Photo by Kenneth Malcolm

Tucked among the pile of New Yorkers that were sprawled out at my doorstep when I got back from vacation was this tiny parable from David Surowiecki, who writes a fascinating weekly article on economics (he’s also the author of the Wisdom of Crowds):

Back in the nineteen-seventies, an economist named Thomas Schelling,who later won the Nobel Prize, noticed something peculiar about the N.H.L. [National Hockey League] At the time, players were allowed, but not required, to wear helmets, and most players chose to go helmet-less, despite the risk of severe head trauma. But when they were asked in secret ballots most players also said that the league should require them to wear helmets.The reason for this conflict, Schelling explained, was that not wearing a helmet conferred a slight advantage on the ice; crucially, it gave the player better peripheral vision, and it also made him look fearless. The players wanted to have their heads protected, but as individuals they couldn’t afford to jeopardize their effectiveness on the ice. Making helmets compulsory eliminated the dilemma: the players could protect their heads without suffering a competitive disadvantage.

The article draws a parallel with fuel efficiency and SUVs — individually, people choose large, inefficient cars, but when surveyed a large majority want fuel efficiency standards to be made mandatory.
This to me is a defining point about what any government’s role should be in safeguarding the environment. Individual choices don’t always represent our collective wisdom.
Collectively, we’ll say concern about the future of our planet and our children’s future well-being should outweigh short term individual benefits. But there are always a thousand reasons to still make those destructive choices individually, especially if we see them as conferring benefits greater than their marginal harm.
And when in a capitalist system the two major drivers are individual choice and corporate profit, collective wisdom, the global commons, and our collective future are left without a champion unless another force steps in.

Ken Livingston’s congestion tax on cars in central London is a perfect example of Hockey Helmet government at its best. In 2003 when Livingston introduced the tax, he was slammed by the tabloids and met fierce resistance from drivers who simply didn’t want their individual right to drive in central London curtailed. Many said the move would doom him as Mayor.
But the collective benefits have been significant. Car speeds in the city centre are up thirty-seven percent and carbon-dioxide emissions have dropped by fifteen per cent. The plan has been expanded. According to Elizabeth Kolbert, two thirds of Londoners now support it. And New York City is about to follow London’s lead.

The Hockey-Helmet approach to government is anathema to conservatives. But when the cost of damage to our environment and the worlds’ future aren’t factored into the costs of production, free market forces are never going to make us put those helmets on.

Blogged with Flock