The Golden Rule of Sustainability: Applying Game Theory to the Climate Crisis

Hypothesis:

Q: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Or, what?
A: Or, the elimination of all players is possible.

PROOF

Introduction

A proof of The Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule can be applied to economics similarly to Nash’s Equilibrium (or Le Chatelier’s Principle in chemistry):

“The best responses of all players are in accordance with each other.”
— John Nash, Jr.

If a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium moves to counteract the change.
— A statement of Le Chatelier’s Principle

Q: What happens when the responses of all players are not aligned?
A: Justification

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GAME THEORY

John Nash's quote, “The best responses of all players are in accordance with each other,” reflects the principle of a Nash Equilibrium in game theory, where each participant in a system acts in a way that is optimal given the actions of others. Applying this concept to the climate crisis reveals important insights about global cooperation and collective action:

1. Climate Crisis as a Multi-Player Game

The climate crisis involves multiple “players” -- countries, corporations, and individuals -- each with their own interests and strategies. For example:

• Countries may prioritize economic growth, which could conflict with reducing emissions.
• Corporations might focus on profits, even at the expense of environmental sustainability.
• Individuals often weigh personal convenience against the broader impact of their actions.

To address the crisis effectively, all players must align their actions toward a common goal: mitigating climate change.

2. Nash Equilibrium and Climate Action

The quote emphasizes that the most effective solution arises when all players’ strategies are consistent with each other, meaning:

• Nations implement policies that balance economic development with sustainability.
• Corporations innovate to reduce carbon footprints without sacrificing profitability.
• Individuals adopt eco-friendly behaviors in line with societal and governmental expectations.

If any group deviates -- e.g., a country refuses to cut emissions while others do -- it disrupts the equilibrium and undermines collective progress.

3. The Challenge of Misaligned Incentives

Currently, many players act in ways that benefit themselves in the short term but harm the global effort. For example:

• Some countries prioritize fossil fuel exploitation over renewable energy.
• Corporations may lobby against environmental regulations to lower costs.
• Individuals often resist lifestyle changes, such as reducing consumption or switching to sustainable practices.

This lack of coordination leads to a “tragedy of the commons,” where shared resources (e.g., the atmosphere) are depleted to the detriment of all.

4. Application to Global Climate Agreements

Global initiatives, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to create a Nash Equilibrium by aligning the actions of all players:

• Countries agree to emission reduction targets that balance fairness and effectiveness.
• International mechanisms, like carbon pricing, incentivize corporations to innovate sustainably.
• Public awareness campaigns encourage individuals to support climate-friendly policies and lifestyles.

When each player sees the benefits of cooperating rather than acting selfishly, the system moves toward an equilibrium that benefits everyone.

Conclusion

Nash's insight underscores the need for collective alignment to solve the climate crisis. The “best responses” for each player must be designed with global coordination in mind. Only through mutual cooperation and aligned strategies can humanity achieve a sustainable equilibrium and address this existential challenge.

* Our climate model employs chaos theory to comprehensively consider human impacts and projects a potential global average temperature increase of 9℃ above pre-industrial levels.

A Simplified Example: The Bar Scenario

John Nash’s famous concept of the Nash Equilibrium can be understood through a simplified example often referred to as The Bar Scenario. Here's how it works:

The Scenario

Three men are in a bar, and they all want to pair up with one of three women. Among the women, one is considered the most attractive, and all three men initially aim to approach her. The situation unfolds as follows:

1. Everyone Wants the “Most Attractive” Woman
   If all three men target the same woman, she can only accept one of them (assuming she even agrees). The other two men are left to compete for the remaining women, who are less receptive because they feel like second choices. This results in a suboptimal outcome for most of the men and women.
2. A Better Strategy Emerges
   If each man decides rationally to approach a different woman based on their preferences and the anticipated actions of the others, they avoid direct competition. This coordination leads to a more favorable outcome for everyone involved.

Key Insight: Nash Equilibrium

The Nash Equilibrium is reached when each player (in this case, the men) chooses a strategy that maximizes their payoff, given the strategies of the others. Importantly:

• None of the men can improve their outcome by changing their strategy unilaterally.
• They consider the likely choices of others when making their own decisions.

In the bar scenario, the Nash Equilibrium would be a situation where the men strategically distribute themselves among the women, ensuring no one is left with a worse option.

Implications of Nash’s Discovery

Nash showed that in any game involving rational players, there exists a point (or multiple points) where everyone's strategies stabilize because changing one’s strategy doesn't yield a better outcome. This principle applies far beyond bars -- encompassing economics, politics, biology, and more.

The bar analogy effectively captures the essence of strategic decision-making, where individual choices are interdependent, and cooperation or competition shapes the results.

The Climate Crisis as a “Bar Scenario”

Imagine nations (or other stakeholders) as the men in the bar and the “women” as the available solutions to climate change -- such as renewable energy, carbon capture, reforestation, or fossil fuel reduction. Each nation has its preferences, resources, and goals, but their choices are interdependent because they share the same “climate system.”

Scenario 1: Everyone Chooses Self-Interest (Competing for the “Most Attractive” Option)

If all nations prioritize short-term economic growth (analogous to everyone targeting the “most attractive woman” in the bar), they focus on exploiting fossil fuels or delaying meaningful climate action. This competition creates:

• Overburdened resources (e.g., continued reliance on finite fossil fuels).
• Global warming impacts (e.g., extreme weather, sea level rise) that affect everyone, leaving the majority worse off.
• A “tragedy of the commons,” where shared resources (like the atmosphere) are depleted by selfish behavior.

Scenario 2: Cooperation for a Balanced Strategy

If nations coordinate and distribute their efforts -- prioritizing different climate solutions based on their strengths -- everyone benefits more in the long term. For example:

• Renewable energy: Solar-rich nations focus on solar power, while wind-rich nations expand wind energy.
• Reforestation: Countries with vast landmass invest in reforestation, absorbing carbon dioxide.
• Technology development: Wealthier nations lead in funding and deploying innovative technologies like carbon capture.

This approach resembles the Nash Equilibrium, where each player (nation) chooses a strategy that maximizes their benefit while aligning with the strategies of others.

Key Lessons from the Bar Scenario

1. Mutual Benefit Requires Coordination
   Just as the men in the bar avoid competing for the same woman, nations must coordinate to avoid duplicative or counterproductive efforts.
2. Short-Term Self-Interest Harms the Group
   When nations act solely in self-interest (e.g., subsidizing fossil fuels for economic growth), they undermine the global effort to mitigate climate change, leaving everyone worse off.
3. Equilibrium is Sustainable
   A Nash Equilibrium in climate action would be achieved when every nation’s strategy contributes to the global effort, and no nation benefits from deviating unilaterally.

However, achieving this equilibrium requires trust, accountability, and incentives for all players to stay committed -- challenges highlighted by the Bar Scenario.

By aligning strategies and recognizing shared stakes, humanity can “win” the climate game, just as the bar scenario resolves when cooperation prevails.

What Can I Do?
There are numerous actions you can take to contribute to saving the planet. Each person bears the responsibility to minimize pollution, discontinue the use of fossil fuels, reduce consumption, and foster a culture of love and care. The Butterfly Effect illustrates that a small change in one area can lead to significant alterations in conditions anywhere on the globe. Hence, the frequently heard statement that a fluttering butterfly in China can cause a hurricane in the Atlantic. Be a butterfly and affect the world.

What you can do today. How to save the planet.