This is a very important topic of debate as it concerns carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, a huge part of our environment in the 21st century today. I think that by using Olson's theory of collective action, we learn a lot about how politicians face so many challenges to reduce carbon emissions due to the nature of public goods and how there are always free riders in the market who take advantage of them. I will support my thesis using Olson's theory and some real life examples as evidence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Olson's theory of collective action states that “any group of individuals attempting to provide a public good has difficulty doing so efficiently. Public goods have two main characteristics: non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Non-excludable generally means that you cannot be excluded from consuming that product, and non-rivalrous means that your use does not reduce availability to others. This is a classic example of market failure as public goods tend to be poorly provided which means markets are inefficient. Taking these two characteristics into consideration, the case of free-riders can be further explained. Olson stated that a public good “cannot be denied to other members of the group when one member of the group consumes the group, even if those members did not contribute to the provision of the good.” A classic example in this case is taxes. If a certain individual evades paying taxes, no one can really stop him from using the public goods that the government provides for free, such as street lighting, use of roads, defense, and so on. On the one hand individuals are incentivized to 'free-ride' on the efforts of others in certain groups and on the other hand the size of a group is of great importance and difficult to determine optimally." In short, Olson's main goal was to convey that “collective action in large groups is unlikely.” According to Olson, a group means “a number of individuals with a common interest.” He classified the definition of “groups” into three different categories: the “privileged groups in which each member is willing to pay for the provision of the collective good”; the “small intermediate groups in which no member has an interest in bearing the costs of providing the good, but in which there is some possibility of cooperation because the members are unable to recognize those who practice parasitism”; and finally the “large latent groups in which the collective good will not be provided unless a member is willing to absorb the costs of doing so, short of selective incentives.” In continuation of the previous paragraph, the way Olson described how it is easier for small groups to get things done makes a lot of sense because it is immensely difficult for the world to come together and make a collective decision on how to combat the carbon emissions dilemma. carbon and climate change. Olson stated that small groups find it easier to make a mutual decision because even if one member believes that the benefits received from the action are sufficiently large and worthwhile, he/she would be willing to pay a large portion of the costs for everyone to receive benefits from the action. For this to happen, it is essential that the benefits of the action are greater than the costs they would incur. Olson also clearly explained why collective action is difficult to achieve in larger groups than in smaller groups, and taking this example into consideration, I will talk about howthe problem of collective action arises for policy makers willing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. There are several reasons why large groups are not effective in making a mutual decision that is in the group's best interest. First of all, the most important factor is that, since it is such a large group, the individual benefit that each person would obtain is lower than that of a smaller group. Therefore, for this reason, the probability that a member will be willing to take action and actually pay the majority of the costs is very low. Furthermore, a large group, say for example the members of the Paris Protocol on climate change who are trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce the effect of global warming, would have to spend a lot on holding meetings because members of countries around the world are coming together and therefore, in such scenarios, high costs could create an obstacle to the decision-making path of collective action. Carbon dioxide emissions today have reached new heights. The amount of pollution generated has increased tremendously and this is why the greenhouse effect and climate change are occurring. Because it is such a hot topic of discussion, world leaders hold summits to address climate change and come to a conclusion to determine how it should be solved. However, the main problem arises because there is no single solution to this problem and no nation can come to a conclusion on how to deal with it. The fact that so many world leaders have a say in this sense means that people have conflicting opinions and this leads to conflicts arising. In his theory of collective action, Olson refers to a commonly held belief: “assuming that rational, self-interested actors exist, everyone in a group with a common interest will act collectively to achieve that common interest.” However, as Olson also stated, this is not what actually happens. Rational actors will not act collectively to achieve a goal they seek even if everyone has the same goal. This happens even if all parties involved come to a conclusion about what the best way to deal with the issue is. Olson argued that “unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special expedient to get individuals to act in their common interest, rational and selfish individuals will not act to achieve their common interests". .Speaking of collective action and climate change, the main problem arises because people want to freeride. Even if there is a common interest on the part of a group trying to achieve a common goal, very rarely will the parties involved want to pay for it. This is due to the nature of public goods that are available regardless of whether you contribute to them or not. Each member would like others to pay the costs and then enjoy the benefits received from the action. The best way to overcome the climate change problem is to examine what the best possible strategy should be. Countries can come together and come to a common conclusion on how to reduce pollution and what would be the best way to finance these actions. However, as mentioned above, a specific country cannot really make the main decision since it involves a lot of costs and no country is willing to bear a large amount of costs and receive a small amount of benefits. By analyzing past history, it is evident that Olson's theory of collective action fits perfectly with the previous discussion that a country has never received anybenefit from paying most of the costs associated with climate change aid. Each country would wonder why it should be the only one to bear the costs and why every other country would end up taking advantage of it or not contributing fairly. In this scenario, what countries tend to do is be reluctant to change anything and hope that others will bear the costs and then just get the benefit of free riding. Therefore, in turn, nothing happens and we find ourselves stuck in the same scenario, hoping to reduce carbon emissions but taking no action. Scientists have long predicted that greenhouse gases are the main reason for the planet's warming. There have been many theories that say otherwise, and so this disagreement on the topic is one of the reasons why no significant action has been taken. There has not even been a general agreement among the governments of various countries regarding climate change. Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, renounced the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation and said that he does not believe in global warming and climate change. If the leaders themselves do not agree on the topic, how can policy makers come together and come to a final decision on the topic? Unless and until world leaders decide whether this problem is truly serious, no one will be willing to take any action and bear the high costs. However, on the other hand, an important fact is that all other countries that are part of the Paris Treaty agree that climate change is a huge problem that should be addressed, but the issue arises because it is difficult to allocate resources, adequate responsibilities and opportunities. costs and, more importantly, who will be the frontrunner and take the lead so we can see change? Many developed countries, including the United States and Australia, believe that the consequences of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions have not yet reached levels that the world should be concerned about and are not really worth paying the costs for , at least in the near future. While reducing carbon dioxide emissions is an important issue, the benefits will not take effect immediately. Before making a final decision, further analysis must be carried out, for example by calculating the cost-benefit ratio. Again, Olson's collective action theory can be observed because most governments and politicians do not want to sacrifice resources and time to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. As underlined by Olson's theory, “for large groups”, if the costs of action are high, collective action is not likely; the greater the contribution that each member of the group must make to achieve the collective good, the lower the probability of collective action”. Global warming today has reached new heights and one of the main reasons is the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and so on. Melting glaciers, heat waves in many countries and similar cases have alerted world leaders to the need to act immediately to save our planet. In such a scenario, the fact that world leaders say that it makes no sense to pay the costs to help improve our planet in the foreseeable future is quite disconcerting and surprising. Many meteorologists' predictions show that the Earth may not exist at all in the next 100 years, largely due to the rapid pace at which the ozone layer is depleting and increasing global warming. These predictions may or may not be accurate, but what they do is send a messagealarming that if no action is taken, things will get worse and may reach a level where any action may not do much. Collective action theory presented by Olson, he specified that groups are likely to act if they receive incentives to do so. Many developing countries do not have the necessary and adequate resources to support the costs of these actions since their main objective is to ensure that their country's citizens have access to basic education and healthcare in the first place. If they ended up spending their budget on the citizens of their own country, they would have nothing left to contribute to the betterment of the planet. In such circumstances, rich countries must step up to provide resources other than basic aid to poorer countries in an effort to begin saving our planet. An example of world leaders coming together to address a crucial issue was the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005. The treaty was signed for two important reasons: the first was that members recognized that global warming was is verifying.and secondly, the fact that we humans are largely responsible for it through emissions of greenhouse gases, namely carbon dioxide. If this treaty is taken as an example and further initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can be effectively implemented, there is a great chance that it could work, but it is important that a collective action decision is made and, as mentioned throughout, the Olson's theory that large groups tend to be inefficient and lack coordination fits into a broader picture. Subsequently, scientists in recent days have indicated that many difficulties remain regarding climate change policies compared to other environmental aspects, mainly due to the fact that there remains a cloud of uncertainty about the associated costs and the action plan . There have been cases (like the Treaty of Paris) where world leaders met to reach a conclusion, but nothing significant was seen. Here too we see how the lack of coordination in large groups shows how the theory of collective action can be applicable but is very limited. Olson's statement that large groups are unlikely to act without incentives is also very evident in this scenario. Robert Keohane, an American academic, said that in the case of climate change, for a change to occur, there must be an absolute leader called “hegemonic”. He also argued that countries that have strong leaders must put their foot down and take responsibility. The United States, for example, produces almost a quarter of the world's pollutants and greenhouse gases and therefore US participation is very important for change to happen. However, as mentioned above, the current US president, Donald Trump, renounced the Paris Protocol on climate change, stating that he does not believe in climate change and global warming, a rather surprising assumption. Despite statistics showing that his country produces almost a quarter of the world's pollutants that contribute to global warming, he sounds stupid when he says he doesn't believe in climate change and global warming. If the leader of one of the world's most powerful economies gives up on such an essential issue, how can anyone expect change to occur? Based on current trends and facts, it is highly unlikely that, at least until Trump is in office, there is any chance that the United States will put its foot down and be the one to initiate policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and.