UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has written an op-ed piece in The Sun promising “I will not sacrifice Great British industry to the drum-banging, finger-wagging Net Zero extremists”
Which means he’s willing to sacrifice all the industry to appease the fossil fuels industry.
The issue with fighting climate change is that it’s a game of chicken between all the countries. If the UK goes all out and eliminates all emissions (at the cost of some portion of its economy) but every other country stays the course, then climate change just carries on and the UK’s sacrifice is in vain.
Similarly, if every other country in the world buckles down and stops climate change but the UK carries on, the UK ends up ahead. This means there is a double disincentive to cooperate on climate change.
Canada is going through this issue right now. The Liberal government has gone forward with carbon taxes and now these policies have become deeply unpopular. The Liberal party is now staring down the barrel of a potentially historic defeat in the upcoming election next year.
Countries that fail to invest in new technologies like solar and batteries will be left behind economically. Their investment in fossil fuels is going to be worth less and less, and they will have nothing to replace it with.
But, we are going to prop up large vested fossil fuel interests as long as possible, of course.
Yes, this is clear enough in the long run. But the question is: will the transition happen fast enough to prevent a climate change catastrophe?
If we don’t avoid the climate change catastrophe, then current investments are going to be even less valuable than if we do. That’s no argument for continuing to prop up those industries.
I have a feeling that the fossil-fuel investors, to the extent that they trouble their pretty heads about it at all, think that, so long as they make enough money now, they can just run really good air conditioning and it won’t affect them. Idiots.
Yes, but countries are starting to implement carbon taxes on trade with each other. So countries that don’t reduce would be tarriffed higher, to counteract this problem.
It is also why most agreements are multinational with targets to be met.
Isn’t it less of a game of a chicken and closer to a global Prisoners Dilemma? The best option for everyone is for everyone to do the thing, the best option for individuals is to not do the thing but the worst thing for everyone is to not do the thing?
Yes. Chicken is an example of a prisoner’s dilemma, though with the key difference that it plays out in real time instead of a single instant.
Tragedy of the commons is usually the result of a large group game of chicken/PD.
I don’t think I’ve ever thought of chicken that way… Questioning if I even understand it at all 😂
But yes, you’re right, the whole thing requires everyone to contribute equally for it all to work properly but, since everyone can momentarily benefit more by not, and politics is painfully shortsighted, they won’t do the right thing.