The Politicization of the Tragedy of the Commons

           

            Garret Hardin’s infamous paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” regarding the causes of degradation in our global environment has unfortunately been greatly politicized. He makes the claim that humans act solely out of self-interest rather than to benefit the whole of the group, or in this case; the environment. One of Hardin’s claims is that land privatization will help this tragedy because land owners will want to preserve their land. Hardin’s argument is flawed in that he provides no evidence for saying how land privatization is beneficial for the commons. However, privatizing communal lands has had the same implications that leaving the land to communal use would. Deforestation, overuse of fertilizers leading to run-off, and the harming of biodiversity is still being reported on private land, more so than mutually owned land. Throughout history it has been seen that a community that shares land actually has stronger incentive to preserve it. For example, an individual owning private land would want to preserve it because they have their children, grandchildren, etc. in mind. This is because they are thinking about the future generations to use that land, therefore disproving Hardin’s argument.

           

            This claim that land privatization is beneficial to the commons has been greatly politicized. Despite refutations against Hardin’s paper, “The Tragedy of the Commons” is still serving as a basis for social policy for many institutions including the United Nations. This adoption by influential corporations, institutions, and governments has only continued to promote private ownership and uncontrolled growth through capitalist markets. Another one of Hardin’s widely accepted arguments is that the poor are to blame for environmental destruction. The falsehood of this arguments only gives more power to wealthier countries in the world and their ability to blame third world countries for their own wealth gap and impoverished areas. Hardin discounts racism, imperialism, and exploitation of humans claiming that poverty is a natural element in the world and those living in it bring it upon themselves.

            How can we blame third world countries for environmental degradation? We must take a look at ourselves. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. had their time to industrialize, and now that global warming has been taken off the political back burner, wealthier countries are looking at third world countries to blame for it. However, rather then set blame and prevent these nations from further development, we must search for a solution to allow these countries to develop more sustainably. This is a large piece of the current climate talks in Paris. Do the wealthier nations owe it to those who have less? Less developed countries feel it would be unfair that they have the same amount of responsibility as developed nations for a problem they did not initially cause. Whereas wealthier nations, such as the US want to avoid binding commitments that could be detrimental to their economies. There seems to be a considerable amount of support for an agreement on emission goals and financial commitments, but it will be tough on deciding what to call it. A treaty? An accord? A protocol? The United Nations climate chief is hoping the outcome will be something binding.

            The adoption of “The Tragedy of the Commons” theory by governments and institutions has created a political myth. This had led to a façade that there is basically no other option besides the current dominant world order. Hopefully this myth can be looked beyond and powerful countries will realize that it is them to blame for environmental degradation, and the financial costs should be allocated accordingly.