Have We Done Enough To Fight Climate Change?

He added that the territories following that would be the Maldese nations and coastal nations such as Bangladesh.

Though much of global warming is unpredictable and droughts and storms reach the entire world, the afflictions of climate change will reach many other countries later than others.

This lessens those countries’ “negative utilities,” as Hardin would call it, and make them more likely to pollute for their own economic benefit.

Thus, the tragedy of the commons persists. What Canada ejects into the air will affect other countries much more before it affects us, and so we wrongly persist as well.

What Would Hardin Advise?

Hardin suggests several applicable solutions in his articles.

“Freedom in a common brings ruin to all,” and consequently, regulation and moderation are necessary for progress, he says.

“Prohibition is easy to legislate,” Hardin writes, “but how do we legislate temperance?” He answers his own question by turning to administrative law and coercion, “agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.”

These suggestions include the use of taxes, private property and the allocation of rights based on wealth, auction, merit, or lottery.

A couple of these concepts have already been applied to climate change, with varied response. The most popular form of regulation when it comes to pollution is the idea of carbon taxing.

“Carbon is the last source of pollution that we can freely dump,” says Laughren. “Internalizing the cost by pricing carbon is certainly a necessary precursor to solving climate change.”

Many are of the same opinion. A revenue-neutral carbon tax was implemented in British Columbia in the late 2000s, putting a price on carbon emissions in a hope to “encourage individuals, businesses, industry and others to use less fossil fuel and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions,” according to a report by the Ministry of Finance.

This tax, which is currently at 6.67 cents a litre, was legislated by Gordon Campbell in 2008, making it North America’s first and only carbon tax, according to CBC News.

The Huffington Post wrote in an article about the expected long life of British Columbia’s carbon tax that experts and the provincial government have found it to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the province.

In light of the approaching elections in British Columbia this summer, the carbon tax is a prominent subject of debate. Many criticize the revenue-neutral aspect of the tax, meaning that all income made from the tax is used up by cuts in other taxes.

Adrian Dix, provincial leader of the NDP, is quoted by CBC News: “None of the money from the carbon tax goes to the environment or to pay for transit, and we think it should, so we’ve proposed that.”

Dix’s platform includes a $30-,$40- and $50-million investment plan from carbon tax revenue that will go towards supporting transit models and other green initiatives across the province.

While Gulati recognizes the potential of carbon taxes, he adds that we must still take into account the idea of the public good.

“The common [of climate change] is not just within our nation… global warming is in the world,” Gulati says.

“If I put a carbon tax and the rest of the world doesn’t, I can’t tax people’s exports coming into my country from the rest of the world. Then it’s a fairly straightforward argument that if my competitors don’t [put a carbon tax], I would be worse off.”

The tragedy of the commons comes back to bite us once again.

The only way to sidestep this problem is to have worldwide acceptance of policies, says Gulati, who has written several articles on international trade and sustainability.

He refers to the Montreal protocol, an agreement signed under the United Nations Environment Programme in 1987 pledging to eliminate global consumption and production of “ozone-depleting substances.”

Gulati says he sees this pact as hope that countries want to resolve climate change together.

“Unless everyone agrees to a carbon tax or a similar policy, there is a big concern,” says Gulati. “But because a lot of our economies aren’t purely reliant on our energy and electricity isn’t easy to trade, it may not be so hard.”

Hardin’s suggestion of private ownership as opposed to taxing becomes a bit more complicated; what can people own when it comes to climate change?

One interpretation of Hardin’s theory envisios a partial divvying up of sections of the atmosphere, to be owned by countries or industrial companies. But the fact that countries are not directly and proportionally affected by their own pollution calls for a different kind of action.

The state of California has implemented a cap-and-trade program similar to Hardin’s idea of right allocation. The program, which covers emissions from major sources such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels, distributes tradable allowances that are equal to the emission limited under an official gap, which will lessen over time.

Basically, Gulati explains, the state is “assigning property rights to emissions.”

“According to economics at the very basic level, [carbon taxing and the cap-and-trade system] should be equivalent,” he says, and emissions should then be regulated.

Gulati says a cap-and-trade method of regulation has its flaws, however. “Cap-and-trade is subject to lobbying and people end up getting these permits for free” and then selling them, says Gulati. “Administratively this is a problem.”

Very recently, the California Air Resources Board has combined its cap-and-trade program with a similar one in Quebec, helping the allocation system to spread across North America.

Whether criticized or embraced, Hardin’s solutions to the problem of public good have started to be applied across the world. We have found that the tragedy of the commons is a convincing way to look at the climate change situation with no bias, whether political or economic.

Nevertheless, while Hardin’s theory may be valid academically, many can dispute the application of philosophy to current public policy. It can be argued that philosophers, working with theory and not action (at times), are not able to account for the economical, social, or political aspects of the situation at hand, whether minute or substantial.

It is indeed hard to argue that philosophy can be applied to public policy without interference; while philosophical theories are (ideally) intelligent and logical, it may be that those who apply those theories are not. Details may be overlooked, greater issues misunderstood, or affected people disregarded.

Ingrid Stefanovic of the University of Toronto’s philosophy department admits to the complications that real life can add to a concrete issue.

“My own view is that we must do a better job of understanding peoples’ values, attitudes and perceptions and design multiple policy strategies in order to advance the goals of sustainability,” says Stefanovic, who specializes in environmental philosophy.

Stefanovic adds that there is a responsibility for philosophers to do more than “simply talk among themselves about abstract issues” and to help the transition from theory to action, stating that they must move “beyond the comfort of their own discipline” to advance solutions.

Stefanovic views environmental problems not only as an issue of public policy, but as a reflection of society’s value systems, and how they may need to be evaluated.

“Philosophers are well placed to take a leading role in helping us to understand and analyze values, attitudes and perceptions that underlie our current sustainable practices.”

Viviane Fairbank is a writer, photographer, and willing university student, desperately waiting to travel around the world.