Is “Global Warming” an example of the Tragedy of the Commons?
Question: Is “Global Warming” an example of the Tragedy of the Commons?
Is “Global Warming” an example of the Tragedy of the Commons?
Tragedy of the Commons is where no one owns a resource, so there’s no common interest to maintain or manage that resource.
If this is true, then wouldn’t a solution be to sell these resources to the private sector?
Then when the poles melt, the person who owns that part of the Arctic Ice Caps could sue the person or corporation that caused the ice to melt.
Doesn’t this just prove that more Capitalism is a better solution for “Global Warming”?
Answer:
Answer by alexthec
Obviously not.
Historical Research shows that carbon levels rise before a cooling period, my question is , if we deliberately lower carbon levels will we actually cause Global Warning , instead of preventing it
I think raising and lowering carbon levels is mother natures way of controlling the earths temperature, if we interfere with it ,we may cause a major problem and mother nature will react more vigorously , producing too much carbon and may bring a full blown Ice Age****just a thought
Capitalism in its various forms is built on the idea of investing to make a profit. Who will buy the polar ice cap? what opportunity for profit is there in owning them? maybe they could melt it themselves and sell it as bottled drinking water? not much else I can think of.
So it would be hard to find a buyer.
Then even if they won a court case, they’d only get compensation for their financial losses, which would be close to nothing.
They’d have to first identify who made the ice melt, then prove it. Then they’d lose, because there are laws to prevent people making fraudulent claims…..and it would be fraudulent to buy something with a well known pre-existing problem THEN try to sue someone for causing the problem.
The actual way capitalism is being used to combat climate change is, there are big profits to be had from the various methods being tried to combat it
* non-fossil-fuel electricity generation
* improving fossil fuel efficiency
* equipment for saving energy in households and businesses
* rebuilding cities to use less energy
* rescuing or rehabilitating areas affected by the changes
one of my pet peeves about the free market “well if you don’t like it you can sue” what good would that do? Sue who? Assuming you could find somebody to buy the Arctic what good would suing do, especially after the fact.
Actually now that I think about there are some Inuit groups who have already sued.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/15/business/greencol16.php
Besides, if you look at the narrative of global warming, suing over loosing the arctic is kind of like suing a bank robber for the damage caused to the vault.
No.
Wouldn’t you love to hear the proofs in that court case? “He melted my ice!”
The whole thing is getting so laughably ridiculous. There’s incredibly cold weather EVERYWHERE this winter, and we’re still talking about this. (The Everywhere part makes it “climate” for those of you who want to say “it’s just weather.”)
Please let this issue die so people don’t have to pretend to be retarded in public anymore. It’s getting sickening.
Actually your are partly right, that Global Warming is in fact an example of what Garrett Hardin was referring to when he wrote Tragedy of the Commons. There is no ownership of the atmosphere and people have been allowed to abuse it with little fear of the consequences.
However you are not right when it comes to handing over ownership to private parties. It must be painfully obvious by now, especially during the current economic crisis that capitalism unchecked and allowed to self regulate is a recipe for disaster due to greed. In this case socialist regulatory mechanisms is the answer to ensure there is no one company or organization that can take advantage of a resource that is the property of all.
So who would want to buy piece of Arctic Ice Caps when all the fuss about Global Warming floating around? I didn’t buy Enron after whole thing blew up. Why would anyone want such uncertaintly and potential liability that may come along with it? So people talk about deteriating environment, disappearing ice caps, forests whatever and investors and capitalism isn’t gona be cool with that kind of investments.
Or I might sue that dude that own Artic Ice who failed to keep it frozen, adding more water vapor to air, creating more feed back effect, further acclerating global warming. It’s stupid.
Before you reach any conclusions on that idea, you might want to study the 19th Century range wars of the American West.
Actually is is a result of no common sense.
A a better definition of ‘tragedy of the commons’ in the first link below. Yes, it is an excellent example, but you don’t make the case for capitalism in your question/argument as presented.
Interesting how an answer to an earlier question can inspire a new one, isn’t it? So many questions to ask regarding global climate change. Many answers simply beget more questions. And this question has not only surfaced before, but it is used in presenting information of the phenomenon in many sites.
Now this business of selling water from glaciers is very amusing. I found several from a maker of filter machines that filter tap water using the name Glacier Water to several that actually bottle the run off from real glaciers.
Actually Inuit groups and islanders whose islands are being swallowed by the sea HAVE sued.
But nothing has come of it.
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1208-icc.html
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-08-29.htm
I would”nt think so.
In order for this to be true you must admit that Global Warming exists. After months of denying it adamantly this question really demonstrates your hypocrisy and lack of solid understanding of the natural world, and capitalism.