The solution to global warming and the resulting climate change is a political question. Politicians depend on the people for their power. This means that people can force politicians to act to implement solutions to prevent global warming and resulting climate change.
Even in non-democratic countries, leaders must pay attention to the general state of the nation if they want to avoid a revolution, as several Arab leaders discovered in early 2011. In democratic countries, politics has been practiced in the same way for centuries. way: the leaders of the countries are worried about the upcoming elections. In politics there is no humanity, only voters. The next century does not exist, only the next year. The next generation does not exist, only the next elections.
President Obama has said that he is not the president of the world. He is, rather, the president of the United States and must defend the interests of his country’s voters, who are concerned about changing cars and increasing their consumption, not about saving the planet. Politicians are not prepared for long-term planetary problems. They and their constituents have great difficulty in assessing what might happen in the future. When voters in the developed West, which are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, think about it, most remain unmoved.
Concern about increases in the expected frequency and severity of major weather events such as droughts or floods is generally low in places like the United States and Europe: even in Australia, where there were massive floods in early 2011, there is still a popular reluctance to take action in the face of warnings. global warming and resulting climate change. This may be because low probability events tend to be underestimated in decisions based on personal experience, unless they have occurred recently, in which case they are greatly overestimated. Many think that the risks of climate change (and therefore the benefits of mitigating them) are largely uncertain and mostly in the future (“it’s a problem for our children’s children” is a fairly common view) .
The risks are also considered geographically distant. The Maldives, which have a reputation for beauty and are a popular luxury destination for wealthy tourists, are at risk of being completely destroyed by rising sea levels. While that may be lamented by people in Western Europe or the United States, that in itself isn’t enough of a motivation for most who would probably never go there anyway. People are more concerned about what happens in their immediate vicinity than in distant lands. Far more important to voters is what is happening in their economy now.
The two largest emitters, China and the United States, are at very different stages of their economic development and are equally reluctant to make promises about reducing total emissions. Both agree that cutbacks are needed but that there is a cost associated with making the change. If one country goes ahead without the other, there is a fear that their economy will suffer from the higher costs of energy production without seeing any short-term advantage, so neither wants to ‘go first’. Each country is waiting for the others to agree to act at the same time. It is as if the world is engaged in a giant game of ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’.
Imagine, if you will, two criminals arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime together. However, the police do not have enough evidence to convict them. The two prisoners are isolated from each other, and the police visit each of them to offer them a deal: whoever offers evidence against the other will be released. If neither accepts the offer, they will both be charged and face the courts.
Now you have a choice, but making the decision depends on how you think the other person will behave.
If both remain silent, they can be seen as cooperating with each other or uniting against their common enemy, the police. They could still be charged with the crime, but there is a good chance they will be acquitted due to lack of evidence. Therefore, both will win. However, if one of them betrays the other by confessing to the police, the one who breaks up will gain more since he is released; The one who kept silent, on the other hand, will receive the full penalty since he did not help the police and now there is enough proof with the traitor’s statement. The silent one will face the full fury of the law.
If both betray each other, both will be punished, but less severely than if they had refused to speak, since justice gives credit to criminals who confess their actions.
The dilemma lies in the fact that each prisoner can choose between only two options, but cannot make a good decision without knowing what the other will do. This is similar to the dilemma politicians face: everyone agrees that cuts should be made, but they are afraid of putting their savings at risk. Not surprisingly, politicians prefer to talk about tackling poverty and development as priorities.
They are willing to acknowledge that global warming and resulting climate change is the biggest threat to the future, but it looks like fossil fuel-driven economic growth will have to wait. Unless people tell you otherwise.
