Yesterday, while playing poker with some friends, I remembered Jörn Behrens’ video about epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. If I translate it into poker-slang: epistemic uncertainty is created by the cards of your opponents that are hidden to you, creating a missing knowledge. The random deal of the cards is just luck; it gives the aleatory uncertainty.
In a poker game, there are various situations where players have to evaluate small probabilities based on uncertainties to win. Every new round, I make my decisions based on these probabilities, on these uncertainties, but also on how much do I have to loose?
With my friends, each bets 5 Euros, so if you lose, you just lose 5 euros, that’s not too bad. It is probably still cheaper than a long evening in a bar, but still enough to be competitive and have the will to win. I mean, for 5 euros times the number of opponents, I can buy myself a decent lunch from the good Italian restaurant around the corner the following day. Therefore, I know, my decisions now will have a direct impact on my lunch the next day – my decisions in an amateur poker game. But, me and my friends are all young and semi-broke. I mean… How much are 5 Euros to a millionaire? They would probably only play for fun, take every risk, make irrational decisions not based on probabilities since 5 euros are worth nothing to them anyway. If I were playing in a poker game with a bet of 50.000 euro, I would play really carefully and very deliberately (as my amateur poker skills allow). I would think about every uncertainty two or three times until I make a decision. Therefore, the bet and how much it is worth to you determines your decision-making, your willingness to take risks and your commitment, too.
So applying this analogy (finally) to climate policy: Decisions in climate policy are mostly based on climate research, climate models, climate researchers that can interpret climate models. But, as we know, the models come with uncertainties. Just as in poker, each decision-maker in policy must work with the uncertainties of climate models and base their decisions on them. But what consequences follow from these decisions? What bets do decision-makers give and what could they lose, and most importantly, who decides that? The problem here is that decision-makers don’t just have to decide for themselves. In poker, only I lose 5 euros. But decision-makers usually make decisions for an entire region or country. If they lose, everyone loses. But what do you/they/we/does everyone lose? Do these political decision-makers lose anything at all, no matter what they decide, and it’s always everyone else who loses?
Therefore, we need to have a look at the bet. In the climate crisis, the bet is our future. Or is it? If I were playing poker over my future, I wouldn’t take any risks and would always play it safe. I would base every decision on saving my future. But what future? The one in 2 weeks, 2 years, 20 years? The further into the future I go, the more uncertain my life becomes. So if I have the opportunity to play safely now, so that I will have a promising future, I would not take any risk. But also poker is a long-lasting game. Round after round you get new information, new probabilities, new uncertainties. This can get exhausting. So any round counts, any little step I take making a risk assessment, calculating probabilities, helps me saving my future.
So why do politicians take risks then? Why do they gamble with our future, with the future of the planet, of people, of animals, of nature? Are there just some rounds plaid now where they became negligent, or are they exhausted? So many uncertain questions … But in the rounds we play right now against the climate crisis, we can already win. Every round, every little step we take to fight climate change counts. However, whether we will win the whole game still depends on the decision makers. Let’s just hope, they don’t all just ignore uncertainties and accept great risks because they have a certain gambling problem.
Anyway I know now for certain I am gonna get a good pizza for lunch now from the good Italian restaurant around the corner.
Hello Sina,
I enjoyed your post with a nice analogy! As I have not thought about climate policies as a gamble, your post made me see this issue from a different view.
First, as Jacob mentioned, I would also talk about the future discount for a future value. You said that you would make a decision to save your future and questioned about what kind of future it would be in terms of how far it is from now like 2 weeks, 2 years or 20 years later. If you put more value in your future, you would consider the time even 100 or 200 years further for your next generation not only for yourself and people around you. Since climate issues should be solved in a long-term aspect, I think it is necessary we need to look further beyond our generation.
Regarding your concerns about a gamble which politicians might take being negligent of safety, I do think that there is a kind of consensus reached among a majority of people around the world about the importance and urgency of climate crisis so that it is not easy for politicians to try a gamble for the whole planet putting everyone in risk. Moreover, I also believe that it is not that politicians are the only ones who can make a decision. There are other communities such as scientists, NGO, citizens and media who can communicate and interact with each other in order to lead the whole society in the right direction. Therefore, I also hope that politicians would not make a wrong decision but at the same time, as we are now engaged in a climate community as a student, scientist or whatever would be in the future, we could contribute to those efforts to save our Earth!
Thanks for the simple analogy Sina! First post I read where I felt like getting the essence of it right away.
I think that the main aspect of climate politics making them different from the poker game is the timescale.
The main reason for climate change mitigation politics not to become implemented is in my opinion not that politicians aren’t following the will of the people. In fact, I think that in countries like Germany the democracy is working quite well and that the main reason for action on climate change not happening is that people choose so. This assumption might seem incorrect to you but we as ICSS students need to keep in mind that we come from the bubble in which climate change awareness is high. Other groups of citizens have different opinions and are satisfied with current climate politics or even think they go too far.
I think the main reason for this is that we discount the future. In a poker game, you will get your reward immediately, whereas, in climate politics, the reward, the preservation of a life-friendly climate, is something that is achieved only within decades or even centuries. If you discount the future, there is nearly no value left to this reward and you will tend to prefer driving big cars and taking the airplane and vote for politicians who will ensure that you are able to keep doing so.
Thanks for your comment Jakob.
Of course the timescale is important. If I continue in my poker analogy: poker can also be a long lasting game. Round after round I make new decision. If I lose already most of my money in the first round, the following rounds will be painful. So every bet I do, every raise, has to be well thought trough. But yes in politics it is a bit different. Maybe that’s the point where my analogy fails.
BUT what if we are already in the heads up? Us against climate change? And we already gambled for a while and now is the last chance to beat climate change.
Wow! I really enjoyed reading this post – a really brilliant analogy highlighting how people deal differently with uncertainty depending on what’s at stake. I guess some of it comes down (in part) to the short term service of our politicians. Due to the time lag of the effects of climate change, we’re currently dealing with the consequences of past inaction. In the same way, the consequences of the actions of present day politicians won’t be attributed to them, and what’s more, they’re likely to not be around when the consequences are felt. In contrast, their actions do have quick rebound effects on things like the economy. If they make the large systemic changes needed to act on climate change and this incurs a short term cost to the economy – this short term cost IS attributed to them. The benefits of these systemic changes will be delayed and so the decision-makers are unlikely to receive any credit for them (or potentially live to see them realised). In this way, without sufficient support from the electorate for this systemic change, it will be hard for politicians to convince people that this short term loss will lead to long term benefits – and consequently, their chances of winning the popularity contest that is politics will be undermined – this for them may be perceived as a greater (personal) risk.
I really enjoy your post Sina. Using poker to exemplify the difficult concepts surrounding uncertainty. Very well done!
Regarding, the last paragraph, “so why do politicians take risks then? Why do they gamble with our future, with the future of the planet, of people, of animals, of nature?…. Every round, every little step we take to fight climate change counts. However, whether we will win the whole game still depends on the decision-makers.”
But aren’t politicians working for the people( supposedly)? And aren’t the politicians chosen by the people ? Therefore, I believe that we have the responsibility to follow closely the decisions that are been made, and not just let the future in the hands of the decision-makers. Because when you play poker, you are playing for you, not for anybody else, then why do we let our future in the hands of somebody that might just work for his own (political) interests? On the other hand, yes, I know, “but is their job, they are in that position for a reason”, still, I think we need to change how do we see ourselves regarding climate change because right now the game is not poker, I think it is tennis, we now mostly behave like the audience in a tennis court, silent and just watching the players (decision-makers) play. Then, how do we make people care so that politicians become aware of the consequences of falling to the society they represent?
Really good point, Aracelly, that politicians are chosen by people. However, politicians in many countries of the world is also driven by corruption and greed that might not have been visible in a previous election campaign. In addition, many politicians act out of such an interest to be directly re-elected at the next election. Hardly anyone plays for the long term goals of a country/region. In poker (also in tennis), you play several rounds. You play for a long time, with a lot of thought and foresight needed. Actions you do in the first round affect all the following rounds. So why not planning long term climate policy?
Nice analogy with regards to epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty and decision-making!
What if you do not have to pay for your losses in poker, but they were distributed among everyone in the whole world and in addition they will have to be paid in 20-50 years?
Well, it is not really fair to make other people pay for your loss even if its just a small amount of money over a long time. Especially in our world with so much poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth, why should people who don’t have much or anything at all pay? Why can not the wealthiest people in the world pay for it?
Dr. Isabella Uhl-Hädicke just told us in the panel discussion that people don’t act rational and don’t weight up the options they have and make based on that rational decisions. And I agree on that people make irrational decisions everyday in every situation based on their gut feeling. But it is the political decision makers job to make rational well thought through decisions, decisions important for our future and not on how they feel in the moment. If political decision makers don’t think they are capable of weighing up options and uncertainties to make a rational decision, then they shouldn’t be in this decision making position.