Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Prisoner’s dilemma is a games theory scenario which explores cooperation in difficult circumstances. The classic description, there are two prisoners accused of a crime. Their options are:
- They both keep quiet, and when convicted they both receive moderate sentences.
- One prisoner rats on the other prisoner. The prisoner who betrays his fellow villain receives a light sentence, the other prisoner receives a heavy sentence.
- Both prisoners rat on each other – they both receive heavy sentences.
So how does the Prisoner’s dilemma apply to carbon dioxide mitigation?
The answer of course if that, if CO2 matters, it is a prisoner’s dilemma on a global scale.
Of course, if CO2 has minimal impact on global climate, then it makes no sense to reduce CO2 because it is a waste of resources. But lets consider the interesting scenario – what if CO2 is every bit as dangerous as the IPCC claims it is?
Consider two countries, country A and country B. Both countries have the following options:
- They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – both countries will accept moderate to severe economic damage.
- Country A could attempt to reduce CO2, while country B continues full steam ahead, maximising economic growth. Country B gets the advantage of an unencumbered economy, and the full benefits of industrialisation – they can afford to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather is too hot. Country A not only gets slammed with the costs of climate mitigation, and the economic damage of trying to compete with country B from a position of permanent structural disadvantage, but any benefit from reduced CO2 thanks to country A’s sacrifices are mostly enjoyed by country B.
- Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Both would experience equal pain from climate disruption, but with maximal economic development, both countries would be able to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather outside was too hot.
Of course, in the real world we’re dealing with more than two countries – there are hundreds of countries. If just a handful of those countries decide to break ranks, to ignore CO2 mitigation, openly or covertly, the countries which betray the effort will receive most of the benefit which accrues from the sacrifices of everyone else.
In the paranoid swamp which is global politics, no serious attempt at altruism could survive the first economic recession it caused. Voters would quickly reject the pain, especially if they saw everyone else was accruing any benefit to be realised from their sacrifices.
So it never, under any circumstances, makes sense to be the sucker. Even if the IPCC is right about CO2, your sacrifices will mainly benefit the people who don’t make an effort.
It makes much more sense to steam full power ahead, maximise economic growth, and use the full resources of your expanded industrial base to mitigate any problems which arise from the consequences of climate change.
Eric,
As an Australian, I am very familiar with the Prisoner’s Dilemma through Professor Ross Garnaut’s Report (2008) and Review (2011). Professor Garnaut described the ” diabolical policy challenge ” in his presentations to the Australian Government and people.He dealt with it at some length and told us that the Dilemma was resolved at an international level ! From the Review (2011)-
” The 2008 Review argued that only a world bound by agreement on greenhouse gas reduction could avoid great damage from climate change. Acting on this proposition , however , involved resolving a ‘ prisoner’s dilemma’- a situation in which each country pursuing its own narrow self interest would make decisions whose overall effect would be the worst possible outcome for them all . I described this then as a diabolical policy challenge.
Remarkably the world is resolving the dilemma. This breaks several expectations. From its inception in 1990, the United Nations process that was crystallised in the Kyoto Protocol divided developed from developing countries, and only the developed were bound by a specific emissions target…….
The thought that only developed countries should have emissions targets was thought to be appropriate for four reasons( then set out) ……
In making major mitigation efforts, developing economies have overlooked the agreed ethical obligation of developed nations and overturned a decade or more of global diplomacy.”
Garnaut then looks at the ” Pledge and Review ” ideal arising from the ” strong global agreement at Cancun.”
He states that ” there would have been advantages in a comprehensive global agreement on emissions entitlements covering developing as well as major developed countries that added up to the global temperature objective and to the emissions budget that was implicit in that objective.We would have arrived at a set of national commitments that would have, if implemented, solve the problem…..
The negotiated commitments on emissions constraints would have resolved the prisoner’s dilemma problem in one hit, by assuring each country that it could rely on others doing enough to solve the global problem if it took strong action itself.”
“…….. Such an ( international ) agreement remains the Holy Grail.”
…. A formal comprehensive global agreement remains beyond reach for the foreseeable future ….”
So the Prisoner’s dilemma remains diabolical?
Not according to Garnaut.-
“…….experience since Copenhagen has demonstrated that Cancun -style agreements , beyond being necessary to secure commitments from some countries that are crucial to a successful global emissions reduction effort , have the large advantage that they encourage greater ambition in each country’s emission reduction effort…..
….. This tendency for international commitments to be stronger if they are not legally binding is not confined to climate change negotiations……”
Thus a ” bottom up ” solution becomes preferable to , or at least as satisfactory as a ” top down ” arrangement.
And so the Prisoner’s Dilemma has been resolved by the developing countries’ magnanimity !
On the basis of this reasoning , Australia faced for a time a carbon tax/ ETS which had it continued would have meant the expenditure of A $1 trillion by mid- century.
There is no problem!
It is trivially easy to prove that atmospheric CO2 does not have, has never had, and, at least up to about 8 times the present level (Berner, 2001), will never have a significant effect on average global temperature.
Yeah, not. That there have been higher levels of CO2 in the history of the planet tells you nothing, since no one is claiming that CO2 is the sole forcing. During the Phanerozoic, which Berner writes about, solar radiation was about 4% less, which is why we had glaciation. This has been known for years.
Look, Flash, CO2 is the issue. Not methane, not water vapor, nor anything else. CO2 is the issue: carbon dioxide. Get it?
That is where “carbon” credits come from. That is where your “carbon” footprint comes from. And the entire “carbon” scare comes from CO2. Nothing else.
It is ALL about CO2, and for one reason: CO2 is very easy to tax.
But as Dan Pangburn says: There is no problem with CO2. It is harmless, and it is very beneficial to the biosphere. CO2 does not cause runaway global warming, or any measurable warming for that matter.
The whole “carbon” scare is a major HOAX. Once you understand that, everything else falls into place. The curtain is pulled aside — and there’s the wizard.
Sir Harry – Read my Feb 9 post . . . carefully. It’s average CO2 level TIMES DURATION, aka CO2 time-integral. Those high CO2 levels make the time-integral a big number while the temperature does not increase (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html). The only way that can be true is if the effect of CO2 is negligible. Insolation was also about 4% less when the planet warmed up after the Andean-Saharan glaciation. Yes it “has been known for years” but sometimes not as a complete scenario.