Based on the
same concept it can be argued that, no matter which of the 25
games suggested by DF represents today's state of the game,
sticking to the“no abate unless everyone else abates”policy pushes
the game to its terminal structure, the risky Chicken game in which
the party who has been affected more by climate change (higher
costs), has a lower risk tolerance, or has a better ability to resolve
the problem (due to higher emission levels, capital cost, and infrastructure) may be forced to solve the problem on its own at a higher
cost.