Tragedy of the Commons

What are “commons”?

What are “commons”?

Land or resources belonging to, or affecting, the whole of a community.

Water Air Sun Land Infrastructure Natural resources (coal, gas, petrol, iron wood,

uranium,

Examples of commons: Water Trees Air Public land Wind Sunshine

Examples of commons: Water Air Sun Habitat (earth) Space ****** Science knowledge technology ****** Fossil fuels

This case looks at land usage in the 1800's.

People were allowed to have their cows graze on public lands (commons).

Many farmers were sharing the same land.

It was in each of their best interest to try to raise as many cows as possible on the common land.

The more cows each person could raise the more money they could make.

What will be the long term outcome of everybody having lots of cows grazing on the land?

The benefits of raising a cow all go to the individual owner.

The environmental costs are shared by everyone.

Is it in anyone's best interest to have land that is overgrazed?

But....

What would happen if 1 farmer said“I think I should save the land by not having so

many cows grazing”?

But....

What would happen if 1 farmer said“I think I should save the land by not having so

many cows grazing”?

Somebody else will be very happy to have their cows graze there instead.

Everybody knows what is going to happen.

It's not in any individual's short term best interest to try to stop it.

Question:

What could have prevented this from happening?

Take the example of rules.

Would individual farmers be happy about any new rules trying to prevent them from grazing too many cows?

What could they maybe do to protect their right to short-term profit?

This can also be looked at as a public cost to promote private wealth.

Important point to remember:

The people who own the cows aren't actually “bad” people. They are put in situation where they must pursue their own best self interest.

As an individual, making a sacrifice just means that someone else gets to profit off of the land they are saving.

Also important to remember:

often you're told to “Just do your part.”

Also important to remember:

often you're told to “Just do your part.”

However, often one person's sacrifice just leaves more to be exploited by others.

Tragedy of the Commons:

The tragedy being the notion that any resource that is open to everyone will eventually be destroyed because everyone can use the resource but no one is responsible for preserving it.

Group work:

list some examples of “tragedy of commons” happening in the world today.

What are some “commons” that are being exploited today?

Pick 1 idea from your list.

Give some details as to who it is that getting short term benefit from their actions that are causing long term costs for others.

Who is benefiting?How are they benefiting?What are the long term costs?Who has to pay / live with the

costs?

What are some things that could be done / should be done to prevent this from happening?

Global commons:Global commons is that which no

one person or state may own or control and which is central to life.

(Wiki)

Individuals acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when they know it isn't in their long term best interest

A lot of the solutions involved laws and regulations.

Why are imposing laws and regulations on those who cause harm for others so difficult?

Example:

Greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 in the atmosphere.

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that it is a problem and changes need to be made.

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that it is a problem and changes need to be made.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding international agreement to try to prevent the worst projected problems of climate change.

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that it is a problem and changes need to be made.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding international agreement to try to prevent the worst projected problems of climate change.

Why did the US government refuse to sign?

The Kyoto Protocol would be good for the planet.

The Kyoto Protocol would be good for the planet.

But it would be bad for the car manufactures and the fossil fuel companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

The arguments made by the oil and gas companies and the automotive companies:

The arguments made by the oil and gas companies and the automotive companies:

We provide jobs We provide tax revenue We support economic growth We make products everybody needs

The arguments made by the oil and gas companies and the automotive companies:

We provide jobs We provide tax revenue We support economic growth We make products everybody needs

These are all true.............. However....

Developing sustainable products and infrastructure will also:

provide jobs provide tax revenue support economic growth make products everybody needs

Better question:

Why do we stick with industries and products that are harmful when there are safer alternatives?

Possible answer: (and you have the right to disagree. This is meaningful to your life and you should look assess a number of different viewpoints before forming your own options on the subject)

Revolving door politics Investment theory of politics

Revolving door politics:

People working in industry end up working for government agencies that create laws for that industry.

Once the laws are in place the person goes back to work in the industry again.

Investment theory of politics: “ The real market for political parties is

defined by major investors, who generally have good and clear reason for investing to control the state.... Blocs of major investors define the core of political parties and are responsible for most of the signals the party sends to the electorate. ”

—Thomas Ferguson

It costs money to run for election.

The only people who can afford to run are those who get support of from wealthy corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

Rank Company

name Primary

industry Revenue

(USD billion) Fiscal Year Market capitalization

(Dec 2010, USD million)[1] Employees

Primary Stock listing Headquarters CEO

1 ExxonMobil Oil and gas $486.429[2] 2011 $368,711 83,600[2] NYSE: XOM United States Irving, Texas, United States Rex W. Tillerson

2 Royal Dutch Shell Oil and gas $470.171[3] 2011 $208,594 90,000 LSE: RDSA NetherlandsThe Hague, Netherlands and

United KingdomLondon, United Kingdom Peter Voser

3 Walmart Retail $421.849[4] January 31, 2011 $192,098 2,150,000 NYSE:

WMT United States Bentonville, Arkansas, United States Michael Duke

4 BP Oil and gas $375.517[5] 2011 $137,042 97,600 LSE: BP United Kingdom London, United Kingdom ,European Union Robert Dudley

5 Sinopec Oil and gas $289.774[6] 2010 $101,583 400,513 SSE: 600028, SEHK: 0386 China Beijing, China Jiming Wang

6 Chevron Oil and gas $253.706[7] December 31, 2011 $183,634 61,189 NYSE: CVX United States San Ramon, California, United States John Watson

7 ConocoPhillips Oil and gas $251.226[8] 2011 $100,054 29,800 NYSE: COP United StatesHouston, Texas, United States James Mulva

8 Total S.A. Oil and gas $233.798[9] 2011 $124,916 111,401

Euronext: FP France Courbevoie, France Christophe de Margerie

9 State Grid Corporation of China Electricity $231.556[10] 2010 - 1,564,001 Government-owned China Beijing, China Liu Zhenya

10 Toyota Motors Automotive $228.247[11] March 31, 2011 $136,891 316,121 TYO: 7203 Japan Toyota, Aichi, Japan Fujio Cho

11 PetroChina Oil and gas $221.955[12] 2010 $303,274 46

The politician depends on the companies for funding to run for public office.

The politician needs to have a favourable relationship with the companies that they are getting support from.