Climate Change: The Tragedy of the Commons

 --by Stewart Vriesinga

Many of us have at least heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, likely as not from an all but forgotten economics class in our youth. Rightly or wrongly I thought the lesson was to show why communal property was likely to be decimated by users over-use of common resources. The example used was un-owned pastures on which the beneficiaries, acting in their own self-interest, put their livestock out to graze. Without ownership there was no oversight as to how many sheep or cattle could be pastured there, and consequently the pasture was trampled and grazed out of existence.  The land remained, but the pasture didn’t. 

Today we still have “the commons”; communal pastures may be pretty scarce these days, but our oceans, the air we breath, and the stratosphere and climate we all share are the “commons” today. They are not the private property of any individual, government, corporation, or any other entity. I thought I should revisit the lesson of The tragedy of the Commons. Full disclosure: I enlisted the help of Perplexity AI. Here is what it came up with:

 

Q:  Please explain "The Tragedy of the Commons".

A    (Perplexity AI):

 

The Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and environmental science problem where individuals have access to a shared resource and act in their own interest, at the expense of other individuals 6.This can result in overconsumption, underinvestment, and depletion of resources 5. The concept was first presented in an essay written in 1833 by British economist William Forster Lloyd, and later popularized in a 1968 article by Garrett Hardin 5.The tragedy of the commons occurs when a resource is rivalrous in consumption, non-excludable, scarce, and a common-pool resource 2. In other words, it occurs when individuals with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource 1. 

The tragedy of the commons highlights the conflict between individual and collective rationality 5. Individuals tend to make decisions based on their personal needs, regardless of the negative impact it may have on others 1. In some cases, an individual’s belief that others won’t act in the best interest of the group can lead them to justify selfish behavior 1. To prevent the tragedy of the commons, there should be some restrictions to the amount of usage, for example, property rights must be affixed 6. Exercising restraint would yield benefits for all in the long-term, as the shared resource would remain available 6.

(The numbers are clickable links to the AI's sources)

"...it occurs when individuals [or countries, or corporations] with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource." Deplete what? Our soil? Our oceans? The stratosphere? All of the above? That does indeed sound tragic! 

The thing is, there are things we can do to mitigate the damage. We know what they are. There are also reasons those things aren't being done. The problem is political. The problem is that everyone--I mean everyone, rich or poor, wants a "just transition". What constitutes a just transition depends on who you ask and on where they fit into the global scheme of things. Poor countries which have done nothing to cause climate change want compensation for damages caused by climate change--wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc.  --a polluter-pay proposition;  Low-lying and island countries want assurances that they won't be submerged by rising sea levels; Oil workers want new green jobs of equal pay in the new green economy. (Anything less than that would not be construed as a just transition); oil producing countries want to keep producing oil;  etc . It is not surprising that after 27 COP summits the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is unable to come to a consensus. The United Nations, under whose auspices ICPP falls, is the closest thing we have to a world government, and has been sounding the alarm ever more shrilly with increasing frequency, but to no avail. CO2 emissions continue to rise. 

Given the general consensus on the part of COP participants that climate change represents a major threat to all life forms on the planet, one might assume that arriving at a consensus on what to do about it should not be that difficult. Not so. The decision-makers, most of them elected, must take into account how their constituents will respond to whatever they agree to at a COP summit. As such they are unlikely to commit to anything that would hinder their prospects in the next election. For example, here in Canada asking constituents to hand over the keys to their internal combustion vehicles, or to stop flying, is a non-starter. Not even the Green Party would go there. In the case of the former the way of life of most Canadians remains reliant on internal combustion vehicles. In the case of the latter, the tourism industry and airlines, not to mention much of the general public, would find such commitments totally unacceptable. What would be acceptable? Enter net zero emissions. 

The genius of net zero targets, usually set for some time well after the next election, is that it allows oil-exporting countries to keep right on exporting oil while still meeting their targets. This is achieved by passing responsibility for emissions from exported fossil fuels on to the end consumer countries. The only emissions oil-exporting countries are responsible for are those that occur on the exporters' own soil. These can be off-set through the acquisition of carbon credits--protected forests, wetlands, carbon capture technology, a reduction in local emissions, etc. This policy was agreed upon, so oil-producing countries are under no obligation to stop extracting and exporting fossil fuels. This may do little to protect the commons--to reduce global emissions, but allows exporting countries to keep right on extracting and exporting. These net zero targets also go a long way toward mollifying increasingly alarmed constituents who are living and/or witnessing the ravages of climate change. Similarly the construction of electric vehicle and battery plants holds out the hope that car-owners can continue to drive uninterrupted, while simultaneously protecting the environment. 

Another way of meeting emission targets is by excluding CO2 emissions from the total. This year--2023--the emissions from Canada's wildfires was more than twice the amount resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Our carbon sinks are turning into carbon sources. The decision to exclude these emissions from the total makes some sense because the increase in frequency, duration, intensity and devastation caused by wildfires cannot be attributed to Canada's emissions alone. Nevertheless they are part of the global total, and as such will not be without consequences. 

Whether or not a consensus on the part of all COP participants is necessary is somewhat debatable. While all countries are suffering the consequences of climate change, only a few of them are responsible for the lion's share of emissions. Once again I will enlist the help of Perplexity AI to make my point. (For those of you who are skeptical about the reliability of the AI answers, I encourage you to click on the AI sources--the numbers--and to do your own independent research.) Here is what Perplexity came up with:

Q:  How many countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions? Which countries are the least responsible?

A    (Perplexity AI):

According to the search results, a few countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions. The US and EU have caused the most GHG emissions historically, with a combined total of 37% cumulative emissions globally 2,  China, the US, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan were the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters in 2014 5.  However, when looking at historical emissions per capita, the US and Russia have the highest per capita emissions, while India's per capita emissions are the lowest 2.  

On the other hand, many of the world's poorest countries are the least polluting but the most climate-vulnerable 3.  The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) were estimated to account for about 1.1% of total world CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and industrial processes in 2019 6.  Even in per capita terms, LDCs' CO2 emissions barely reach 9% of the world's average 6.

It seems that an agreement among those few worst polluting countries would go a long way toward engendering an appropriate response to the problem. But that is not going to happen until they are more focused on protecting the environment than they are on protecting their respective economies. There is also the matter of how influential oil industry lobbyists are at these COP summits; they far outnumber many governmental delegations. 

So the question remains: Can we prevent the tragedy of our commons--our water, land, and stratosphere--from occurring? Or will what remains of the ecosphere go the way of the dodo bird? The answer is entirely contingent on whether or not the decision-makers stop pursuing their own national, corporate, or individual self-interest, thereby destroying the hand that feeds us; or instead seek and implement solutions that will respect and safeguard all of humanity along with the other lifeforms with which we share this planet.  Undoubtedly the planet will survive, but without radical change in priorities on the part of the decision-makers, most life-forms, including humans, will not survive this current tragedy of the commons.

 [This article appeared in Bloomberg over a month ago:
( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-26/massive-carbon-emissions-of-canada-wildfires-are-off-the-scale ). It seems a positive feedback loop has established itself, pretty much guaranteeing that emissions will continue to increase regardless of how many windmills, EVs, solar panels, carbon capture technologies, windmills and nuclear reactors we build. The article was cut and pasted into my blog to circumvent our inability to share posts directly on Facebook and other social media platforms.]

Wildfires Are Set to Double Canada’s Climate Emissions This Year

By Danielle Bochove

July 26, 2023 at 7:00 a.m. EDT

A helicopter waterbomber flies above the Cameron Bluffs wildfire near Port Alberni, British Columbia, on June 6. Photographer: James MacDonald/Bloomberg

The carbon toll of the country’s fires this year will likely far outweigh emissions from its oil and gas, transport and agriculture sectors—combined.

When the greenhouse gases released from Canada’s 2023 wildfires are eventually tallied, they will be at least double the emissions from all other sectors of the nation’s economy combined, according to a top government scientist who has spent three decades measuring the carbon footprint of forests.

The 2023 emissions are “off the scale” compared to previous years, said Werner Kurz, a senior research scientist with Natural Resources Canada. Kurz’s team helped create a carbon budget model for Canada’s forestry sector which is used by governments and scientists around the world.

A full reckoning won’t be published until 2025. But as of July 18, a preliminary estimate suggests roughly 1,420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) have been released from the fires so far, across Canada’s managed and unmanaged forests, Kurz said. By comparison, emissions from all other sectors of the country’s economy totaled 670 million metric tons of C02e in 2021, the last year for which full-year figures are available. 

 

This season’s fires have been unprecedented both in terms of pollution — smoke blanketed major North American cities, shut down airports and crossed the Atlantic Ocean to Europe — and the staggering scale of territory burned. Some 11.7 million hectares and counting have ignited, an area larger than Ohio.

However, the most far-reaching impact, only just starting to be understood, is the scale of emissions.

Kurz’s figure of 1,420 million metric tons includes both managed and unmanaged forests. Even limiting the scope to managed forests, the amount of carbon being burned is exponentially higher than in years past going back to 1990, and roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of Canada in 2021. 

A wildfire in British Columbia on July 10.Source: BC Wildfire Service

Canada’s vast boreal forests have long been carbon sinks that absorb the planet-warming gas. This year, continuing the recent trend, the country’s managed forest will be a source of CO2, releasing more than it absorbs.

Kurz’s estimate only covers direct emissions — that is, the GHGs released from burning trees as well as living and dead organic matter in and on the soil. But roughly the same amount of indirect emissions will be released when the dead remnants of scorched trees decompose in coming years, he says.

Meanwhile, the fire season is barely half over and doesn’t yet show signs of easing.

The high environmental toll of the fires makes extinguishing them as quickly as possible a matter of global concern. But in higher North American latitudes, that’s easier said than done.

In early June, firefighters began constructing a 20-foot-wide, 8-mile-long fireguard inside the southern section of Wood Buffalo National Park, which straddles the border between Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The task took six days, three bulldozers and two excavators. The crew used the heavy equipment to clear trees and scrape back a 5-foot-deep layer of organic material known as “duff” down to bare sand. It was one of hundreds of fireguards being constructed across the country: slow, hot, exhausting work.

“We’re watching things burn that, by every textbook and every TED talk and published paper, suggest that they should not burn — and yet they are.”

Less than a month later, fire had jumped the barrier and the personnel were headed back to try again, said Katie Ellsworth, a plan section chief with Parks Canada, currently deployed at Wood Buffalo, who helps in the preparation for fighting fires.

Typically those fire guards would have held, but little about this fire season has been typical, she said. “We’re watching things burn that, by every textbook and every TED talk and published paper, suggest that they should not burn — and yet they are.”

The fires are “aggressive, they’re in the crowns of the trees, they’re moving from treetop to treetop,” said Ellsworth. Previously burned areas — which she likens to the charred, tough-to-ignite logs of an old campfire — are catching fire again. “We’re looking at old burned areas from 2014 and 2015 and 2018 that, by all accounts and everything we know, should slow the passage of the fire, and they’re not holding.”

Climate change is altering the way fires behave, experts say, as extended periods of record-breaking heat, drought, and high winds create ideal conditions for wildfires to reach abnormal intensity. Most of the outbreaks in Canada are the result of lightning strikes, rather than preventable causes like campfires or sparks from electrical wires (though those also occur). More intense storms can mean many more lightning strikes on a single day, often across remote areas that are hundreds or even thousands of kilometers from airstrips or roads.

A swimmer in Cameron Lake in front of the Cameron Bluffs wildfire near Port Alberni, British Columbia, on June 6.Photographer: James MacDonald/Bloomberg

The world’s boreal zone circles the Northern Hemisphere in a vast band that begins just south of the Arctic Circle. It includes lakes, wetlands and other naturally treeless areas like mountain tops but also one-third of Earth’s forests. In Canada, three-quarters of forests are in the boreal zone, covering 307 million hectares, an area larger than Argentina. A vast cache of biodiversity, it contains half the country’s species of birds and unique mammals like woodland caribou and is home to many of Canada’s Indigenous communities.

But this critically important ecosystem doesn’t respond as well to some of the standard fire measures used in other parts of the world. In contrast to the southwestern US, for example, where fires often occur in a mix of trees and grassland, fire retardant dropped from planes may not reach flames on the ground because it’s caught by the thick layer of underbrush and smaller trees often found beneath the boreal canopy. Also, most of the trees in Canada’s Northern forests are coniferous — spruce and pine — and highly flammable.

It’s also vast and remote. By necessity, firefighting efforts in northern Canada, as well as Alaska, have concentrated on populated areas or areas with key infrastructure, putting out fires when possible and redirecting others that threaten to head that way. The rest are mostly allowed to burn themselves out. When that happens, the value of the forest as a carbon sink changes to a carbon liability.

French firefighters battle fires north of the city of Chibugamau, Quebec, Canada, on June 12.Photographer: Quentin Tyberghien/AFP/Getty Images

Accurately measuring the full carbon footprint of global wildfires is tricky. A number of variables — including the depth and composition of organic matter burned, the size and species of dominant trees and what happens to the forest after the fire — make modeling a challenge. Human activity, whether tree planting, harvesting, or controlled burns, adds further complexity, removing and adding carbon to the equations.

Carbon-rich peat, for example, releases roughly 25% more emissions than regular boreal forest when burned and can be very difficult to extinguish, smoldering underground and resurfacing months later. It can also hold a greater volume of organic material because it is so deep below ground, although normally the lowest sections don’t ignite.

In northern latitudes, thawing permafrost is another knock-on effect of wildfires, said Brendan Rogers, an associate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Permafrost doesn’t burn — it is too full of frozen water — but the organic material on top of it can, removing an important layer of insulation and exposing the permafrost to more heat. “The permafrost wouldn’t exist except for the organic matter and the vegetation,” he said. “When you burn that off, what you tend to get in the years after a fire is that soil warms, the permafrost thaws, and you get deeper active layers,” which means a thinner layer of permafrost remains frozen year-round.

Thawing permafrost releases its own GHGs, including methane, and collapsing permafrost can create lakes that dissolve and release even more methane. Meanwhile peatlands — which exist across much of Canada, including in boreal forests and on permafrost — may be left more flammable after a fire because they are drier, he said.

Rogers’ research suggests the world is dramatically underestimating the carbon impact of wildfires. Climate trajectories and carbon budgets are based on Earth system models that include the impact of fire. However, many of those global models don’t include direct emissions from burned organic material under the surface, Rogers says, which his research indicates represents 80% to 90% of fire emissions in boreal forests, nor do they include the indirect effects of fire on permafrost. As a result, projections by leading bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said, are “quite conservative.”

Looking at the amount of carbon the world can burn and still meet Paris Agreement targets, “10 to 20% of those remaining [carbon] budgets, we’re estimating, will be eaten up by the combination of intensifying fire regimes and permafrost thaw, and the interactions between the two,” he said, referring to the findings of a soon-to-be-published paper.

That makes preventing wildfires a matter of global urgency, especially in vast areas of sequestered carbon. The fuel load of a forest can be lightened to make it more fire resistant, by clearing away brush, harvesting small trees or doing a controlled burn. Vast forests can be broken up by clearing trees to create areas of grassland, while highly flammable trees, like black spruce, can be replaced with different native species. More resources can be focused on putting out small fires in remote areas quickly, rather than allowing them to spread as is the norm.

Unfortunately, most of these strategies are very expensive to deploy on a large scale and may also be less effective as northern climates warm.

“Carbon content, or risk of carbon emissions, is at the moment not a criterion for setting firefighting priorities,” said Kurz. “In the northern boreal there are few people, there are few roads, there are few airports. There is just not the infrastructure to effectively fight fires. And so while it would be really good to do this from a climate perspective, the actual feasibility of doing so is going to be very challenging.”