Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improving Air Quality
146
1 4 6
In conjunction with the technological advances, these may provide enough
levers to stop, and even reverse, the direction of continued greenhouse gas
emissions and global climate change.
15.6 Addressing Both Climate Change and Air Quality
Although climate change has been identified as the greatest global tragedy of
the commons (Battersby, 2017; Paavola, 2012), the annual social cost of poor
air quality was greater in 2016. The cost of disasters that were associated with
climate change in 2016 was less than $1 trillion, while the cost of poor air
quality was more than $3 trillion (Erickson, 2017). While things may change
in the future, as it stands now, far more people die each year due to poor air
quality. The human health issues associated with poor air quality provide a
motivation for actions that address both challenges.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. addressing climate change) and
improving air quality are two interrelated challenges. The Ostrom principles
can be applied to address these two challenges by looking for actions that
have local air quality benefits and also reduce emissions. The polycentric
approach of Elinor Ostrom can also be applied to look for actions that address
both issues. For example, the research and development activities to make
solar- and wind- generated electricity and batteries less expensive and more
competitive have been carried out using a polycentric approach. Some topics
may fit better with one of these approaches than others, and some topics
actually invite a mix of both. What follows in this section are some instances
in which Ostrom’s design principles have been primarily used, in which the
polycentric approach has been primarily used, and cases that have seen a
combination of both.
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change allows countries to develop their
own approaches to reducing emissions. This fits with the Ostrom principles
and allows for local decisions that are beneficial to local air quality as well
as emissions reduction. An analysis of the Paris Agreement as it relates to
the Ostrom principles was reported by Johannesson (2017), highlighting a
number of strengths and weaknesses. The ability to take action at the local
level is a strength because local conditions vary (e.g. because of wind and
solar resources, supplies of natural gas, and current air quality). The lack of
processes to discipline countries is a weakness.
Public education about the Ostrom principles and how to use them effectively is another important area. Local control necessitates that people understand the opportunities that are created by new technology and the savings
that are available when it is implemented. There is likely also a need to provide education on the Ostrom principles for local, regional, and even national
leaders.
146
1 4 6
In conjunction with the technological advances, these may provide enough
levers to stop, and even reverse, the direction of continued greenhouse gas
emissions and global climate change.
15.6 Addressing Both Climate Change and Air Quality
Although climate change has been identified as the greatest global tragedy of
the commons (Battersby, 2017; Paavola, 2012), the annual social cost of poor
air quality was greater in 2016. The cost of disasters that were associated with
climate change in 2016 was less than $1 trillion, while the cost of poor air
quality was more than $3 trillion (Erickson, 2017). While things may change
in the future, as it stands now, far more people die each year due to poor air
quality. The human health issues associated with poor air quality provide a
motivation for actions that address both challenges.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. addressing climate change) and
improving air quality are two interrelated challenges. The Ostrom principles
can be applied to address these two challenges by looking for actions that
have local air quality benefits and also reduce emissions. The polycentric
approach of Elinor Ostrom can also be applied to look for actions that address
both issues. For example, the research and development activities to make
solar- and wind- generated electricity and batteries less expensive and more
competitive have been carried out using a polycentric approach. Some topics
may fit better with one of these approaches than others, and some topics
actually invite a mix of both. What follows in this section are some instances
in which Ostrom’s design principles have been primarily used, in which the
polycentric approach has been primarily used, and cases that have seen a
combination of both.
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change allows countries to develop their
own approaches to reducing emissions. This fits with the Ostrom principles
and allows for local decisions that are beneficial to local air quality as well
as emissions reduction. An analysis of the Paris Agreement as it relates to
the Ostrom principles was reported by Johannesson (2017), highlighting a
number of strengths and weaknesses. The ability to take action at the local
level is a strength because local conditions vary (e.g. because of wind and
solar resources, supplies of natural gas, and current air quality). The lack of
processes to discipline countries is a weakness.
Public education about the Ostrom principles and how to use them effectively is another important area. Local control necessitates that people understand the opportunities that are created by new technology and the savings
that are available when it is implemented. There is likely also a need to provide education on the Ostrom principles for local, regional, and even national
leaders.