PS 378 2012Summer Final paper: An Intergenerational Game: the Less-known Dimension of Climate Change

Xiaorui Huang

PS 378 Game Theory
Final Essay
2012-Aug-24^th
Grade: A+

 An Intergenerational Game: the Less-known Dimension of Climate Change

 

Introduction

Climate change has an international (or spatial) dimension[1] and an intergenerational (or temporal) dimension. The international dimension, framed by various studies as a tragedy of the commons involving different nations, become the major perception of climate change in public and political discourses (Raihani and Aitken 47-55, Wood 153-68). In contrast, the intergenerational dimension of climate change, despite certain academic coverage, is largely overlooked, which has some interesting implications on the solution to climate change as a whole (Gardiner 408, Schuppert 303-06).

In this essay, I firstly construct an extensive model of the intergenerational game of climate change. Then, based on this model and game theory, I discuss both negative and positive influences of the neglect of the intergenerational dimension on addressing climate change as a whole.  

 

The Intergenerational Game of Climate Change.

Inspired by a thought-provoking work of Stephen Gardiner, a scholar in environmental philosophy, I construct the model of the intergenerational game of climate change based on two temporal characteristics of climate change, namely resilience and deferral (403). On one hand, climate change is resilient in the sense that it takes decades for even a radical reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission to transfer into the decrease of GHG concentration in upper atmosphere. On other hand, the deferral of climate change means that our current global warming is caused by the GHG emission produced decades ago and our current emission will only affect the degree of climate change several decades later. 

In the intergenerational game of climate change, we assume generations do not overlap and each generation is a player who wants to achieve both a good economy and a decent environment[2]. Starting from the first generation, each player is firstly imposed an offer from the previous generation (if any) and then coercively impose an offer to the next generation. Players can either make a cooperative offer or a defecting offer. If Generation A imposes a cooperative offer to Generation B, it means that Generation A restricts its own GHG emission by slowing down its own economic development. If Generation A imposes a defecting offer to Generation B, it means that Generation A maintains the economic development and does not restrict its GHG emission. To quantify, we set both initial[3] economic value (EC) and environmental value (EV) as 10. A cooperative offer adds 1 point to the EC values of the generation making the offer and adds 1 point to the EV value two generations later. A defecting offer adds 2 points to the EC values of the generation making the offer and deducts 1 point from the EV value two generation later. This two-generation deferral of the environmental impacts of offers is to simulate the resilience and deferral of climate change mentioned above. EC and EV values are cumulative and are inherited from earlier to later generations. Finally, in this game, we consider EV=0 as a point of human extinction and the game will iterate until reaching this point. Figure 1 shows the game tree of the intergenerational game for the first 5 generations with the EC and EV outcomes of each generation in each strategy-path in the tables on the left.

As Figure 1 shows, when isolating a single generation and its offer-making, the outcome that this generation gets from making a defecting offer is always better than the outcome from making a cooperative offer (e.g. for the 5^th generation, its outcome in Result #3 is better than Result #4). This is because a defecting offer gives the generation that makes the offer an immediate 1 more point on EC value. Meanwhile, both defecting offers and cooperative offers do not influence the EV value of the generation that makes the offer. The economic effects are immediate but the environmental effects are deferred. Therefore, individual rationality makes each generation always prefer making a defecting offer over a cooperate offer.

            In contrast, collectively, most generations (except the first several ones) prefer the cumulative outcome of everyone cooperating over everyone defecting because a decent environment is also a goal other than the economy. Furthermore, doomsday comes when EV=0. However, individual rationality prevents cooperation from happening. Therefore, the Nash Equilibrium for the intergenerational game of climate change is that every generation defects and mankind extincts at the 12^th generation, which is represented by the all-red path in the game tree and the Result #1 in the tables.

 

Figure 1 with Result Tables -          A Red line means a defecting offer; a blue line means a cooperate offer; -          The top numbers in the parentheses are the EC value and the bottom numbers are the EV values. -          From left to right, the five pairs of parentheses are the outcomes for from 1st generation to 5th generation.

   

      Of course, limitations exist in this model due to its simplification and the inevitable uncertainties of climate change. First, generations are not discrete and they do overlap. Second, each generation lives on the planet for a substantial amount of time before and after it takes charge (i.e. childhood and old age). Third, we do not exactly know how many generations does it take to reach doomsday if no generation restricts GHG emission. In other words, the initial EV value and the quantification of the environmental impacts of offers could be questionable. Fourth, after a certain degree of environmental degradation, economic activities will be harmed, which is not shown in the model.

 

Negative Implications of the Neglect of the Intergenerational Dimension on Addressing Climate Change as a Whole

Even though certain academic effort has been done to reveal the intergenerational dimension, it is generally neglected in public and political discourses. Such neglect, partly manifested as the exclusive focus on the international dimension, have negative implications on addressing climate change as a whole.

The first negative implication is that it directs most political and academic resources to address the international dimension whose solutions are incompatible to the intergenerational issues of climate change, which crippled the comprehensive (i.e. including both dimensions) mitigation of climate change. Many studies have been done that seek for methods to encourage multilateral cooperation to solve the international tragedy of the commons of climate change (Gardiner 399-401, Raihani and Aitken 47-55, Wood 153-54). However, these methods, which include both theoretical mechanisms like building reciprocity and practical actions such as the United Nations Climate Change Conferences, are inapplicable to the intergenerational dimension of climate change because the bare co-existence of players in this intergenerational dimension (Gardiner 405). Moreover, according to Fabian Schuppert, a scholar in environmental politics, the three major schemes developed to mitigate climate change in the international dimension, namely cap-and-trade schemes, carbon emission taxes, and personal ecological space quotas, are ineffective in the intergenerational dimension. Specifically, all three schemes are centered at equal mitigation burden among all people (both intra- and intergenerational), which, given the scientific uncertainties of climate change, conveniently provides current generation excuses to push off its responsibilities and costs of mitigation of climate change to future generations (Schuppert 308-17). Thus, with the solutions for international dimension incompatible with the intergenerational dimension, the neglect of intergenerational dimension cripples the comprehensive solution of climate change.

Besides, such neglect hides from public perception the institutional inadequacy of current political structure, which lowers the bureaucrats’ and politicians’ expected utilities for supporting GHG emission restriction and therefore impair the political support for addressing climate change. The primary goal for politicians and bureaucrats is to ensure being re-elected or promoted, which is influenced by the public perception of their performance in their terms of office. However, as discussed above, climate change is resilient, which means that it takes decades (much longer than normal terms of office) for GHG restriction to realize its effects. As a result, it is impossible for a government to make perceivable mitigation of climate change within one term of office, which is the institutional inadequacy of current political structure in addressing climate change (Gardiner 403). If the public are aware of such inadequacy, they are more likely to support a pro-GHG-restriction politician whose policy appears to be ineffective in his or her term because they know it takes more time. In contrast, if the public are not aware of such inadequacy, pro-GHG-restriction politician are likely to have his or her policy be criticized as ineffective by the public and his likelihood of being re-elected decreases. In other words, politicians’ and bureaucrats’ expected utilities for supporting GHG restriction decrease when the public awareness of the institutional inadequacy is low. Since the neglect of intergenerational dimension hides the resilience and deferral of climate change from the public perception, it also lowers the public awareness of institutional inadequacy and therefore lower politician’s expected utilities for supporting GHG restriction. Consequently, such neglect impairs the political support for GHG restriction.

 

Positive Implications of the Neglect of the Intergenerational Dimension on Addressing Climate Change

The neglect of the intergenerational dimension also has positive implications on the solution to climate change, which is derived from its influences on the public’s expected utilities on addressing and not addressing climate change.  

Firstly, such neglect may somewhat increase people’s expected utility of addressing climate change by making people unaware of the deferral and resilience of climate change, for such awareness undermines their will to address it (as shown in the Figure 1). Specifically, while in mainstream discourse people do talk about the long-term effects of addressing and not addressing climate change, the fact that current actions, either restricting GHG emission or not, will not have their impacts realized until decades later is blurred by the neglect of the intergenerational dimension. Known from the game model, if people are fully aware of the resilience and deferral of climate change, it is rational for them to choose to maintain economic development but not restrict GHG emission. However, the neglect of the intergenerational dimension make the public unaware these two characteristics of climate change and therefore increases the public expected utility of and support for restricting GHG emission and addressing climate change right now.

Moreover, such neglect, when manifested as the exclusive focus on the international dimension, helps build a public perception that if we do not address climate change right now, disasters will fall upon them very soon, which decreases the expected utilities of not addressing climate change. Specifically, when focusing on the international dimension, the current disastrous impacts of climate change are highlighted. Such highlighting on disasters make people easily builds a direct and immediate causation between what they are doing now (i.e. restricting GHG emission or not) and what is happening (disasters happening or not). For example, after Hurricane Katrina attacked America in 2005 (which is not directly caused but closely associated with climate change), media coverage on climate change suddenly rises in America (Everything’s cool). In the year after, American public support for addressing climate change reached the highest point in 2000s. If the public are well aware of the intergenerational dimension of climate change, they should know that these disasters are not caused by current GHG emission and will not be mitigated by current emission restriction. However, the neglect of the intergenerational dimension enables people to develop an immediate causation between climate change and such disasters and make them less willing to leave climate change unaddressed. In other words, such neglect changes their preference by lowering the utility of not addressing climate change, which increase the public support for addressing climate change.

 

Conclusion

            The intergenerational dimension of climate change is largely overlooked in political and public discourses. To explore this dimension, I construct a model of intergenerational game, which shows a devastating Nash Equilibrium of every generation keeping GHG emission high and mankind rushes toward extinction. However interestingly, by changing the public’s and politicians’ expected utilities of addressing and not addressing climate change, the neglect of the devastating intergenerational dimension has both negative and positive implications of the comprehensive solution to climate change.             

Work Cited

Everything's Cool. Dir. Daniel Gold. Perf. Daniel Gold. Bullfrog Films, 2007. DVD.

Gardner, Stephen. "A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption." Environmental Values 15.3 (2006): 397-413. Print.

Raihani, Nichola, and David Aitken. "Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change." Climatic Change 108 (2011): 47-55. Print.

Schuppert, Fabian. "Climate change mitigation and intergenerational justice." Environmental Politics 20.3 (2011): 303-21. Print.

Wood, Peter. "Climate change and game theory." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219.1 (2011): 153-170. Print.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] In this essay, I use the term “international dimension” to denote the intra-generational, spatial dimension of climate change because in a single generation, addressing/not addressing climate change is generally considered as interactions among different countries.

[2] In the intergenerational game of climate change, the term “environment” and its quantitative value EV introduced later only refers to climate change. A higher EV value represents a LOWER degree of climate change and a BETTER environment; vice versa.

[3] Historically, the initial values could refer to the status right before the first industrial revolution

INTL 407 2012Summer Research Paper: “Indispensable Coal”: Environmentally-unjust Propaganda

Xiaorui Huang

INTL 407 Environmental Justice
Research Paper
Instructor: Prof. Braun

Grade: A+

“Indispensable Coal”: Environmentally-unjust Propaganda

Introduction 

Around half of electricity in the United States is generated from coal, which counts for 23% of total national energy supply (Storm 9). Indeed, coal has been important to America. However, its severe environmental costs make it undesirable on the list of promising future energy sources. Coal’s unpopularity drives coal industry to adopt many public relation strategies to prolong its past prosperity. The propaganda of “indispensable coal” is one of such strategies. This propaganda hinders the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice and further worsens such injustice by casting anti-coal organizations as groups failing America, contributing to political support for pro-coal policies, and swaying people to become market price-centered consumers who favor coal over other energy sources.

            In this paper, I will do a theoretical analysis on the impacts of the “indispensable coal” propaganda on environmental injustice.  Firstly, I briefly describe the environmental injustice caused by coal production at intra-national, international, and intergenerational levels. Secondly, I explain what the “indispensable coal” propaganda is. Thirdly, I analyze the impacts of such propaganda on impeding the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice. Finally, I discuss how such propaganda further worsens environmental injustice.

Environmental Injustice Caused by Coal

The impacts of the “indispensable coal” propaganda on environmental injustice directly relate to the environmental injustice issues caused by coal itself at intra-national, international, and intergenerational levels. At the intra-national level, various studies have shown that the life cycle of coal, while powering the whole America, causes environmental damages and other burdens disproportionally borne by certain groups of people like Appalachian communities (Epstein 77-85; Hendryx 541-50; McSpirit & Reid 512-16). Specifically, coal mining and coal-fired power generation cause visual, water, and air pollution in mining communities and often result in serious public health hazards. At the international level, the environmental injustice caused by coal mainly manifests as the climate injustice that is exacerbated by the huge amount of carbon emission of coal usage. For example, by indirectly increasing global temperature and aggravating sea level rise, the usage of coal in some countries accelerates the submersion of an atoll where a agricultural Polynesian community resides for centuries (There once was an island = Te henua e nnoho). At the intergenerational level, the environmental injustice of coal is also derived from its carbon emission. Since it takes decades for current emission to fully realize into the increase of carbon concentration in upper atmosphere, the usage of coal somewhat boost present economy at the expense of the severer climate change for future generations (Gardiner 403-04; Epstein 87-90).

The Industrial Propaganda of “Indispensable Coal”

Among various propaganda made by coal industry, “indispensable coal” plays an important role. Coal industry has made two arguments that promote coal as indispensable for America. First, coal industry argues that the American economy and businesses depend on the cheap electricity produced by coal in order to be competitive internationally (Storm 1, 4, 10; PRI’s The World; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; America’s Power). Without coal, economy will fail. Second, coal industry argues that coal is the only energy source that can power Americans’ wonderful lives at an affordable cost (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). Without coal, life expenses of Americans will rocket.

“Indispensable Coal” Hinders the Mitigation of Environmental Injustice

Both types of “indispensable coal” propaganda undermine the will of people, politicians, and governmental agencies to address coal-associated environmental injustice at all three levels discussed above.

On one hand, by claiming that American economy and businesses depend on coal, coal industry describes itself as the defender for American interests and casts those who intend to regulate coal industry and address associated environmental injustice as failing America. In a speech in the 2008 Coal Market Strategies Conference, Richard Storm, CEO of a coal company argues that “we are on the right side of the issue [by stating that coal good for America]”, “[we need to] convince other energy groups to put America’s interest first” (Storm 7, 15). Also coal industry vilifies anti-coal environmental groups and governmental regulators as “weaken America’s economic strength, our national security and the future prosperity for our grandchildren” (Storm 20). Particularly, coal industry targets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by arguing that EPA is failing America by regulating coal industry (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). Basically, coal industry uses “indispensable coal” propaganda to constructs a public perception of “America needs coal! Regulating coal industry harms America.”

On other hand, by propagating that only coal can power Americans’ lives at an affordable cost, coal industry again portrays itself as the defender of public interests and anti-coal groups as the enemies of the public who threat the lives for Americans. In the coal commercial We Can All Make a Difference, coal industry indicates that any shifts to other energy sources will increase utility costs for American families and make their lives tougher (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). Also, Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for a coal industry group, comments on a renowned Harvard study on the externalities of coal that “ [this study] ignores the substantial benefits of coal in maintaining low energy prices for American families…,[which] are linked to a higher standard of living and better health” (Malone). Here coal industry tries to build a public perception of “American people need coal! Regulating coal industry harms Americans.”

            If the public perception is built that coal is indispensable to both American economy and people, anyone who wants to regulate coal industry and address associated environmental injustice will lose public support. Although no case-based study has been done on the correlation between “indispensable coal” propaganda and the deregulation of coal industry in the last two decades, it is likely that such propaganda plays a role in forcing the regulators to retreat. In this sense, “indispensable coal” propaganda hinders the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice.

“Indispensable Coal” Further Worsens Environmental Injustice

Not only undermining the mitigation of coal-associated environmental injustice, the “indispensable coal” propaganda may further worsen such injustice by actually encouraging a momentum of increasing coal usage[1].

            First, policies become more pro-coal industry under the influence of “indispensable coal” propaganda, which may potentially increase coal usage. A message implied in the “indispensable coal” propaganda is that it is righteous to use coal. Based on the fact that America has the largest coal reserve in the world, this message then encourages people to use coal to the largest extent (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). When applying to policies, such a message contributes to the political support for policies that benefit coal industry and increase coal usage. An example is the Advance Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) in Pennsylvania. Originally named as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), this regulation was supposed to encourage the development of renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy, and biomass. However, in Pennsylvania, waste coal is included in the promotion list (Pennsylvania AEPS Alternative Energy Credit Program). According to a study by sociologists Leland Glenna and Robert Roy Thomas, in the Pennsylvania AEPS case, the past dependence on coal together with the perception of continuous future dependence contributes to the strong political power of coal industry to turn a pro-environment policy into an opportunity for further development of coal usage (862-64, 867-68). Of course, the “indispensable coal” propaganda is not solely responsible in this case, yet, theoretically it can empower coal industry with more political support to get more pro-coal policies passed. 

Second, the “indispensable coal” propaganda causes the increase of coal usage by both treating people solely as consumers and promoting the cheap market price of coal but deliberately neglecting various externalities of coal. In anecdotes described in several “indispensable coal” commercials, characters involved are only concerned about saving money from using cheap coal-generated electricity without thinking about the huge externalities of coal (Bigelow; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity). In doing so, audiences of the commercials are treated solely as consumers. And Coal, with a cheap market price, is promoted as the best energy source for consumers. Subconsciously, people tend to become what they are treated as (The Century of the Self). In this case, people as audiences of “indispensable coal” commercials tend to care about only the cheap market price of energy sources. As a result, coal usage is very likely to increase. Since coal usage causes severe environmental injustice as discussed in the beginning, the “indispensable coal” propaganda may worsens these environmental injustices by potentially increasing coal usage.

             

Conclusion

            Based on the theoretical analysis, the “indispensable coal” propaganda of coal industry hinders the mitigation of environmental injustice caused by coal because it casts those who intend to regulate coal industry as failing American economy and people. Moreover, such propaganda may further worsens the environmental injustice because it potentially leads to the increase of coal usage by getting more pro-coal policies passed and treating people as market price-centered consumers.

            Of course, this theoretical analysis is insufficient and does not provide concrete evidences for the negative impacts of the “indispensable coal” propaganda on environmental injustice. Specific case studies are called for to further explore how such industrial propaganda influences environmental injustice. 

Works Cited

Bigelow, Bill. "Scholastic Inc. Pushing Coal Propaganda to Kids." Common Dreams. N.p., 12 May 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2012. <https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/12-5>.

"Coal - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Aug. 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/coal/data.cfm>.

Epstein, Paul, Samir Doshi, Jonathan Buonocore, Leslie Glustrom, Melissa Ahern, Nancy Reinhart, Beverly May, Richard Clapp, Richard Heinberg, Benjamin Stout, Michael Hendryx, and Kevin Eckerle. "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219.1 (2011): 73-98. Print.

Gardner, Stephen. "A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption." Environmental Values 15.3 (2006): 397-413. Print.

Glenna, Leland, and Robert Thomas. "From Renewable to Alternative: Waste Coal, the Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, and Public Legitimacy." Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 23.9 (2010): 856-71. Print.

Hendryx , Michael, and Melissa Ahern. "Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life Lost." Public Health Reports 124.4 (2009): 541-50. Print.

Malone, Scott. " Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.-study| Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-coal-study-idUSN1628366220110216>.

McSpirit, Stephanie, and Caroline Reid. "Residents' Perceptions of Tap Water and Decisions to Purchase Bottled Water: A Survey Analysis from the Appalachian, Big Sandy Coal Mining Region of West Virginia." Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 24.5 (2011): 511-20. Print

"Overview." Pennsylvania AEPS Alternative Energy Credit Program. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2012. <paaeps.com/credit/overview.do >.

PRI’s The World. "US depends on coal, too | PRI's The World." PRI's The World. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2012. <http://www.theworld.org/2010/12/us-depends-on-coal-too/>.

Storm, Richard. "Enhancing Public Perception of Coal." 2008 Coal Market Strategies Conference. Storm Technologies, Inc.. Kingsmill Resort & Spa, Williamsburg, Va. 6 Oct. 2008. Speech.

The Century of the Self. Dir. Adam Curtis. Perf. Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays. BBC Four, 2002. VHS.

There once was an island = Te henua e nnoho. Dir. Briar March. Perf. Teloo, Endar, Satty. On the Level Productions, 2010. DVD.

"anon." America's Power. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2012. <www.americaspower.org/keeping-electricity-prices-low-american-business>.

"anon.." American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2012. <www.cleancoalusa.org/>.

***Special notes: When I drafted my paper in Eugene, I have cited examples of industrial propaganda from American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and America’s Power (the last two in the references list). However, when making references in China, somehow I cannot access these two websites (they might be blocked by Chinese government). Therefore I cannot get enough information to make complete references for these two websites. Apologies for any violation of rules of academic integrity.

---

[1] According to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the annual coal consumption in America had increased since 1990s till mid-2000s. It reached the highest point in 2007 and slightly decreased in the following years. Here “encouraging a momentum of increasing coal usage” means that: in the years of decreasing coal consumption, “indispensable coal” propaganda somewhat neutralizes the decrease; in the years of increasing coal consumption, “indispensable coal” propaganda reinforces the increase. Also, since it is very hard to quantify the influence of “indispensable coal” propaganda on actual coal consumption, I will only focus on the theoretical analysis of such influence.