Politicians have long faced problems in creating effective policies that reduce CO2 emissions while ensuring that all parties involved agree with the proposed approach. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992, but has yet to establish an effective global agreement on reducing carbon emissions. With rising temperatures and sea levels, increased droughts and floods, the threat of global warming continues to grow. Mancur Olson's collective action theory offers insight into why the provision of public goods is problematic in many cases, including ways to improve the possibilities for cooperation. In the case of reducing CO2 emissions, the most effective mechanism for encouraging collective action is to establish a common belief in the cause among people, further strengthened by private sector participation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Olson's theory of collective action states that, although it may be in a group's interest to provide public goods, large groups often fail to achieve this goal. Pure public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, meaning that no one has the ability to control who uses the good, and one person's consumption of the good does not prohibit its use by another. This presents the free rider problem, where people benefit from a good without paying a share of the cost, which is why the market does not provide public goods but society relies on institutions to provide them. Olson argues that because of this problem it is difficult to collectively coordinate group decisions, partly because groups may disagree about whose interests to achieve. Olson explains that collective action becomes more difficult in large groups due to the lack of meaning of an individual's contribution. , the anonymity of a group and the question of enforcement. In the context of reducing CO2 emissions, if most people in a society choose to reduce their emissions by replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED light bulbs, an individual may choose not to consume, as his or her contribution will be minimal. However, if no one changes the light bulbs, CO2 emissions will not decrease. The anonymity of a large group means that this individual can refrain from cooperating without the group knowing who he is. Furthermore, in large anonymous groups it is more difficult to reach agreement on a common goal. In terms of enforcement, since it is a complex problem to identify who participated or not, it is equally difficult to punish those who abstained. Therefore, the individual does not share any costs but will reap the benefits of lower CO2 emissions. Despite the above, Olson does not insist that collective action never takes place, clearly seen through the provision of public goods such as public transportation or universal healthcare in many countries. . To ensure the provision of public goods, various mechanisms can be used to improve contribution and collective action. Olson argues that if people are given selective incentives, or if they receive benefits only if they contribute, this will increase participation in the group's goal. This is the “by-product” argument, where the achievement of the group's goal is a by-product of individuals' effort as a result of a particular incentive. Collective action can also expand if external enforcement is implemented. For example, if itState regularly checks homes to see if all light bulbs have been changed to environmentally friendly ones and fines residents who do not, the teetotaler referred to in the previous paragraph is more likely to change light bulbs for fear of financial repercussions. Political entrepreneurship is another way participation can increase. If a party leader coordinates and motivates his party to achieve the CO2 emission reduction target, thus encouraging party supporters to do the same, contribution could improve. Finally, if a group has common values ​​or beliefs, this can also encourage participation, as all individuals will see the group's goal as beneficial. Furthermore, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis theorize that cooperation is a product of evolution. In primitive societies, cooperation was advantageous as it meant greater skill in acquiring food, ability to share food, and better defensive powers. As such, individuals who contributed to the collective were rewarded and given a better chance of survival, eventually leading humans to have a more collective mindset. Furthermore, societies that favored collective action may have had a better chance of survival; so today's societies should also join the cooperation. Joint action can also occur as a result of the incentive for reciprocity. If a person knows that they will receive cleaner air if their neighbor changes their light bulbs to environmentally friendly ones and vice versa, both parties will be encouraged to participate. A politician willing to reduce CO2 emissions must address all the issues presented by Olson's theory. Since global warming and therefore increasing CO2 emissions is a global issue, for the purposes of this essay it is assumed that the politician must work with hundreds of other politicians to achieve his goal. Furthermore, this means that the politician is trying to encourage collective action for the largest possible group, the human population of the entire planet. One of the biggest problems with enforcement in the global context is that there is no legal body that can leverage other nations' compliance with an international agreement. Previous agreements proposed by the United Nations have been voluntary, often resulting in countries withdrawing from an agreement to avoid failing to meet the requirements. For example, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 after realizing it could not meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to avoid financial sanctions. Furthermore, most have been considered ineffective in effectively reducing the effects of global warming. Encouraging collective action becomes especially difficult as nations have varying degrees of concern about global warming, where some countries fail to even consider global warming a threat to the planet and the survival of the planet. the human species. It is also true that some countries with the highest CO2 emissions are those that see it as minimal threat. This was observed recently when the United States, responsible for approximately 16% of carbon emissions globally, decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement proposed by the United Nations (UN). This was previously considered one of the most successful international environmental agreements, with 179 countries ratifying it. Therefore, it was found that there is no common belief about the severity of the effects of CO2 emissions. While there is no common understanding of the harm from CO2 emissions, this is the most powerful tool policymakers canuse when dealing with public goods. . Elinor Ostrom demonstrates that sustainable resource use can be achieved given the right conditions in her book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. He states: “…A fundamental goal of public policy should be to facilitate the development of institutions that bring out the best in human beings.” His research found that in smaller communities, groups created solutions that ensured sustainable use of public resources. These groups were successful if they had effective means of communication; clarity on group membership; an approach suited to local conditions; equal opportunities for members of the affected group to participate in the decision-making process; ability to self-govern the solution; a system for monitoring compliance and an enforcement scheme by group members; convenient and attainable method of solving problems; and encouraged responsibility from all members. Probably the most important condition is that of clear communication, illustrated by the prisoner's dilemma. Without communication, it is in both parties' best interests to confess. However, if they had the opportunity to strategically plan, it becomes clear that they would be better off if they both kept quiet rather than confessing. This is also done on the basis that they can trust the other to keep their word. Fortunately, there are no restrictions on whether or not you can communicate the importance of reducing carbon emissions to the masses. Despite this, the problem of global communication arises. A Bangladeshi citizen might be able to explain to his neighbor the importance of reducing carbon emissions by cycling rather than driving to work, for fear of sea level rise, but convey this message to a native of Wisconsin could prove more difficult. Therefore, it becomes the policy maker's task to encourage effective communication on the importance of reducing CO2 emissions. This seems to be a cumbersome task and must therefore be conveyed to politicians of all nations to spread this message to their respective citizens. As mentioned above, UN agreements focusing on environmental sustainability have not been very effective. Instead, policymakers should focus on improving education about the effects of carbon emissions; the power individuals have to diminish this effect; and how to participate. Since high CO2 emissions are a global problem, to which many contribute and therefore many can combat, the most effective method to achieve this is to develop a common belief in its value. Examples of the effectiveness of a common value have been demonstrated: in many Western European countries global warming is considered a major threat and their carbon emissions are lower than other similar nations. Clearly, this is also the result of the policies implemented by the European Union and the governments of each nation. However, some countries have created a culture around environmentally friendly practices. In Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, for example, 60% of trips are made by bicycle. If a similar “bicycle culture” or a culture of more environmentally friendly modes of transportation could be established globally, carbon emissions would decrease significantly. The establishment of a common belief is also valuable as it can lead to social shaming of those who do not obey environmentally friendly practices. . Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter, in their article Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments,demonstrate that “…the will to punish constitutes a credible threat to potential free riders and causes a large increase in levels of cooperation…” If the threat of punishment can encourage collective action, this proves to be a powerful enforcement mechanism in which all individuals they can commit. Furthermore, it decreases the need to trust fellow citizens, as the fear of punishment will motivate them to keep their promise to contribute. As discussed above, a global problem is compounded by the lack of global enforcement. The UN can encourage member states to participate in international agreements and impose sanctions on those who fail to achieve the desired outcome, but it cannot force contribution. It can clearly be argued that nations have better enforcement mechanisms, through implemented policies or laws, which would certainly help improve collective action. However, if the goal is a complete shift to environmentally friendly practices, many of these practices are difficult for even a state to monitor. For example, while a nation can create a law stating that all homes must have LED light bulbs, regularly checking and verifying that citizens comply with this rule would be extremely tedious and expensive with minimal benefit. However, if people know what eco-light bulbs look like and believe in their value, if they notice that their friend hasn't changed theirs, they might discourage others from socializing with them. Being creatures that desire social interaction, the friend is encouraged to respect the implementation of LED bulbs. With social shaming, two of Ostrom's conditions can be met: a pattern of monitoring and enforcement and the encouragement of equal responsibility for all members of the group. Another issue with the UN's ability to achieve lower carbon emissions is that previous agreements have required adherence to similar standards. goals for very different nations. Although the United Nations does not specify or require certain methods of how countries should achieve these goals, it is not realistic for such different states to achieve comparable goals. Ostrom illustrates this problem by talking about the condition of groups that use means suited to local conditions. In particular, a point of contention for many developing countries when trying to reach consensus for an agreement is that decreasing carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy will hinder economic growth. Additionally, these countries have less capital to adapt to climate change technologies and policies. Accordingly, nations must have the freedom to choose the course of action most appropriate for them. It could be argued that this will simply lead to developing nations deciding to disengage from any reduction in carbon emissions. Therefore, it is clear that letting nations determine their ideal method will only be successful if citizens have a common belief in implementing and improving sustainable practices. A policy maker can also leverage the impact of companies that engage in corporate sustainability practices by rewarding companies committed to applying these. In recent years, companies have understood the importance of corporate social responsibility. When reviewed by third parties, companies are now evaluated on financial performance, as well as environmental, social and governance performance. Reputational risk, not just regulatory or financial risk, is now a factor they see as a threat to customer loss. Companies understand what consumers are.