This is a very important topic of debate as it concerns carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, a massive part of our environment in the 21st century today. I think that by using Olson's theory of collective action, we learn a lot about how policymakers face many challenges in reducing carbon dioxide emissions due to the nature of public goods and how there are always free riders in the market who take advantage. I will support my case using Olson's theory and some real-life examples as evidence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Olson's theory of collective action states that "any group of individuals attempting to provide a public good finds it difficult to do so effectively." Public goods have two main characteristics: non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Non-excludable generally means that a person cannot be excluded from consuming that product and non-rival means that its use does not reduce availability to others. This is a classic example of market failure since public goods tend to be undersupplied, meaning markets are inefficient. Taking these two characteristics into consideration, the case of free-riders can be explained in more detail. Olson said that a public good “cannot be withheld from other members of the group when one member of the group consumes the group – even if those members did not contribute to the provision of the good.” A classic example in this case is that of taxes. If a certain individual evades paying taxes, no one can really prevent him from using public goods provided free of charge by the government, such as street lighting, use of roads, defense, etc. "free ride" on the efforts of others in certain groups and, on the other hand, the size of a group is of great importance and difficult to determine optimally. In short, Olson's main goal was to make the point that "collective action within large groups is unlikely." According to Olson, a group means “a number of individuals who share a common interest.” He classified the definition of “groups” into three different categories: “privileged groups in which each member is willing to pay for the provision of the collective good”; “small intermediate groups in which no member has an interest in bearing the costs of providing the good, but in which there is some possibility of cooperation because members are unable to recognize those who benefit”; and finally “large latent groups in which the collective good will not be provided unless a member is willing to absorb the costs, without selective incentives.” Continuing from the paragraph above is how Olson described how it is easier to do this. that small groups get things done makes perfect sense, as it is extremely difficult for the world to come together and make a collective decision on how to tackle carbon dioxide emissions and the climate change dilemma . Olson mentioned that small groups find it easier to make a mutual decision because even if one member believes that the benefits from the action are large and worthwhile enough, he or she will be willing to pay a large portion of the costs so that everyone to benefit from the benefits of the action. For this to happen, it is essential that the benefits of the action outweigh the costs they would incur. Olson alsoclearly explained why collective action is difficult to achieve in larger groups than in smaller groups and, taking this example into consideration, I will talk about how the problem of collective action arises for policy makers keen to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. There are several reasons why large groups fail to reach a mutual decision that is in the best interest of the group. Above all, the most important factor is that, because it is such a large group, the individual benefit that any person would obtain is less than that of a smaller group. Therefore, for this reason, the likelihood of a member being willing to take action and pay most of the cost is very low. Furthermore, a large group, say for example the members of the Paris Protocol on Climate Change, who seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce the effect of global warming, would have to spend a lot of money to hold meetings. meetings because members from countries around the world are and therefore, in such scenarios, the high costs could create an obstacle to the decision of collective action. Carbon dioxide emissions have reached new heights today. The amount of pollution generated has increased considerably, which explains the greenhouse effect and climate change. Since it is a very important topic of discussion, world leaders are holding summits to combat climate change and reach a conclusion on how to solve it. However, the main problem lies in the fact that there is no single solution to this problem and no nation can come to a conclusion on how to solve it. The fact that so many world leaders have a say means that people have contrasting views, which leads to conflict. In his theory of collective action, Olson emphasized a widely held belief: "assuming that there are rational, self-interested actors, all members of a group with a common interest will act collectively to achieve that common interest." However, as Olson also stated, this is not what is actually happening. Rational actors will not act collectively to achieve a goal they seek even if everyone has the same goal. This happens even if all parties involved come to a conclusion on the best way to resolve the problem. Olson argued that "unless the number of individuals in a group is very small, or unless there is coercion or other special device to induce individuals to act in their common interest, individuals rational and self-interested people will not act to achieve their common interests.” . - Speaking of collective action and climate change, the main problem arises because people want to free-ride. Even if there is a common interest within a group trying to achieve a common goal, the parties involved will very rarely want to pay for it. This is due to the nature of public goods available, whether one contributes to them or not. Each member would like the others to pay the costs and then enjoy the benefits derived from the action. The best possible way to overcome the problem of climate change is to think about what the best possible strategy should be. Countries can come together and come to a common conclusion on how to reduce pollution and how best to finance these actions. However, as mentioned earlier, a specific country cannot really make the main decision because it involves high costs and no country is willing to bear an amounthigh costs and receive a small amount of benefits. Looking at past history, it is quite evident that Olson's theory of collective action fits perfectly with the above discussion that a country has never benefited from paying most of the costs associated with combating climate change. Each country would ask itself why should it be the only one to bear the cost and why would all other countries end up free-riding or not contributing equally. In this scenario, countries tend to be reluctant to change anything and hope that others will bear the costs and then simply benefit from free riding. As a result, nothing actually happens and we find ourselves stuck in the same scenario, hoping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but taking no action. Scientists have long predicted that greenhouse gases are the main reason for global warming. There have been many theories that say otherwise, this disagreement on the subject is one of the reasons why no significant action has taken place. There has not even been a general agreement between the governments of different countries regarding climate change. Donald Trump, the current US president, withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation and said he did not believe in global warming and climate change. If the leaders themselves do not agree on the subject, how can policy makers come together and reach a definitive decision on the subject? Until world leaders decide whether this issue is truly serious, no one will be willing to take action and bear the high costs. However, on the other hand, an important fact is that all other countries that signed the Paris Treaty have agreed that climate change is a massive problem that needs to be addressed, but the problem arises because it is difficult to allocate the appropriate resources, responsibilities and accountabilities. cost and, more importantly, who will be the pioneer and take the initiative so that we can see change? Many developed countries, including the United States and Australia, believe that the consequences of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions have not yet been addressed. reached heights that the world should be worried about and not really worth paying the price for, at least in the near future. Although reducing carbon dioxide emissions is an important challenge, the benefits will not be felt immediately. Further analysis should be carried out, for example by calculating the cost-benefit ratio before a final decision is made. Again, Olson's theory of collective action can be observed because most governments and policy makers are unwilling to sacrifice resources and time to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions . As Olson's theory points out, “for large groups,” if the costs of action are high, collective action is unlikely; the greater the contribution that each member of the group must make to achieve the collective good, the less chance there is of collective action.” Global warming has now reached new heights, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, etc. Melting glaciers, heat waves in many countries and other similar events have alerted world leaders to the need for immediate action to save our planet. In such a scenario, it is quite puzzling and astonishing thatworld leaders say it doesn't make sense to pay the costs of improving our planet in the near future. Many predictions from forecasters show that the Earth may no longer exist in the next 100 years, largely because of the rate at which the ozone layer is depleting and increasing global warming. These predictions may or may not be accurate, but they send an alarming message that if no action is taken, the situation will only get worse and could reach a level where any action would do little. In the theory of collective action presented by Olson, he states that groups will be likely to act if they are incentivized to do so. Many developing countries do not have the necessary and appropriate resources to bear the costs of these actions, since their main objective is above all to ensure that the citizens of their country have access to education and basic health care. If they end up devoting their budget to the citizens of their own country, there will be nothing left for them to contribute to the good of the planet. In such circumstances, rich countries must step up their efforts to provide resources other than basic aid to poorer countries in order to start saving our planet. An example of world leaders coming together to address a critical issue is the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005. The treaty was signed for two important reasons: the first being that members recognized that global warming was occurring. and second, the fact that we humans are largely responsible for this through greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon dioxide. If this treaty is taken as an example and other initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can be implemented effectively, there is a good chance that it can work, but it is important that a decision to collective action is taken and, as mentioned throughout the text, Olson's theory that large groups tend to be inefficient and lack coordination enters into a broader perspective. Continuing, scientists have indicated these days that there remain many difficulties regarding climate change policies in relation to other environmental aspects, mainly due to the The fact is that there remains a cloud of uncertainty about associated costs and course of action. There have been cases (like the Treaty of Paris) where world leaders came together to reach a conclusion, but nothing significant was observed. Here again we see how the lack of coordination within large groups shows how collective action theory can be applicable but remains very limited. Olson's mention that large corporations are unlikely to take action unless they have incentives is also very evident in this scenario. Robert Keohane, an American academic, mentioned that in the case of climate change, for change to take place there must be an outright leader described as "hegemonic". He also argued that countries with strong leaders must put their feet up and take charge. The United States, for example, produces almost a quarter of the planet's pollutants and greenhouse gases and, therefore, its participation is very important for the change to occur. However, as mentioned earlier, the current US President, Donald Trump, withdrew from the Paris Protocol on climate change, stating that he does not believe in climate change and global warming, a pretty astonishing assumption. Despite the fact that the.