rather than institutions to manage goals and conflicting interests. Traditional ways of thinking of Māori, the Indigenous people of New Zealand, contrast strongly with the hierarchical assumptions about how humans relate to each other and the natural world, “the Great Chain of Being,” common in much contemporary Western thought.
Can we harness shared belief systems and existing North-South relationship networks and reduce the tragedy of distance? Could that help us build deep collaborations among small groups of countries to support the large-scale transfers of resources needed for efficient global climate action?
Is it better to think about transfers to support mitigation in developing countries as primarily about establishing networks of relational contracts, and the strong communication and trust that supports them, rather than centralized carbon commodity trading systems where all have to trust one system?