THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

One of the more interesting debates brought center stage by the Trump presidency has been the conflict between globalism and nationalism.  These are two very different ways of viewing the world, its inhabitants, its international institutions and its limited resources.  Globalism calls for the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis. Nationalism does the opposite and advocates the economic and political independence of a particular country, often stressing the superiority of that nation and its people. 

Globalism encourages openness and sharing.  Some of the hallmarks are open borders, international legal and economic forums and multilateral trade agreements.  These approaches encourage diversity, decrease inequality and limit conflict. On the other hand, nationalism stresses protectionism and strategies that encourage winner take all policies.

I have found it helpful in understanding a world that favors globalism as opposed to one that advocates nationalism to dust off one of my favorite dilemmas in social philosophy: “the tragedy of the commons.”

Under this construct the “commons” is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately.  The “tragedy” is that individual nations deplete these resources and that governments are unable to reach long term solutions to sustain and preserve these assets for the betterment of all global inhabitants.

The concept of the tragedy of the commons was introduced in 1833 when the English economist, William Forester Lloyd, published a pamphlet which highlighted the over use of a local common resource.   His example was the pastoral English village, where herders would traditionally use a common area of land, situated between the thatched huts, to graze their livestock. He postulated that the rational decision for each individual herder would be to exceed his individual allotment of livestock to maximize his use of the common area.  However, if numerous herders violated the rules, the common grazing area would be depleted or destroyed, resulting in a tragedy for the entire community.

Some modern examples of the tragedy of the commons are national in nature but the most serious ones are global.  Within the United States, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone caused by the over use of fertilizers; the conflict over division of limited groundwater in many western states; and traffic congestion in urban areas causing air pollution are tragedies brought on by the misuse of shared resources.

Internationally, the “tragedies” are in the headlines all too often. Among them are the depletion of fish stocks in the oceans of the world; overpopulation; carbon emissions; destruction of rain forests and wetlands; and the misuse of outer space and the polar regions.

The dilemma of the tragedy of the commons occurs when a nation’s short term economic or political interests are at odds with the long term group interests of the international community.  I would argue that under most circumstances nationalism makes the tragedy worse while globalism offers the best opportunity to fashion long term solutions.

The first problem with a nationalist view of resource preservation is that it often refuses to acknowledge that a tragedy exists in the first place. The most glaring example is President Trump and many Republicans declining to accept climate change as a man-made tragedy with long term consequences. While they avoid the growing disaster and its causes, the clock continues to advance past the point of meaningful recovery.   

The second problem with a nationalist perspective occurs even after acknowledgment of an endangered finite resource.  Nationalists often refuse to support global action to preserve the resource, claiming a national interest in continued exploitation.  When the President and his party withdraw from international environmental agreements and enthusiastically gut environmental regulations on auto emissions, on use of coal and on drilling in arctic regions, they are placing short term national economic interests before long term global concerns.  If there is no buy in by the United States to evert a tragedy, other nations are limited in what they can accomplish.

How serious are the tragedies that mankind has caused to our delicate planet? The atmosphere is a global common-pool resource in its function as a sink (storage system) for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Currently, it is a “no man’s land” that is available to everyone free of charge. Oceans and forests are closely linked to the atmospheric sink through the global carbon cycle and absorb some of the human generated CO₂. Oceans and forests are also global common-pool resources that serve as important sources of biodiversity, exhaustible minerals and fish resources. Due to modernity and the hydrocarbon driven industrial revolution the atmosphere and the oceans are threatened by excessive CO2 emissions, and the forests are being depleted by increasing food and bioenergy demand.

 In the United States, much of the discussion linking climate change caused by the human population, with tragedy to the planet, has centered on hurricanes and wild fires. As serious as these events are, a recent article in Foreign Affairs points out a more troubling trend. Research has concluded a direct link between climate change and disastrous outcomes for numerous third world countries, including violence, food crises and large scale displacement of populations. Climate Shocks and Humanitarian Crises, Foreign Affairs, 11/29/18.

 As long as the United States insists on acting like the selfish livestock owner, overgrazing the common pasture area to gain an advantage, prospects for saving our planet for future generations are grim, indeed. Climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation will get worse and forever alter our way of life.  Nationalist policies have no place in a world facing unimaginable tragedy.  Only globalist cooperation can turn the tide.