11.3: Theories and Concepts - Understanding the Tragedy of the Commons and the Anthropocene

 

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Understand the relationship between collective action problems and global environmental challenges

• Identify theories that explain evolutions in environmental thinking and action

Collective Action Problems

While COP 21 renewed hope that states could mitigate the worst effects of climate change, it also underscored how states still struggle to cooperate—even in the face of an existential threat like climate change. This begs the question: why do states have such a hard time cooperating on global environmental issues that would appear to be in their best interests? For starters, the effects associated with climate change are often seen as negative externalities, which occur when the negative consequences of an action are not fully borne by those who undertake the action. In the case of climate change, negative externalities would include rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and sea-level rise. These factors are experienced globally, affecting people and ecosystems worldwide, regardless of their greenhouse gas emissions. The difficulty states and individuals have in addressing climate change therefore represents a classic collective action problem. 

Widely used in the fields of economics and political science, the collective action problem theorizes a situation in which a group of individuals, despite having a shared interest or goal, may not take action to achieve that goal because individuals have the incentive to free-ride, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for the entire group. Thus, the key challenge in collective action problems is that individuals and states can benefit from the group's efforts without personally contributing or making a sacrifice. States can theoretically benefit from the world’s collective efforts to mitigate climate change, even if they do nothing to help this collective effort. Moreover, because the risks associated with climate change are unevenly distributed, not all are equally affected and thus may have different incentives to act.

The inability of states to overcome the free rider problem associated with climate change is also an example of the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons." In 1968, Garrett Hardin described an example of this phenomenon where individuals graze their cattle on a shared pasture or commons (rooted in the idea that certain resources are held collectively rather than privately owned). Each person has an incentive to graze as many cattle as possible so they can maximize their profits, depleting the pasture's resources and leading to its degradation, even though it is in the collective interest to conserve the pasture. Hardin goes on to explain how this situation illustrates why individuals, acting in their self-interest, deplete or degrade a shared and limited resource, ultimately leading to a collective negative outcome. Like our global climate system, the tragedy of the commons Hardin invokes revolves around a resource, which is non-excludable (people cannot be easily excluded from using it) and rivalrous (use by one person reduces its availability for others).

Figure 11.3.1: Cattle grazing in Armenia (CC-BY-SA-4.0; Narek75 via Wikimedia) 

In a situation with a “commons,” each individual or group has an incentive to maximize their use or extraction of the resource. They do this because they directly benefit from exploiting the resource, whether it's grazing animals on a shared pasture or emitting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The problem arises when multiple individuals or groups, each acting in their self-interest, collectively exploit the resource to a level that surpasses its sustainable capacity. As more and more entities exploit the resource, it becomes overused and, ultimately, depleted. In the case of a common pasture, this could mean overgrazing to the point where the land becomes barren. Ultimately, the tragedy of the commons scenario results in a collective negative outcome for all users, even free riders, who thought their decisions would benefit their self-interests. Ironically, knowledge of this phenomenon can create a self-fulfilling prophecy as states and individuals “know” cooperation is not possible in such scenarios and thus race to exploit common resources before the opportunity disappears or becomes less advantageous.

To address the tragedy of the commons, solutions typically involve some form of regulation, privatization, or the establishment of rules and institutions to manage and protect the resource. In the scenario of grazing, this might involve privatizing grazing land or a government regulating access to, and how, common grazing land is used. However, scholars also contest such a conclusion, as it takes an overly individualized view of human nature and action while overlooking examples where community-based groups are protecting collective environmental interests, regardless of any regulations, rules, or treaties put in place. For instance, Elinor Ostrom’s work has made significant contributions to the study of collective action problems by emphasizing the importance of local, community-based governance systems and the ability of individuals to manage common-pool resources effectively (1990). In any event, because global environmental challenges like climate change transcend state borders and local communities, and because our world lacks a strong central government to enforce any regulations (relying instead on voluntary commitments), we can appreciate how states have struggled to cooperate. Indeed, the tragedy of the commons serves as a useful cautionary tale for global environmental challenges as it underscores the importance of international institutions to help states cooperate, instill global norms that dissuade leaders from free-riding, and provide resources that encourage contributing to global and frontline community-based efforts.

The Anthropocene

As if the challenge of overcoming the collective action problem was not enough, many of the global environmental challenges we face today are also mired in debates about their causes, and therefore, their solutions. For instance, in Merchants of Doubt (2010) Oreskes and Conway explore how a small group of scientists, often with industry ties, spread misinformation to undermine scientific consensus on various issues, including acid rain and climate change. The book reveals how such individuals used tactics from the tobacco industry's playbook to cast doubt on established scientific findings, delaying meaningful policy actions, and contributing to public confusion. Consequently, many world leaders and industry spokespersons argued that it was premature, and too costly, to curb human activities ostensibly associated with climate change. These objections no longer carry much weight as the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human activities are the primary driver of the observed changes in the Earth's climate (IPCC, 2014). Some scientists go further and suggest that due to the magnitude that such human activity is having on our planet, we are now in a new geological era—that of the Anthropocene.  

The Anthropocene is a geological theory that suggests human activities have had a profound and lasting impact on the Earth's geology and ecosystems. This term is used to characterize the current epoch, during which human activities have become the dominant driver of environmental change. The Anthropocene theory highlights how human activities, such as industrialization, deforestation, and the burning of fossil fuels, have led to unprecedented changes in the Earth's atmosphere, biodiversity, and ecosystems (Crutzen and McNeil, 2007). Proponents of the Anthropocene point to geological evidence, such as the presence of widespread and long-lasting markers of human activities, including plastics, radioactive isotopes, and altered sedimentation patterns, as indicators of this new epoch. The Anthropocene theory represents a significant shift in our understanding of the Earth's history and future as it highlights the central role of human activities in shaping the planet's geological and ecological processes. 

Critics of the Anthropocene suggest the term universalizes the impacts humans have on their environment, when in fact humans' impact on the environment is highly variable, given their location, class, or other factors. Nevertheless, while it has not been formally adopted as a geological epoch, the concept has gained recognition and has stimulated extensive research and discourse in the fields of geology, environmental science, and sociology. Indeed, the term underscores the growing scientific consensus regarding the causes of environmental challenges like climate change. Despite this growing consensus, significant and more divergent theoretical debates about the possible solutions to our environmental challenges continue to this day. 

The Promethean Theory

For instance, the Promethean theory of environmentalism is a perspective within environmental thought that differs from mainstream environmentalism, which often emphasizes conservation and sustainability. It takes its name from the figure of Prometheus in Greek mythology, who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humanity, symbolizing human innovation and technology. Thus, Promethean environmentalism tends to view technology and human ingenuity as solutions to the environmental problems associated with the Anthropocene, rather than the cause. This technological optimism emphasizes that rather than restricting human activities, it is possible to develop technologies that can mitigate or even reverse the damage to the environment (Lomborg, 2001). Promethean environmentalists often point to historical examples where technology has led to environmental benefits, such as the development of cleaner energy sources to replace coal and oil. 

Consequently, Promethean environmentalists often see geoengineering as a solution to climate change, in which large-scale interventions in the Earth's natural systems can either remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere or reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Examples include ocean fertilization, which involves adding nutrients to the ocean to stimulate the growth of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton, and stratospheric aerosol injection, where reflective aerosol particles are introduced into the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight and reduce solar radiation. From an international standpoint, Promethean perspectives thus tend to favor market-based mechanisms, such as cap-and-trade systems or carbon pricing, as efficient ways to incentivize environmentally friendly practices and technological innovation at a global scale. Nevertheless, critics argue the Promethean paradigm underestimates the risks associated with technological solutions like geoengineering and promotes a "business as usual" mindset that perpetuates, rather than mitigates, global environmental challenges associated with biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. 

Sustainable Development Paradigm

Alternatively, the sustainable development paradigm encompasses a set of principles that guide the integration of economic and environmental concerns with social considerations in development processes. For example, the Brundtland Commission's report, "Our Common Future," introduced three pillars of sustainable development: economic development, social equity, and environmental protection (Brundtland, 1987). The pillar of economic development goes beyond traditional measures of GDP as it seeks to promote economic activities that foster the well-being of communities, while avoiding excessive resource depletion and environmental degradation. The second pillar, social equity, emphasizes the relationship between poverty, education, healthcare, and social inclusion to create and maintain a healthy environment for all. The third pillar of environmental protection recognizes the finite nature of natural resources and the importance of promoting sustainable practices that ensure the health of ecosystems for present and future generations. Acknowledging the interdependence of economic, social, and environmental systems, sustainable development strives to find synergies and avoid trade-offs between these dimensions, as neglecting one pillar can undermine the overall goal of the long-term well-being for both current and future generations. 

For instance, this approach involves transitioning toward low-carbon and climate-resilient economies, included in initiatives like the Paris Agreement, where countries commit to nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to limit global temperature rise. This acknowledges the historical emission rates and economic disparities among, and within, states when addressing climate change, and distributes the costs and benefits of these actions accordingly. By advocating for agreements not only focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing resilience to climate impacts, but also promoting more sustainable development pathways centered on equity, the integration of these pillars in international climate change policy reflects a commitment to a just transition away from fossil fuels for all effected communities.  

However, critics argue this approach does not go far enough in directly confronting the capitalist practices linked to environmental degradation. For instance, the degrowth movement, which proposes an intentional reduction of overall economic activity to achieve ecological sustainability, focuses on improving well-being without relying on continuous material consumption. This approach emphasizes a post-development perspective, which argues that traditional development models based on Western ideals are insufficient and fail to recognize diverse forms of well-being, local knowledge, and alternative economic structures that can help to not only confront climate change, but also associated economic injustices (Hickel 2020). 

For example, there are concerns that the concept of sustainable development is easily co-opted for "greenwashing" purposes, where organizations or projects claim to be sustainable without substantively addressing economic or social issues. Specifically, critics of the sustainable development paradigm argue that it does not adequately address social justice issues, may perpetuate existing inequalities, and fails to sufficiently challenge structures of power and privilege (Leach, et al. 2010). This is because sustainable development theory often reflects Western-centric perspectives, and its implementation may not adequately consider the diverse cultural contexts in which it is promoted. This can lead to the imposition of models that do not resonate with local communities, do not adequately address their unique challenges and priorities, and like the Promethean approach, place too much emphasis on technological solutions without sufficiently addressing broader issues of consumption, economic growth, and the need for alternative economic models.

Environmental Justice

Addressing this potential blind spot, scholars and activists have increasingly framed climate change as a matter of environmental justice. Although the meaning of environmental justice is contested—especially since it has expanded into different contexts and localities—overall, it examines how the distribution of environmental goods (e.g., parks, clean air, and water) and ills (e.g., pollution and associated health issues) relates to social factors, such as racism, classism and sexism that unfairly shape local, national, and international responses to environmental problems (Harrison 2011, 10; Bullard 2005, 25). Scholars have commented on how even though environmental justice groups share a common concern with prominent forms of environmentalism that focus on the many challenges we have discussed in this chapter; the latter often fail to address their connection to the social structures that produce them in the first place (Schlosberg 2004). 

The theory of environmental justice conversely focuses on the fair and equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, particularly regarding marginalized and vulnerable communities, whose voices are often overlooked, if not ignored. It emphasizes the idea that all individuals, regardless of their race, income, or social status, have the right to live in a healthy and safe environment. The framework emerged as a social and civil rights movement in response to the fact that low-income and minority communities often bear a disproportionate share of the environmental and health risks associated with pollution and industrial activities (Bullard 2000). To address this, environmental justice principles include not only the right to a healthy environment, but also the right to participate in the decision-making processes associated with redressing environmental harms. 

Figure 11.3.2: Community of color standing up to protect the health of their communities and the Earth. Painting text reads "stand with frontline communities in our fight for environmental justice, against the ravages of toxic chemicals and climate change." (CC BY 2.0; Heidi De Vries via Flickr) 

Environmental justice on an international scale involves addressing the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens across different nations, communities, and social groups. It acknowledges that environmental issues, such as pollution, resource depletion, and climate change, often disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and LDCs. For instance, the concept of climate justice emphasizes the ethical and social dimensions of climate change, calling for equitable solutions that consider historical responsibility, vulnerability, and the capacity to adapt. Examples include recognizing the environmental rights of indigenous communities, acknowledging their unique relationships with the environment and the potential impact of ‘sustainable development’ projects on their well-being. This could include capacity building for frontline communities and/or the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to LDCs.

While the concept of environmental justice has helped activists make significant strides in addressing inequities in the distribution of environmental burdens, it is not without its criticisms. For example, some argue that the definition of environmental justice lacks clarity, making it challenging to implement consistently across different contexts (Walker 2012). Critics also contend that environmental justice efforts often address specific issues in isolation, lacking comprehensive policies that address the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental challenges. It's important to note that these criticisms do not negate the importance of the environmental justice movement but highlight areas where improvements or adjustments may be necessary to address the complexities of achieving justice in environmental matters, both locally and globally. With this in mind, let’s circle back to how we began this chapter (focusing on waste), now that we are historically informed and conceptually equipped, to understand waste’s connections between the local and the global.