Energy Policy: No Place for Zero-Sum Thinking

• Date: 01 September 2019

9-2019 NEWS & ANALYSIS 49 ELR 10847

ARTICLES

The popular notion of a zero-sum game is a scenario

in which, in order for one party to gain value,

another party must lose it. We can imagine a pie

cut into six pieces, with six people standing beside it. For

any one individual to get two pieces (the winner) someone

else must go hungry (the loser).1 One of the key assump-

tions here, of course, is that the number of slices of pie is

xed. We cannot add to the pie. Because one cannot win

unless someone else loses, there is no win-win scenario in

the zero-sum game.

Any simplistic metaphor is certain to brea k down u nder

scrutiny, but in broad, multi-faceted policy contexts, such

as the evolution of the energy industry in the United

States, the zero-sum game, or winner/loser paradigm, is

particularly unhelpful, and can lead to short-sighted and

dangerous consequences. For example, consider calls for

transitioning electric generation to renewable fuel sources.

Zero-sum thinkers, seeing renewables as winners, neces-

sarily identify fossil f uels as losers.2 Similarly, those who

see the environment as the winner often suggest that eco-

nomic growth must be the loser.3

For an illustration of this way of thinking, one need

only look to President Donald Trump’s statement on his

intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris Cli-

mate Accord, where he stated that the agreement would

put U.S. energy reserves “under lock and key,” thereby

“taking away the great wea lth of our nation ... and leav-

ing millions and millions of families trapped in povert y

and joblessne ss.”4 If renewable energy wins, the argument

1. In this piece, the author refers interchangeably to zero-sum and win-

ner/loser thinking. For an example of the winner/loser framing, see

Eliza Barclay, 3 Winners and 5 Losers From Trump’s Decision to Pull Out

of the Paris Climate Agreement, V  .com, June 3, 2017, www.vox.com/

energy-and-environment/2017/6/2/15723988/winners-losers-trump-paris.

2. Popular news articles about developments in electric generation often charac-

terize solar and coal as “winners” and “losers” in the electric industry. See, e.g.,

Katie Fehrenbacher, U.S. Solar Jobs Boom While Oil, Coal Struggle, F,

Jan. 12, 2016, http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/solar-jobs-boom/; Anna

Mikulska & Michael Maher, Who’s Winning the Battle to Replace Coal?, F-

, May 17, 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2016/05/17/

whos-winning-the-battle-to-replace-coal/#207917b9765d.

3. Dana Varinsky et al., 5 Claims Trump Used to Justify Pulling the U.S. Out

of the Paris Agreement—and the Reality, B. I, June 1, 2017, www.

businessinsider.com/fact-check-trump-reasons-for-leaving-paris-agreement-

2017-6/#job-losses-1; Noah Kaufman, U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Energy

Institute Misleads on Climate Action Costs: 3 ings to Know, W R. I.,

Apr. 26, 2017, www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/us-chamber-commerces-energy-

institute-misleads-climate-action-costs-3-things-know?utm_source=&utm_

medium=&utm_campaign. Importantly, some studies of the economic cost

of the Paris Agreement do not factor in the cost of not responding to climate

change, which is potentially devastating. Marshall Burke et al., Global Non-

Linear Eect of Temperature on Economic Production, 527 N 235 (2015)

(“unmitigated warming is expected to ... reduc[e] average global incomes

roughly 23% by 2100 and widen global income inequality”), available at

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v527/n7577/pdf/nature15725.pdf.

4. Press Release, e White House, Statement by President Trump on the

Paris Climate Accord (June 1, 2017), www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of-

ce/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord. For more

information about the Paris Agreement, see U N F

Energy Policy:

No Place for

Zero-Sum

Thinking

by Inara Scott

Inara Scott is the Gomo Family Professor and Assistant

Dean for Teaching and Learning Excellence in the

College of Business at Oregon State University.

Summary

In game theory, “zero-sum” means that a person

may gain only at the expense of another person los-

ing. Two-person games, such as chess and checkers,

exemplify this win/loss dichotomy. Transported to

economics, the idea of zero-sum similarly means that

one party must lose for another to win. But in broad,

multi-faceted policy contexts, such as the evolution

of the energy industry in the United States, this win-

ner/loser paradigm is particularly unhelpful and can

lead to short-sighted and dangerous consequences.

is Article, adapted from Chapter 3 of Beyond Zero-

Sum Environmentalism (ELI Press 2019), recommends

moving away from the zero-sum analogy to advance

energy policies that benet people across geographic,

socioeconomic, and cultural divides, and oers con-

crete suggestions to ground policy development in a

broader, more holistic manner.

Copyright © 2019 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.