Global warming and the games politicians play

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 the 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 election.

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 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 was massive flooding in early 2011, there is still a popular resistance 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 grossly overestimated. The risks of climate change (and therefore the benefits of mitigating them) are thought by many to be highly 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, in itself it’s not enough motivation for most who would probably never go there anyway. People are more concerned with what happens in their immediate vicinity than in distant lands. Much more important to voters is what is happening in their economy right 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 to reduce total emissions. Both agree that cuts are needed but 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 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 immersed 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 court.

Now they have a choice, but making the decision depends on how they think the other person will behave.

If both are silent, they can be seen as cooperating with each other or teaming up against their common enemy, the police. They could still be charged with the crime, but the chances are high that they will be acquitted due to a lack of evidence. Therefore, both will win. However, if one of them betrays the other by confessing to the police, the breaker will gain more since he is released; The one who remained silent, on the other hand, will receive the full penalty since he did not help the police and now there is sufficient proof with the statement of the traitor. The silent 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 credence to criminals who confess their actions.

The dilemma resides in the fact that each prisoner has the possibility to choose between only two options, but cannot make a good decision without knowing what the other will do. This is similar to the dilemma faced by politicians: everyone agrees that cuts should be made, but they are afraid of putting their savings at risk. It is not surprising that politicians prefer to talk about tackling poverty and development as priorities.

They are willing to concede that global warming and resulting climate change is the biggest threat for the future, but it seems that fossil fuel-fueled economic growth will have to wait. Unless people tell them otherwise.