Policy makers have long faced challenges in creating effective policies that reduce CO2 emissions while ensuring that all parties involved agree to the proposed approach. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992, but has yet to reach an effective global agreement on depleting carbon emissions. With temperatures and sea levels rising, droughts and floods increasing, the threat of global warming continues to grow. Mancur Olson's theory of collective action provides a framework for why the provision of public goods is problematic in many cases, including methods to improve the chances of cooperation. In the case of reducing CO2 emissions, the most valuable mechanism for encouraging collective action is to establish a common belief in the cause among the population, further strengthened by private sector participation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayOlson's theory of collective action states that although it may be in the interest of a group of provide public goods, large groups often fail to achieve this. Pure public goods are neither excluded nor rivaled, meaning that no one has the ability to control who uses the good and one person's consumption of the good does not prohibit its use by another. This poses the free rider problem, where people benefit from a good without paying part of the cost. This is why the market does not provide public goods, but society relies on institutions to provide them. Olson argues that because of this problem it is difficult to collectively coordinate group decisions, also because groups may not agree on which interests to achieve. Olson explains that collective action becomes more difficult in large groups because of the lack of importance of an individual's contribution. , the anonymity of a group and the question of application. In the context of reducing CO2 emissions, if most members of a society choose to reduce their emissions by replacing their incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs, an individual may choose not to participate, because their contribution will be minimal . However, if no one changes their light bulbs, CO2 emissions will not decrease. The anonymity of a large group means that this individual can refrain from cooperating without the group knowing who it is. Additionally, in large, anonymous groups, it is more difficult to reach agreement on a common goal. In terms of enforcement, since it is complex to identify who participated or not, it is also difficult to punish abstention. Thus, the individual does not share any of the costs but will reap the benefits of reduced CO2 emissions. Despite the above, Olson does not insist that collective action never takes place – as the provision of public goods such as public transport or universal healthcare in many countries makes clear. . In order for public goods to be provided, various mechanisms can be used to enhance collective contribution and action. Olson argues that if individuals are given selective incentives or receive benefits only if they contribute, this will increase their participation in the group's goal. This is the “by-product” argument, in which the achievement of the group goal is a by-product of individuals' commitment following a particular incentive. Collective actioncan also expand if an external application is implemented. For example, if the state regularly checks homes to see if all light bulbs have been replaced with environmentally friendly ones and fines residents who don't, the non-voter from the previous paragraph is more likely to changing light bulbs for fear of financial repercussions. Political entrepreneurship is another way to increase participation. If a party leader coordinates and motivates his party to achieve the CO2 emissions reduction target, thereby encouraging his followers to do the same, the contribution may improve. Finally, if a group has common values ​​or beliefs, this can also encourage participation, as all individuals will see the group's goal as beneficial. Additionally, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis theorize that cooperation is a product of evolution. In primitive societies, cooperation was beneficial because it meant greater ability to acquire food, an ability to share food, and better defensive powers. As such, individuals who contributed to the collective were rewarded and given an increased chance of survival, ultimately leading humans to be more group-minded. Moreover, societies that favored collective action may have been more likely to survive; today's societies should therefore also subscribe to cooperation. Joint action can also occur because of an incentive for reciprocity. If one person knows that they will benefit from cleaner air if their neighbor replaces their light bulbs with environmentally friendly ones and vice versa, both parties will be encouraged to participate. A policymaker wanting to reduce CO2 emissions must tackle all the problems presented by Olson's theory. . Since global warming and therefore increasing CO2 emissions is a global problem, for the purposes of this essay we assume that the policy maker must work with hundreds of other policy makers to achieve their goal. Furthermore, it means that the policy maker strives to encourage collective action on behalf of the largest possible group, the human population of the entire planet. One of the biggest problems with enforcement in the global context is that there is no legal body to incentivize other countries to comply with an international agreement. Previous agreements proposed by the UN were voluntary, often leading countries to withdraw from an agreement to avoid failing to meet demands. For example, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 after realizing it could not meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to avoid financial penalties. Furthermore, most have been seen as having failed to effectively reduce the effects of global warming. Encouraging collective action becomes particularly difficult as nations become more or less concerned about global warming, with some countries not even considering global warming as a threat to the planet and the survival of humanity. the human species. It is also true that some countries with the highest CO2 emissions are those that see it as a minimal threat. This recently happened when the United States, responsible for around 16% of global carbon emissions, decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement proposed by the United Nations (UN). This agreement was previously considered one of the most successful international environmental agreements, with ratification by 179 countries. So, it turns out that there is no common beliefregarding the severity of the effects of CO2 emissions. Although there is no common understanding of the harms of CO2 emissions, it is the most powerful tool policymakers can use when it comes to public goods. . Elinor Ostrom proves that sustainable use of resources can be achieved under the right conditions in her book Governing the Commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. She states: “…one of the fundamental objectives of public policy should be to facilitate the development of institutions that bring out the best in human beings. » His research found that in small communities, groups created solutions that ensure sustainable use of public resources. These groups were successful if they had effective means of communication; clarity around group membership; an approach adapted to local conditions; equal opportunities for members of affected groups to participate in decision-making; ability to manage the solution themselves; a compliance monitoring system and an enforcement system by group members; affordable and feasible method for solving problems; and encouraged responsibility among all members. Perhaps the most important condition is clear communication, illustrated by the prisoner's dilemma. Without communication, it is in both parties' best interests to confess. However, if they had the opportunity to plan strategically, it would become clear that they would be better off remaining silent rather than confessing. This is also the basis on which they can trust the other to keep their word. Fortunately, there are no restrictions on whether or not you can communicate the importance of reducing carbon emissions to the masses. Despite this, the question of global communication arises. A Bangladeshi citizen might be able to explain to his neighbor the value of reducing carbon emissions by cycling rather than driving to work, out of fear of rising sea levels, but convey that message to a Wisconsin native might prove more difficult. As such, it is incumbent on policymakers to encourage effective communication about the importance of reducing CO2 emissions. This seems like a big task and therefore needs to be relayed to policy makers of all nations to convey this message to their respective citizens. As mentioned previously, UN agreements focused on environmental sustainability have not been very effective. Policymakers should instead focus on improving education around the effects of carbon emissions; the power that individuals have to reduce this effect; and ways to participate. Given that high CO2 emissions are a global problem to which one contributes the most and can therefore be combatted the most, the most effective method of achieving this goal is to develop a common belief in its value. Examples of the effectiveness of a common value have been demonstrated: in many Western European countries, global warming is considered a significant threat and their carbon emissions are lower than those of other similar countries. Obviously, this is also the result of the policies implemented by the European Union and by the governments of each country. However, some countries have established a culture around environmentally friendly practices. For example, in Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, 60% of trips are made by bicycle. If such a "bicycle culture" or a culture of more environmentally friendly modes of transport could be established on a global scale, carbon emissionscarbon would decrease considerably. Establishing a common belief is also helpful because it can lead to social shame for those who do not obey environmentally friendly practices. . Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter, in their article Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments, prove that “…the willingness to punish poses a credible threat to potential free riders and causes a sharp increase in cooperation levels…” If the threat punishment can encourage As part of collective action, this proves to be a powerful enforcement mechanism in which all individuals can engage. Additionally, it decreases the need to trust fellow citizens, as fear of punishment will motivate them to keep their promise to contribute. As we have seen previously, a global problem is compounded by a lack of global law enforcement. The UN can encourage member states to participate in international agreements and impose sanctions on those who do not achieve the desired result, but it cannot force their contribution. It can be clearly stated that nations have better enforcement mechanisms, through the implementation of policies or laws, which would certainly help improve collective action. However, if the goal is a complete shift to environmentally friendly practices, many of these practices are difficult to control, even for a state. For example, even if a country can create a law stating that all homes must be equipped with LED bulbs, regularly verifying that citizens are complying would be extremely tedious and costly with minimal benefit. However, if individuals know what eco-friendly light bulbs look like and believe in their value, if they notice that their friend has not changed theirs, they may discourage others from socializing with them. As creatures desiring social interaction, the friend is encouraged to comply with the use of LED bulbs. With social shaming, two of Ostrom's conditions can be met: a system of monitoring and enforcement and encouraged equal responsibility for all members of the group. Another problem with relying on the UN's ability to reduce carbon emissions is that previous agreements required adherence to similar standards. objectives for very different nations. Although the UN does not specify or require certain methods for countries to achieve these goals, it is unrealistic for such diverse states to achieve comparable goals. Ostrom illustrates this subject in his condition of groups using means adapted to local conditions. In particular, a point of contention for many developing countries when trying to build consensus for a deal is that reducing carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy will hinder economic growth. Additionally, these countries have less capital to adapt to climate change-related technologies and policies. Therefore, nations must have the freedom to choose the course of action most appropriate for them. Some might argue that this would simply lead to developing countries deciding to opt out of any reduction in carbon emissions. As such, it is seen that letting nations determine their ideal method will only succeed if citizens have a common belief in implementing and improving sustainable practices. A policymaker can also harness the impact of companies that engage in sustainability practices by rewarding committed companies. to the application of these. In recent years, companies have become aware of the importance of.