Preamble
For 25 years, I've dedicated my life to advancing climate action. Much of this time has been spent working on technical solutions, such as the carbon removal strategy of biochar production and application. I am also keenly aware that even with all the technical solutions we need to mitigate the climate crisis, their success ultimately depends on our collective choice to use them—and this choice is far from guaranteed.
In the early decades of climate action, progress was hindered by a lack of public awareness. Today, however, we may have reached a point of diminishing returns on raising awareness. The challenge now is not just to recognize the problem but to galvanize a critical mass of support for the solutions that are needed.
This thought experiment has been brewing in my mind for some time. It explores the decisions each of us faces in confronting a problem that none of us can solve alone.
NOTE: This is a thought experiment, a simplified hypothetical framework designed to explore key concepts. It is not a comprehensive representation of reality but a tool for reflection and analysis.
(This draft of the thought experiment and its scenarios were developed in collaboration with an AI language model (DeepSeek-V3) to refine and expand on the original ideas.)
The Climate Solidarity Dilemma: A Thought Experiment on the Conditions for Successful Collective Action
Overview:
This thought experiment explores the tension between individual and collective rationality in climate action, drawing parallels to the Prisoner's Dilemma.
The Framework:
Imagine you represent a group—such as a business, nation, or NGO—that has a reserve of extra resources beyond what is needed for day-to-day operations. Each year, your group faces a binary choice:
1.) Invest in Climate Mitigation: Use your extra resources to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions or support other efforts to limit climate change.
2.) Invest in Adaptation: Use your extra resources to protect your group directly—building flood defenses, relocating infrastructure, or expanding wealth and power to secure future advantages.
The Constraints:
1.) There is a limited time window (e.g., 15 years) in which climate mitigation can be effective.
2.) Success in climate mitigation is a binary outcome, either pass or fail, and success can only be achieved if a critical mass of groups collectively chooses to invest in it within the allotted time.
The Core Dilemma:
Each group faces a rational incentive to prioritize adaptation, as it provides direct, guaranteed benefits. However, if all groups act in their immediate self-interest, mitigation efforts will fail, leading to catastrophic consequences for everyone.
Implications:
The individual choice to mitigate rather than adapt has a cascading effect: it builds trust in the collective effort of mitigation. The individual choice to adapt rather than mitigate also has a cascading effect: it undermines trust in the collective effort.
Scenarios Where Mitigation is the Rational Choice
Scenario 1: High Trust and Strong Coordination Mechanisms
- Conditions: Groups have established strong institutions or agreements that ensure collective action. There is high trust that others will also contribute to mitigation.
- Rationale: With confidence that a critical mass will be achieved, investing in mitigation maximizes long-term benefits for all.
Scenario 2: Early Action with High Momentum
- Conditions: A significant number of groups have already committed to mitigation early in the time window, creating momentum.
- Rationale: Joining the effort early increases the likelihood of success and avoids the risk of being left with no viable mitigation options later.
Scenario 3: Severe Consequences of Inaction
- Conditions: Scientific evidence shows that failing to mitigate will lead to existential threats for your group.
- Rationale: Even if other groups are unreliable, the catastrophic risks of inaction make mitigation the only viable long-term strategy.
Scenarios Where Adaptation is the Rational Choice
Scenario 4: Low Trust and Fragmented Coordination
- Conditions: Groups are highly distrustful of each other, and there are no effective mechanisms to enforce collective action.
- Rationale: Without confidence that others will contribute to mitigation, investing in adaptation ensures your group's immediate survival.
Scenario 5: Late in the Time Window with No Critical Mass
- Conditions: The time window for effective mitigation is nearly over, and it is clear that critical mass will not be achieved.
- Rationale: At this point, mitigation efforts are too little, too late.
Scenario 6: Limited Resources and High Vulnerability
- Conditions: Your group has very limited extra resources and is highly vulnerable to immediate climate impacts.
- Rationale: With scarce resources, your group cannot afford to gamble on mitigation, which may not succeed.
(obligatory sales plug)
Pacific Biochar Benefit Corporation is on a mission to sequester carbon and leave a legacy of fertile soil, it's a climate mitigation strategy with a climate adaptation bonus. We've already put tens of thousands of tons of CO2 back in the ground, improving farmlands while we do it. Help us put a couple more zeros behind the tons sequestered and acres covered. Please consider purchasing our biochar products and/or purchasing our carbon removal credits.
