Smog in California Through the Tragedy of the Commons

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 straightforward solutions to it. Morality — and an extension of it — is the only way to solve the problem, yet that approach does not generally appeal to the masses. In other words, while moral reform may be the only viable path, it cannot be relied upon because people will refuse to change in order to conform to it. In the article, Hardin (1968) advances several main points. Two of these relate to interests — both individual and collective. The other relates to "mutual coercion," which Hardin (1968) defines as social arrangements that produce responsibility. He frames this as mutual coercion because it is the only realistic mechanism for getting things done. He uses the example of a parking meter: the point is not to coerce someone into avoiding a parking space, but rather to ensure that whoever does park there provides something of value for that privilege (Hardin, 1968).

Taxes are also discussed, because they represent another form of coercion. If taxes were voluntary, only those with a conscience would pay them (Hardin, 1968). Others would not, yet they would still expect to use the services those taxes fund — a serious flaw inherent in any voluntary system for paying one's "fair share." The main point Hardin (1968) is trying to make, however, is not about money. It is about the finite resources available in the world and how everyone assumes they can simply continue consuming them. The concept of finiteness is one that many people fail to grasp when it comes to what the planet offers. Hardin (1968) illustrates this clearly through his example of the commons — a pasture shared by herders and their sheep.

Each herder keeps a set number of sheep, and the system is in balance: there are enough sheep to sustain the herders, and enough grass to sustain the sheep. Eventually, however, one herder decides it would benefit him to add another sheep — he could earn more, which serves his individual interest. There is a negative side, of course: the extra sheep consumes more grass. Because everyone shares the common pasture, that cost is absorbed by all the herders (Hardin, 1968). He acquires another sheep, and all seems well — until all the other herders make the same calculation. The commons cannot absorb the onslaught of additional sheep, because only so many blades of grass exist. Hardin's (1968) point is that, if left unchecked, human beings do the same thing with all of the finite resources on the planet. The commons are being destroyed because people have not learned to recognize when they have enough. They keep striving for more, and in doing so they consume not only their own share of resources but also the shares belonging to others. It becomes a chain reaction from which there is no escape without radical adjustment.

Most people are not interested in those adjustments, however, because making them would require sacrifices for a problem they do not feel they caused. Individual interests and collective interests are both examined by Hardin (1968). Individual interests are what each herder perceives for himself, while collective interests are what all the herders share together (Hardin, 1968). Unfortunately, these two types of interest often conflict. Either each person satisfies individual interests at the expense of the collective, or collective interests are met only when individuals sacrifice some of their own. Most individuals will refuse to sacrifice their interests for the greater good. While some will act otherwise, their numbers are too small to produce a meaningful effect on the collective interest.

The Problem of Smog in California

California has a significant smog problem (Carle, 2006; Jacobs & Kelly, 2008). While it is important to acknowledge that fact, the central issue here is not the precise number of smog-producing sources or the parts per million of pollutants in the atmosphere. The issue is a more philosophical one, shaped by Hardin's (1968) discussion of the commons. It would serve the collective interest of Californians to reduce smog, yet doing so requires sacrifices of individual interests that most residents are not prepared to make. This is unfortunate, because the desire to live for oneself is ultimately harming life for everyone. With reference to Hardin (1968), one could view the "commons" as the entire state of California. For the purposes of this paper, however, the focus will be on the Central Valley, where smog and pollution present particularly serious difficulties (Carle, 2006; Jacobs & Kelly, 2008).

When fewer people lived in that region, there was less smog. As more people moved in, smog became an increasingly serious problem. Those individuals, however, each had their own interests and waited for someone else to address the smog. Everyone was doing the same thing. It was not their responsibility to eliminate the smog — someone else needed to do that. Because no one acted, people came to accept those smog levels. Early on, something could have been done; changes could have been made. Since none of that occurred, most people have since concluded that it is too late and that smog is simply an accepted feature of life in California and in Central Valley (Carle, 2006). That does not have to remain the case, however. 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 them. Reducing smog would necessitate the sacrifice of individual interests in order to foster an improvement that benefits collective interests — meaning that the people making sacrifices would also receive something in return: cleaner air. Whether that benefit matters enough to them is the central question. If people are not sufficiently concerned about an issue, or if they do not believe the benefit justifies the sacrifice, they will not act. Perhaps some people are indifferent to smoggy air. If they are indifferent, why should they change their habits just so others who do care can breathe more easily? Should those who are upset about air quality simply relocate somewhere less polluted? It is a fair question, and it is precisely part of the dilemma Hardin (1968) poses.

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 for most of California — is the lack of concern for others displayed by the general population. As noted above, people must want to forego individual interest in order to serve collective interest, and far too few people are willing to do that for meaningful change to occur in a community where smog levels are concerned (Carle, 2006). Since smog is produced primarily by cars and trucks, a substantial reduction in these vehicles would be required — and asking a commuter to give up his or her car is asking a great deal.

Still, options exist. Hardin (1968) spoke of the need for a wide-scale adjustment in morality. This would be the easiest and best solution: everyone wakes up one day in a collective resolve to "do the right thing" and then follows through consistently and without wavering. That may sound like utopia, and it is also completely unrealistic. The people of California and Central Valley have no interest as a collective group in operating that way. Their group morality is largely fixed, and it will not change simply because cleaner air would benefit their lungs and the planet.

With that in mind, only a few other, more limited solutions are available. One would be a strict crackdown on driving (Jacobs & Kelly, 2008; Miller, 2002; Schwartz Cowan, 1997). This would, however, effectively create a police state — a situation that would prompt fierce resistance from people defending their rights. Fewer vehicles on the road and fewer miles driven would, over time, reduce smog levels, but it would come at the cost of forcing individuals to surrender their personal interests. A solution that resolves one problem while creating serious new ones within the same population is no real solution at all.

Another possible solution is to develop vehicles that produce no pollution (Schwartz Cowan, 1997). If such vehicles can be created, people in California and Central Valley might be able to continue driving freely while still helping to keep the commons healthy and in balance. There are two significant obstacles, however. First, these vehicles would have to perform comparably to current ones. Electric vehicles currently exist as an alternative, but many cannot yet travel far without recharging. When a car can travel hundreds of miles on a single charge at a cost comparable to gasoline, that will represent a genuine advancement for California's pollution problem. Second, availability does not guarantee adoption. Not everyone wants that type of vehicle, and at present they cost more than their gasoline-powered counterparts. The individual interest in owning a fast, reliable, and relatively affordable car will severely outweigh the collective interest in a smog-free region for many consumers (Jacobs & Kelly, 2008).

There are no easy solutions to the problems California faces, and Central Valley is only one of many areas where smog is a serious and largely unaddressed issue. Because vehicles are not the only smog producers, effective solutions would also have to incorporate businesses and factories, as well as residential sources such as fireplaces, propane, and heating oil. An endeavor of that scale would be enormously difficult and would run into precisely the obstacles Hardin (1968) identified. People simply do not want to make difficult changes. They want to pursue what benefits them without making sacrifices. As a whole, people are self-interested, and the collective good does not matter to them as much as one would hope. Until people begin to see themselves and their world differently — and until they genuinely grasp the finiteness of shared resources — nothing will change.

One can attempt to impress upon people the seriousness of the issue, but most will ignore that and focus on what matters to them personally. Collective interest is routinely pushed aside in favor of individual wants dressed up as needs. Research has shown that people who live and work in areas with poor air quality face significantly higher risks of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and other serious health conditions (Bell & Davis, 2004; Carle, 2006; Miller, 2002). While people understand this on a logical level, they tend to adopt the mentality that such things only happen to others.

Conclusion: The Tragedy Continues

By looking at things from that standpoint, individuals only reinforce the primacy of individual interest over collective well-being. Each and every person would have to change his or her ways in order for the smog problem to be meaningfully corrected, and those changes would have to be permanent. While reducing smog levels and recognizing the planet's finite resources — including clean air — is critically important, there is not enough genuine concern among a sufficient number of citizens for change to take place. The story of the commons, eventually, will end in tragedy.

References

Bell, M. L., & Davis, D. L. (2004). A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London smog episode of 1952: The role of influenza and pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(1), 6–8.

Carle, D. (2006). Introduction to the air in California. University of California Press.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 143–148.

Jacobs, C., & Kelly, W. J. (2008). Smogtown: The lung-burning history of pollution in Los Angeles. Overlook Press.

Miller, G. T., Jr. (2002). Living in the environment: Principles, connections, and solutions (12th ed.). The Thomson Corporation.

Schwartz Cowan, R. (1997). A social history of American technology. Oxford University Press.