Climate Change, CO2 and Prisoner’s dilemma
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/why-reducing-co2-emissions-is-like-the-prisoners-dilemma/
We’ve spoken about the applicability of prisoner’s dilemma in several real-world instances – from business to politics. The game theory concept plays out in several instances involving altruism and detrimental consequences. And it doesn’t always require two players – we can extend it to several stakeholders. One such global problem which involves several players is the mitigation of climate change factors like carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is produced as by-product in several industries that boost economic growth. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are considered to be major contributors to ozone depletion and climate change on a broad level. Without going into the details of how, the interesting question arises about the responsibility of countries to mitigate the amount of greenhouse gases they release.
Countries could argue that according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2 may or may not marginal in its role in localized climate change. So hence each country would rather keep conducting industrial activities that produce CO2 and leave the responsibility for the other countries to tackle climate change. In terms of the prisoner’s dilemma, we can have a few scenarios as a result for any two countries A and B:
- Both of them reduce CO2 emissions, dealing with slower economic growth but positively impact climate change issue
- None of them reduce CO2 emissions, engendering greatest economic growth and expand resources through industrialization
- If country A reduces emissions, it will suffer economically as compared to B, who will reap the benefits of industrialization. The positive impact of A reducing emissions on climate change only truly benefits B.
Hence, an interesting argument could be for all countries to boost industrial growth and face climate change with developed resources.