Climate Crisis and the Tragedy of the Commons: a Matter of Racism?

In 1968, American ecologist and philosopher Garret Hardin (1915-2003) published a famous article, “The tragedy of the commons”, in which he argued the necessity of controlling the world population’s growth since “a finite world can support only a finite population” (p. 1243). Hardin pointed out that, in a pasture open to all, where every single herdsman can do whatever he wants, a rational behaviour based on self-interest will lead him to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons: in such a deregulated context, the marginal utility of an additional animal is always positive because while gain (profit) is private, loss (overgrazing) is shared with the entire community. In the long term, such a trend can lead to resources’ exhaustion and, ultimately, to disaster.

Over the last 50 years, Hardin’s paper has been widely cited by scholars of different disciplines, from ecology to political science. But in a recent article published by Scientific American, an assistant professor of environmental politics at the University of California vehemently states that it is time to reject Hardin’s misleading ideas. After acknowledging Hardin’s impact on modern environmentalism, Matto Mildenberger attacks him in a not-so-fair manner. Instead of proposing a series of solid, convincing, arguments, he starts by labeling Hardin as racist, white nationalist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamophobe. The only source quoted to back such compliments is the Southern Poverty Law Center, dedicated to “fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society”.

“Climate Change” or “Climate Crisis”?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Do the expressions “global warming” and “climate change” refer to the very same thing? In other words: can they be used as synonyms? The answer is no – not really.
As clearly explained on the NASA website,

Global warming refers to the upward temperature trend across the entire Earth since the early 20th century, and most notably since the late 1970s, due to the increase in fossil fuel emissions since the industrial revolution. Worldwide since 1880, the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980).

Climate change refers to a broad range of global phenomena created predominantly by burning fossil fuels, which add heat-trapping gases to Earth’s atmosphere. These phenomena include the increased temperature trends described by global warming, but also encompass changes such as sea level rise; ice mass loss in Greenland, Antarctica, the Arctic and mountain glaciers worldwide; shifts in flower/plant blooming; and extreme weather events.

Should We Teach All Students to Think like Scientists?

Issues such as climate change illustrate that scientists, even if armed with overwhelming evidence, are at times powerless to change minds or motivate action. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, people in the U.S., one of the countries that emits the most carbon, were among the least concerned about the potential impact of climate change. (…) For many, knowledge about the natural world is superseded by personal beliefs. (…) It is imperative for the next generation of leaders in science to be aware of the psychological, social and cultural factors that affect how people understand and use information. (…)
Scientists cannot work in silos and expect to improve the world, particularly when false narratives have become entrenched in communities. This is especially true in tackling issues such as public trust in vaccines, a topic that is flooded with misleading information, despite a lack of legitimate scientific evidence supporting the view that they are unsafe.

It is very easy to agree with these observations by social psychologist Peter Salovey, current President of Yale University – and, in general, I do agree with him. Referring to climate change, Salovey properly points out that, at least in the US, the public do not seem to be very concerned about it. The reasons of such attitude, instead of being sought (only) in the lack of science literacy and technical reasoning ability, should be also identified in the power of personal beliefs, that can lead people to frame issues in ways which conflict with scientific evidence.