For a long time, international negotiations on climate change really looked like another case of Game Theory. As you may remember, that theory became widely popular with John Nash’s prisoner dilemma. The famous mathematician showed how, in some cases, players making rational decisions in the pursuit of their own interest could all end up in a paralyzing equilibrium. Even more terrible: once caught in it, there was no way out.

How does it apply to the matter at hand?

At the international level, if all players (in this case, nation states) decided to effectively combat climate change and share the burden of the energy revolution, the world had a real chance at limiting global warming. The problem was that for each individual player, it made much more sense to let the others do the job, make the tough political decisions and the hefty investments in clean energy, while they stood aside and enjoyed the benefit of living in a more sustainable environment. A free ride was a better option than actually cooperating.

Since all players had the same reasoning, international diplomacy on climate change came to a deadlock.

But then, with the Paris Agreement, the ruinous equilibrium was finally shaken. All countries finally came to realize there was a de facto solidarity between them. This sudden, unexpected awareness finally overrode the fatal reflex to “let others do the job.” Change was particularly noticeable on the part of countries that were the biggest emitters and had always resisted any serious attempt at dealing with the issue. Nothing seemed to stand in the way of the energy revolution. […]

Read the entire opinion piece on LinkedIn