Production of Smog in California

Production of Smog in California

The Production of Smog Pollutants in California

Garrett Hardin and the Tragedy of the Commons

In Hardin's (1968) article the Tragedy of the Commons, the author discusses the problem of overpopulation and how there are no real solutions to it. Morality and an extension of such is the only way to solve the problem, and that does not generally appeal to the masses. In other words, while it is the only way to solve the problem, it cannot be used because people will refuse to change in order to conform to it. In Hardin's (1968) article, there are several main points. Two of these relate to interests - both individual and collection. The other relates to "mutual coercion," which is defined by Hardin (1968) as social arrangements that produce responsibility. The reason he addresses this as mutual coercion is because it is the only realistic way to get things done. He uses the example of a parting meter. It is not about coercing someone to avoid parking there, but rather to make sure the person who does park there provides something of value for that privilege (Hardin, 1968).

Taxes are also discussed, because these are another form of coercion. If taxes were voluntary, only those who had a conscience would pay them (Hardin, 1968). Others would not, but they would still expect to use the services for which those taxes paid. That is a serious flaw in allowing any kind of voluntary system for paying one's "fair share." The main point Hardin (1968) is trying to make, however, is not at all about money. It is about the finite resources that are available in the world and how everyone assumes that they can just continue to use these resources. The concept of being finite is one that many people fail to understand when it comes to what the planet offers to them. However, Hardin (1968) explains it very clearly in his example of the commons. According to Hardin (1968), the best way to understand the commons is to see it as a pasture where there are herders and sheep.

Each of these herders has a set number of sheep, and they are all in balance with one another. There are enough sheep to keep the herders happy, and there is enough grass to keep the sheep happy. Of course, eventually one herder decides that it would benefit him to get another sheep. He could make more money that way, which would benefit him. There is a negative side to this, of course. The sheep will eat more grass. Since everyone shares the common, though, that "cost" would be absorbed by all the herders (Hardin, 1968). He gets another sheep, and all is well - until all of the other herders decide they want to do the same thing. The commons (the pasture) cannot take the onslaught of the extra sheep, because there are only so many blades of grass available for the sheep to eat. Hardin's (1968) point is that, if left unchecked, man does the same thing with all of the finite resources on the planet. The commons are being destroyed because people have not learned how to recognize when they have enough. They keep striving for more, and as they do that they use up the resources that were allotted for them and the resources that were allotted for others. It becomes a chain reaction from which there really is no escape without radical adjustments.

Most people are not interested in those adjustments, however, because they would be required to make sacrifices for a problem that they do not feel as though they caused. Individual interests and collective interests are both discussed by Hardin (1968). The individual interests are what is seen by each herder who has sheep, to use the above-referenced example, while collective interests are what is seen by all of the sheep herders together (Hardin, 1968). Unfortunately, collective interests and individual interests often do not mesh well together. Either each person gets his or her individual interests met at the expense of the collective, or the collective interests are met only by individuals sacrificing some of their interests (Hardin, 1968). Most individuals will refuse to sacrifice any of their interests for the greater good. While some people will handle things this way, it is such a small number that it does not provide the desired effect on the collective interests.

The Problem of Smog in California

California has a smog problem (Carle, 2006; Jacobs & Kelly, 2008). While it is important to discuss that, the issue here is not how many people are making smog at what level, or how many parts per million are in the atmosphere. The issue at hand here is a more philosophical one, brought about by a reading of Hardin (1968) and his discussion of the commons. It would be in the collective interest of the people of California to reduce smog, but at the same time it would require sacrifices of individual interests that most Californians are not ready to make. This is unfortunate, of course, because the desire to live life for oneself is harming life for everyone. With reference to Hardin (1968), one could see the "commons" as the entire state of California. For purposes of this paper, however, there will be a focus on Central Valley, where there are many difficulties with smog and pollution (Carle, 2006; Jacobs & Kelly, 2008).

When there were fewer people in that area, there was less smog. As more people moved in, smog became more of a serious issue for individuals who lived there. However, those individuals all had their own interests, and they were waiting for someone else to do something about the smog. All of the other people were doing the same thing. It was not their responsibility to get rid of the smog. Someone else needed to do that. Because no one did anything about the levels of smog, people had to accept and deal with those levels. Early on, something could have been done. Changes could have been made. Since none of that took place, most people have just now assumed that it is too late to make any changes and the smog is just accepted as being a part of what happens in California and in Central Valley (Carle, 2006). However, that does not have to be the case. Changes can still be made.

One of the largest issues is not whether changes can and should be made, but whether anyone would be willing to make those changes. It would necessitate the sacrificing of individual interests in order to foster an improvement that would benefit the collective interest. In other words, the people making the sacrifices would also be getting something in return. They would be receiving cleaner air. Will that matter enough to them? That is the big question. If people are not concerned enough about an issue, or if they do not feel as though they are receiving enough of a benefit from their actions, they will not be interested in making any sacrifices that will help both themselves and others. Perhaps some people do not care that the air is smoggy. If they do not care, why should they change their habits and sacrifice the things they enjoy just so other people, who do care, can have cleaner air? Should not those people who are upset about the air simply move somewhere else where there is less smog and the air is more to their liking? It is a fair question.

It is also part of the issue Hardin (1968) poses. People, overall, want to do what they want to do. They are not interested in doing things about which they do not care because it might benefit the people around them. That is not to say that people never do anything charitable, because there are plenty of people who will perform a charitable act. However, in order to see real change on the "commons," a large number (i.e. all or nearly all) of the people on the commons must be ready and willing to make a change. Once they have made that change, they also have to remain stoic and not go back to their old ways. If they (all of them) are able to do that, the greater good can benefit. There will be a higher level of value placed on the collective interest instead of the individual interests, and everyone will benefit from the quality of life that is achieved.

Solutions for the Smog

How does this apply to the smog issue in Central Valley, and what can be done to correct the problem? The main issue for Central Valley (and the majority of California) is the lack of concern for others displayed by the populace. As was mentioned above, people have to want to forego their individual interest in order to provide for the collective interest, and few people as a percentage of the population care about doing that. Certainly, there are not enough people interested in doing that to allow real change in a community where smog levels are concerned (Carle, 2006). Since smog is mostly made by cars and trucks, a much-reduced number of these vehicles would be required - and asking a commuter to give up his or her car is asking a lot. Still, there are options. Hardin (1968) talked of the need for a wide-scale adjustment to morality. This would be the easiest and best solution: everyone just wakes up one day in a collective mood to "do the right thing," and then they actually do it from that day forward, happily and without any wavering.

That might sound like utopia, but it is also completely unrealistic. The people in California and in Central Valley have absolutely no interest as a collective group in doing things this way. Their group morality is mostly set where it is, and it is not going to change simply because it would easier on their lungs and better for the planet. With that in mind, there are only a few, very limited other ways to provide solutions. One of those ways would be through a crack down on how much people can drive (Jacobs & Kelly, 2008; Miller, 2002; Schwartz Cowan, 1997). This would, however, turn the area into a police state - a situation that would cause many people to fight back and to vigorously defend the rights that people were attempting to take from them. Fewer cars and trucks on the road and fewer miles driven would, over time, reduce the level of smog in the area, but it would come at the cost of a lot of people who were forced to give up their individual interests. A solution that solves one problem but that causes other serious issues within that same population is no real solution at all, and should be avoided.

Another possible solution is to make vehicles that do not produce any kind of pollution (Schwartz Cowan, 1997). If these can be created, there is a possibility that the people of California and Central Valley would be able to continue to drive wherever and whenever they liked while still helping the planet - the commons - to remain healthy and in balance. There is a catch, though. Actually, there are two catches. These vehicles would have to be built to do the same things and meet the same standards as current vehicles, and people would have to buy them. Right now there are "alternative" cars, but they cannot go far just yet without using fuel. When cars can go hundreds of miles on electricity or battery power, that will be a real advancement and a step in the right direction for California's pollution problem. Additionally, having these cars available does not mean that they will be purchased. Not everyone wants that type of car, and right now they are more expensive than their gasoline-using counterparts. The individual interests of having a good, fast, reliable car that can be purchased relatively inexpensively is going to severely outweigh the collective interest of having a smog free area (Jacobs & Kelly, 2008).