Game Theory and Climate Change

  • B. Preethi
  • J. Manigandan
  • M.V. Suresh
Keywords: Engagement, Stewardship, Divestment, ESG, Stranded Assets, Game Theory


Climate change perceptions and perceived risk in the United States has become increasingly partisan, with increased belief in and support for climate change and regulation among democrats, but decreased belief and support among republicans. These divergences are partly attributable to increasingly partisan news outlet viewership and coverage. We inhabited a game theory model to recognize optimal climate change communication strategy through news media outlets. Actor strategies included whether to converse with pro- and/or anti-climate change new outlets, and to emphasize regulation, renewable energy, whether climate change is real, man-made, and/or causes harm to the United States Payoffs consisted of change in public opinion for each of the candidate topics actors can chose to emphasize. Solutions to games where players have a continuous choice about how much to pollute, games where players make decisions about treaty participation, and games where players make decisions about treaty ratification, are examined. The implications of linking cooperation on climate change with cooperation on other issues, such as trade, are examined. Cooperative and non-cooperative approaches to coalition formation are investigated in order to examine the behavior of coalitions cooperating on climate change. One approach to accomplish assistance is to design a game, known as an apparatus, whose equilibrium corresponds to an optimal outcome.


Download data is not yet available.


Bliuc, A. M., McGarty, C., Thomas, E. F., Lala, G., Berndsen, M., & Misajon, R. (2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 226.

Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J., & Huxster, J. K. (2017). The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141(4), 599–612.

Chan-Olmsted, S., Rim, H., & Zerba, A. (2013). Mobile news adoption among young adults: Examining the roles of perceptions, news consumption, and media usage. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(1), 126–147.

Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., & Anthony Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5, 596–603.

Hicks, D. J. (2017). Scientific controversies as proxy politics. Issues in Science and Technology. Available at:

Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C. Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 1014- 1020.

Yingchuan Wang, Yang Shen, & Yongchen Guo. (2018). Simulation research on the effect of energy saving policy in office building based on dynamic game. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 8(6), 48-54.

Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., Howe, P. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2017). The spatial distribution of Republican and Democratic climate opinions at state and local scales. Climatic Change, 145(3–4), 539–548.

Nordhaus, W. D. & Yang, Z. (1996). A regional dynamic generalequilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. The American Economic Review, 86(4), 741–765.

Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage. Pew Research Center. Available at:

Shapiro, J. M. (2016). Special interests and the media: Theory and an application to climate change. Journal of Public Economics, 144, 91–108.

Shin, D., Song, J. H. and Biswas, A. (2014). Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) generation in new media platforms: The role of regulatory focus and collective dissonance. Marketing Letters, 25(2), 153–165.

Tingley, D. & Tomz, M. (2014). Conditional cooperation and climate change. Comparative Political Studies, 47(3), 344–368.

How to Cite
B. Preethi, J. Manigandan, & M.V. Suresh. (2019). Game Theory and Climate Change. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 9(3), 170-175.