In Hardin’s article, “The Tragedy
of the Commons,” he asserts that humans act in self-interest, treating limited
resources as if they were unlimited. For one person to use as much as they want
and be concerned for their own well-being, the impact would be small. But if
everyone behaves in this manner, what seems unlimited will become limited and
disappear. While Hardin uses the example of arable land, “the commons” can
refer to many different aspects of the environment, including the atmosphere. By
looking at the Montreal Protocol, one can see how ozone and the atmosphere are
an example of the tragedy of the commons and how the regime is a method to
combat the “tragedy” of ozone’s depletion.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are
chemicals that are unreactive in the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere
that humans live in. However, once they reach the much hotter stratosphere
higher up in the atmosphere, the CFCs absorb ultraviolet light and break apart
into individual atoms of chlorine, fluoride, and carbon. As single elements,
these have the power to break apart ozone, a necessary part of the atmosphere
that reduces the amount of UV rays that are harmful and even fatal to life.
With the increased production of
CFCs in the 1980s, more ozone has been depleted, increasing risks to humans.
Looking through Hardin’s lens, the “commons” is equivalent to ozone, the
important resource that is limited, in this situation. Hardin states that self
interest is the reason why the environment is in trouble. CFCs were used in
varied cooling units such as air conditioners and refrigerators. While the
output from one fridge does not make a huge impact, the output from thousands
of fridges does. Manufacturers are concerned about profit, not environmental
safety, so this cheap, mass production that CFCs provided is proof of
self-interest. On the other side, users of fridges are also concerned about
buying the cheapest, best product, which of course was a fridge using CFCs.
More CFCs led to increased ozone depletion and health hazards. Self-interest
caused the problem, as fits with Hardin’s argument.
The Montreal Protocol is an
international regime signed in 1987 with a goal to reduce CFC emissions. Ways
they enforced this was by phasing out the many substances that contribute to
ozone depletion. All major Western countries signed the agreement and indeed
the ozone holes in Earth’s atmosphere are getting smaller. By limiting use and
production of CFCs, the Montreal Protocol has proved an effective way to combat
the tragedy of commons of ozone depletion. The basis of the Montreal Protocol
inhibits all the factors that contribute to the tragedy: self-interest,
increasing demand due to population growth, undefined social arrangements.
Through the monitoring and regulation of this treaty as well as agreement from
the world’s major powers, the atmosphere is not in the dire state that it would
be if we kept treating ozone as an unlimited resource.
Emma, great post!! Global warming has been on the backburner for so many years it is great to see its recognition from world powers. However, do you think often times these protocols are economically motivated rather than genuine interest in the environment? A huge piece of these protocols was cost-benefit analysis. The Montreal Protocol for the US had more monetized benefits than monetized costs. It was the opposite for the Kyoto protocol (monetized costs outweighed monetized benefits). Obviously there is a large connection between the environment and the economy, but how do you think we can make saving the environment worth any cost?
ReplyDeleteMaddie you bring up a great point. I think for many/ most politicians, the value of the Montreal Protocol is strictly the economic changes it also brings. It's interesting to consider how the benefits of a certain regime can be viewed differently depending on your passions (e.g. politicians vs. environmentalists). You pose the hard question, how can saving the environment be worth the cost. While obviously there are some changes that can be made that are beneficial in the eyes of both politicians and environmentalists like the Montreal Protocol, other changes are faced with much more difficulty. I think what has to change is peoples' outlook on the world. We can continue to put laws and regimes in place that limit production and use of X-pollutant, but the real change will begin when people understand and believe that the state of environment is a concern. The sad fact is, if we continue to use water, fossil fuels, and other natural resources at this rate in conjunction with the world's growing population, we will run out of options. For advanced economies, that probably means changing the norm of living --- In the U.S. many people treat the resources as if they are unlimited, but they are not. By taking a shorter shower or using public transportation, one person does not make a huge difference, but for the whole world it does. I don't think there's an answer for how the environment can be worth the cost other than that if we don't make changes, life as we know it will eventually cease to exist.
DeleteGoing off of what you mention in your answer to Maddie, I think that everyone must first be able to recognize the affect that global warming is having. Since there is no direct affect, some people choose to overlook the signs and believe that global warming is not even happening. Once people acknowledge that it is however a very imminent issue, I think it will be easier to find some sort of solution. Another issue, which we have talk about quite a lot, that also plays into this is the question of blame. Since global warming is not something that can be traced back to one single country, no one necessarily wants to take full responsibility in fixing it due to the effects it could have on economies and industrialization.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really great post and you did a great job clearly connecting the points made from the Tragedy of the Commons to our issue of the depletion of the ozone layer in the 1980s and I think this is a really good example of the Tragedy of the Commons. I have question for you: Do you think that there are other factors contributing to the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol besides the limited use and production of CFCs? Unintended outside factors? Do these outside factors contribute to the fail of the Kyoto Protocol?
ReplyDelete