The Tragedy of the Commons.... in Brownsville

Proud of this town!

Some months ago I read this article about the "Tragedy of the Commons" of Garrett M. Hardin, which explains how the human being as part of a society tends to exploit natural resources just because they are "at hand, available, etc", without taking into account that it belongs to everyone, and that without measures being taken, resources will tend to decrease faster. Hardin mentions the example of the commons where all the shepherds are allowed to graze, and just for the sake of their own benefit, they end up overgrazing the land since they increased the number of sheep they had. I remember that Hardin cited an example regarding the process of persuasion toward a specific shepherd to convince him not to overgraze the commons by acquiring more sheep. What could the shepherds would think? "Why I have to? Everybody else is doing it, so why can´t I?" How can the shepherd can be obliged to avoid overgrazing, if this decision in his perspective makes him to lose a competitive advantage toward the rest of the shepherds that are not being pressed to follow a conscious use of the commons?

Hardin mentions a coercive way to make the shepherds to make a sustainable use of the commons, mentioning taxes as an example. The logic behind this, is that when it affects your pocket you really feel obliged to make a sustainable use of the commons they are not really free at all.

Even though Hardin directed his article towards population growth, this piece of theory really applies on some other fields. Let's take plastic bags usage as an example. As plastic bags usage generally is not charged with your purchases, one as a customer really don't feel moved to minimize their consumption since they are free, and in our domestic environment, concerned people could take them for alternative uses, like garbage bags, etc. But many of these bags end up blowing in the wind, creating a bigger environmental problem.

I just remembered this topic because the City of Brownsville has banned the use of plastic bags in the stores. So since the first day of 2011, no store is giving plastic bags to the customers with their purchases. I, as a customer, could test the difference of the before and after. When the bags were for free, I could try to look for alternative uses but most of the time I kept a inventory surplus stored at my laundry room. And that applied to me, a sort of "young padawan" in sustainable practices. What about the people who do not care at all? That made the spectacle of a lonely flying bag being carried away in a random way very common. And guess where that bag would end.

Now the perspective is quite different. Some stores, like the one with the "Dress for Less" motto, didn't stop abruptly giving bags, they just let their current inventory to run out during the first days of the year, and they gave thicker plastic bags to be used as reusable bags to their customers. Some like the clothing stores kept giving their paper bags as usual. The "roll back" retail chain, as a way of remarking their business model is quite consistent with their position as world's leading retail store both in profits and revenues, are using this strategy: either they charge you for plastic bags, or sell you a cheaper version of their blue reusable bags for 25 cents each, which you can use for your normal grocery needs. And here is where the coercive effect mentioned by Hardin is proof. Some of us could foresee and had reusable bags with us, and some of us were so cheap that just put our purchases in the cart without a bag, trying to put in mind for next time to bring our reusable bags for our purchases.

It is going to be quite interesting to come back in several months to check at which extent people has gotten used to the idea of no plastic bags, how are they dealing with this new reality, that shows even in a small scale we can start creating change from our daily activities to achieve a more sustainable community.