As we approach COP 28, my contemplations are immersed in the formidable challenge posed by climate change — an incremental shift in Earth’s average weather patterns with profound consequences for every nation. The central concern revolves around how sovereign countries and individuals can join forces to avert an imminent climate crisis.
The climate, being a shared global resource, accessible to all nations irrespective of their individual efforts, introduces the peril of free-riding. Nations may be enticed to exploit the contributions of others, potentially culminating in a collective catastrophe. The primary challenge lies in devising strategies to mitigate the rise in Earth’s temperature or constrain its escalation. This imperative gave rise to the momentous Paris Agreement in 2015, wherein both developed and developing nations pledged to curtail their carbon footprint to combat global warming.
However, the non-binding nature of these commitments raises apprehensions about their credibility. The diverse stages of development among countries further complicate matters, with some nations rationalizing their carbon emissions based on their growth status. This heterogeneity injects intricacy into decision-making processes. While climate finance has been proposed as a means for developed countries to financially assist their developing counterparts in both mitigation and adaptation efforts, challenges such as potential reluctance and the risk of funds being misused loom large.
The essence of collective action lies in the sacrifice of short-term economic benefits by individual countries to avert the failure of a collective risk. The challenge lies in how a group of unrelated individuals can set aside their immediate gains for shared or future benefits. This issue is akin to a threshold public goods game, where individuals voluntarily contribute to a common pot, aiming to reach a predefined target. Success ensures the retention of private payoffs and a bonus from the collective endowment, while failure leads to a collective risk where individuals lose both private and public accounts.
The collective risk dilemma encapsulates the core logic of the catastrophic effects of climate change. The dilemma confronts individuals with the choice of prioritizing immediate payoffs or future gains. The literature, as represented by Milinski (2008) and Tavoni et al. (2011), defines the climate change dilemma as a threshold public goods game, aligning the threshold with the reduction of global temperature — a predefined target. Non-binding voluntary pledges may fall short in establishing cooperation, especially when rewards are deferred.
An alternative proposal for addressing climate change involves carbon pricing, where emitting carbon incurs a tax. While this perspective introduces a strong focal point to coordinate actions, criticisms arise regarding the perceived fairness of carbon pricing. Wealthy nations may view carbon taxes as commodities to be purchased rather than fines, while poorer nations may find equal pricing unjustified.
Climate negotiations are intricate, influenced by various factors such as individual perceptions of risk, the speed of a country’s development, its historical trajectory, the type of government in place, and the level of trust people have in their governments. As we eagerly anticipate COP 28, my optimism hinges on the emergence of innovative solutions. Reflecting on the beauty of nature, there’s a poignant reminder of the urgent need to preserve our green planet and thwart its transformation into a desert. Even amid a desert landscape, my thoughts persistently revolve around the vision of a thriving, verdant Earth.
