THIS story is simply amazing:

The president-elect of the Maldives, a nation of 1,200 low islands in the Indian Ocean, is planning to establish an investment fund with some of its earnings from tourism so it can buy a haven for its citizens should global warming raise sea levels at a dangerous pace, according to several news reports.

Of course, if the Maldives produced enough of the world's carbon emissions to materially affect climate change, it might opt to take steps to reduce those emissions and slow or halt sea-level rise, rather than uproot the entire country. But then, billions of citizens of places that do produce most of the world's carbon aren't doing much to reduce their emissions, even though that might prevent the worst potential effects of climate change. Essentially, they're all deciding to do what the Maldives is doing.

One might suggest that that demonstrates revealed preference—that developed nations would rather face the evacuation of their coastal cities than pay a few cents more for a gallon of petrol. Or, one might suggest that it demonstrates something about time preference—that we choose to accept costs later, when we're not alive, as opposed to now, when we are.

Mainly, however, this suggests that absent active global leadership from the world's biggest emitters, the collective action problem is impossible to solve. An agreement between just three parties—America, Europe, and China—would influence the growth of most of the world's carbon output. But so far, problems of imperfect information and enforcement have pushed this three person game toward the sub-optimal equilibrium. And as a result, the Maldives will watch its land disappear beneath the waves.

(Hat tip: Common Tragedies)