Steve's game in Bali

Sorting out our international approach to the now-certain effects of global warming has not been easy.

This is due partly to the fact the Conservatives have sought to maintain a position that’s at odds with the large majority of Canadians while not wishing to pay too great a political price for doing so. Steve has maintained a steadfast threat that until the U.S., China and India sign on to tough-minded constraints Canada will not either, begging the question of what we should do if, in fact, they don’t.

And he hasn’t been quick to give under-developed nations much of a break, even though they have not been the major contributors to the problem.

The “tragedy of the commons”, in rational choice theory, is a tricky challenge to common action. But since Steve and his close advisor, Tom Flanagan, favour this theory, it might be useful to explore an example.

Suppose you’re out in a large mini-van one snowy, very cold evening. There are 10 of you in the van with a driver, as the rest of you don’t drive. The van slides off the road into a snowy ditch, and there is rational concern that all will freeze to death if the van isn’t returned to the road.

You realize that all of you have different weight and that some of you are more responsible for finding your way to this ditch than others, having been in charge of directions. You also realize that it’s likely, but not absolutely certain, that if all but the driver gets out to push, the van will be returned to the road and all will be saved.

You’re alert to the fact that all of you, in pushing to the sort of intense degree required, may risk a heart attack, as none of you are in perfect shape. You also suspect that the van will be righted successfully if only nine of the 10 get out to do the work.

That is, while all pushing together will be the most certain strategy as well as seeming equitable, the optimal situation will be if one of you is allowed to free-ride, still getting the van out, while insuring that at least one of you has a lessened chance of heart attack by doing so. The problem, of course, is deciding who should get the free ride, if anyone, while the rest get the job done.

Using this as an analogy for the climate crisis, the Green movement has a clear answer: “are you folks crazy? Everyone out of the van with your shoulders fully engaged”!

The NDP and left-green Liberals have the following response: “Let the person who is in the worst situation and who has contributed least to the problem take a free-ride until we’re sure we need them, while the rest of us act with urgency.”

Even when they realize that another person has decided not to lend a hand, they are prepared to lead the rest out, hoping that eight will be enough, that the ninth will come to feel pretty pathetic sitting in the van losing reputational points every time the rest give a heave-ho.

Right-leaning green Liberals are saying, “let’s go for it early and see if we can get some spin-offs from the new techniques we develop in van-pushing.”

The Tories seek to convince the rest that we shouldn’t move one step to the door until everyone has agreed to do equal pushing. This isn’t only a threat to get the free-rider to do his/her share, but their actual position: they simply will not move internationally until we all do.

I don’t know how many of us will have to push to get us out of this ditch. For Conservatives who believe that as economies which both thrive on the production of heat, it’ll be galling to do our share while the Americans sit back smirking. But I’m pretty sure that sitting in the van waiting for them is a mug’s game.

As this goes to press, Steve’s man, John “aggressively attacking” Baird, has said while he won’t promise to push, he will still push, but with only a half-shouldered effort.