Whenever an environmental issue captures the attention of the public, my thoughts always turn to game theory. I have come to believe over the years that there is no outcome that will favor the environmentalists when there are politicians, industrialists, economists, emerging economies or farmers with gas in the south forty, on the other side. No matter how dire the consequences, greed, self interest and simple short term gain always seems to win out over what is best for the long term collective good.
The oldest principal in game theory “the tragedy of the commons” saw the conservation crowd come up short from the time of sheep herding in the Bible until this year, when the price of your tuna steak doubled. It explains why every area of common land suffers from overgrazing and why every sea fishery suffers from overfishing. Individual rational behavior, to take as much as you can as quickly as you can from a common area, deteriorates into collective ruin. Watch out arctic circle, you are the next commons. Many countries have you in the crosshairs, polar bears and global warming be damned.
More recent game theories like “the prisoner’s dilemma” and “tit for tat” also make me pessimistic when applied to environment issues. The game scenarios in the former theory, place two prisoners against each other. If they both confess, they each get 3 years in prison. If they both stay silent, they each get one year in prison. If one confesses, he goes free, only if the other stays silent. The silent one now gets the shaft, 5 years in prison. Over and over again the rational prisoner will chose to confess, because he does not want the other to go free and for himself to serve the longer term. Once again, individually rational strategies result in a collectively irrational outcome. Guess what, individual countries and farmers with gas rights think the same way. Never chose an option where your neighbor may make out better than you.
The “tit for tat” game theory should offer me some consolation, but it doesn’t. It was developed by social scientists to explain how it is possible for mankind to behave based on cooperation rather than self interest. It uses examples from the animal world and primitive tribes. The theory is that once there is conditioning and experience in giving something up to get something back, self interest can be overcome. A cautious exchange of favors enables trust to be built upon a foundation of individual reward. Now, this line of thinking may work for vampire bats or the Ache people of Paraguay, but certainly not our State government, Congress, or our relations with Brazil, India and China.
So what has all this to do with Marcellus Shale? I suspect that the short term gain of an additional energy supply, given an energy crisis and the recession, not to mention powerful political and corporate interests, will far out match long term environmental concerns. In the first place, the American people are much more adept at kicking the can down the road than developing strategies based on cooperation. (see the national debt, taxation etc.) In the second place, unlike our socialist friends in Europe, given our peculiar Andrew Jackson DNA, we do not favor lifting the entire environmental boat, for the collective good, when there is money to be made. The next drilling rig may be in our own backyard.
No comments:
Post a Comment