Why are governments unwilling to make radical changes necessary to mitigate climate change?

Question

why is this?

is it because they dont want to ruin their economy? and is this the only reason or is there more?

Answer 1

Because 2 do this is some what expensive and the way the economy is headed it doesn't make it any easier. Plus our government is sort of lazy.

Answer 2

Because it won't work, climate change is a natural process and you could no more stop it than you could stop the sun from shining, or stop it snowing in the winter.

Answer 3

Goverments are usually resistent to making any kinds of radical changes.  In developed countries like the US, people live comfortable lives and are resistant to big changes.  That's why we only have 2 political parties which aren't all that different in the US.  Most people are moderates - satisfied with the status quo.  Any politician who proposes significant changes is labeled as a "radical" - too liberal or too conservative.

Climate change is a tough nut to crack because it requires making big changes to the way we do things.  There have been proposals to take action though.  For example, the US Senate proposed a bill to put a cap on carbon emissions in our country.  Unfortunately, the Republicans blocked it.

http://earth2tech.com/2008/06/06/climate...

Answer 4

It is a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't " situation caused by uncertainty.  The economy is often cited, but the economic consequences of doing nothing COULD be much worse.  The solution COULD hurt some people more than others. Not doing anything COULD hurt some people more than others.  

Any solution requires global cooperation, which means agreements also means the MAY have to be made and acted on between countries that may not be friendly to each other.  It also means some more developed countries MAY need to help developing countries out with using technologies that improve efficiency and control pollution, which COULD cost a lot.

The thing scientist are most certain of is human activity is causing global warming.  As you move into what climate changes will be caused by global warming, there is less certainty.  If you want to know what the ecological impacts will be of climate change, that is even less certain.  Then what will be the impact on humans from the ecological changes?  That is less certain still.  Finally, what are the economic consequences of mitigating the human impacts.  This has very great uncertainty.  

With all the uncertainty, it is impossible for politicians to be sure of what the right thing to do is.  Some act in their short-term interest for personal and political gain. If they are acting sole for the best interest of their people, if they guess wrong, somebody's going to suffer and the politician will ultimately pay the price (lost power).  Doing nothing is a good option for politicians and let the scientist reduce the uncertainty involved, plus pass the buck to the next guy.

Don't get me wrong - I think it is a problem that should be acted on immediately to mitigate because waiting will make it harder and much more expensive to control in the future. I think waiting to act until all the uncertainty is resolved is foolish, because by the time we can say with high statistical confidence what the impacts will be, we will be well committed to a path we may not want to travel.  

I recognize that acting now reduces the money we have to work on other problems (hunger, disease, etc). But I also think, if my view is wrong, we have wasted relatively few resources, but if my view is right, we save a lot of resources and avoid a lot of problems that would have otherwise been much worse.

Scientists have now pretty much decided the risks are so great, that something should be done (here is something from the US National Academy of Sciences that sum up what is known).  Congress ask them to investigate the problems, and this is one of there summary documents to help people get a handle on it.  http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

In statistical terms, failing to rejected the idea that AGW is not occurring when is really is getting warmer (type II error) is worse  than rejecting the idea that AGW is not occurring when it is not getting warmer (type I error)  - Read it at least twice - it is statistical double talk but accurate -  I think.  If we wait 30 years to get the time series statistical information to be sure we are not committing a type i error, we may be committing a type II error, which is more dangerous to our welfare.  Statistics handles type I errors very well, but not type II errors.   This is also why we use mathematical models that employ physics to simulate the changes over time - we can't wait for an "answer" to make a decision.  The really scary part is the predictions from the models have been pretty accurate (poles have warmed, melting ice, high latitude glaciers are melting from heat, it is greening earlier in the high latitudes, some species have started to shift, 0.7 degree increase in mean global temps, more droughts, floods, and heat waves).

Answer 5

Change is something that will only ever come slowly. There are many people (conservatives) who still believe that the climate is fine and the whole thing is just a hoax. They will continue to be stubborn and ignorant till it slaps them in the face. Thats how they are. The ones in congress will resist doing anything too drastic. Also companies like Exxon-Mobile will pay lots of money to senators and congressmen for their campaigns if they vote in favor bills that could help oil companies. There are plenty of other reasons but those are the main 2.

Answer 6

Climate change was formerly know as global warming until it was shown that in the last 10 years the planet has been cooling.

They are scared of making radical changes as most people with any sense except vulnerable and the impressionable believe its the biggest scam of the century.

The climate warming excuse is wheeled out when the government wants to gain something from its people.

Control and tax

Answer 7

you said it right 'they dont want to ruin their economy' . what kind of logic is it to want to make radical changes to billions of people's lives, just because the earth warmed up a degree or two?

Answer 8

Because they are scared of the coal miners unions and most political parties take contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

Thus instead of switching to nuclear power which is what needs to be done they just keep wasting money on wind and solar that aren't able to replace fossil fuels.

Then you've got the fact that the people who vote them in won't accept a reduction in the standard of living (nor should they since we don't need to do that to save the planet) and some believe the anti-nuke kooks (though nuclear does seem to have more support from the general public than is typically believed).

Answer 9

Because doing nothing is better than doing something stupid; and because  they know this...

“No democratic government in history, outside of wartime, has survived wilful actions that destroyed the living standards of its people for no measurable gain"

Answer 10

It is because people live comfortable lives and people compare the pros and cons of the changes you suggest relative to the results of catastrophic global warming discounted by the uncertainties, and people generally, at least in the US, don't want to make those changes.

I know there's a cost benefit analysis but it assumes catastophic warming - it doesn't discount for the uncertainties.

You can't just look at loss-given-AGW without considering probability-of-AGW - - - if homeowners' insurance cost half as much as it would cost to replace your home and belongings, you wouldn't buy it, because the odds of catastophic loss are far lower than 1 out of 2.

Answer 11

I agree with Dana about 85%--- the only disagreement is on carbon caps --- we should be moving away from importing and using oil for fuel for Economic reasons.

This would require a comprehensive energy strategy-- I just don't see our wonderful politicians doing anything EXCEPT to pass "light bulb" legislation.

Answer 12

It could get them killed. Be careful what U take away from the American public...

Answer 13

I think you should have qualified your question with "some" - you see the majority of governments already are making radical changes and diverting GDP to reduce carbon emissions. It is evident from some of the responses that this fact hasn't filtered through to many contributors.

The long term effect of this is that those countries now making an economic sacrifice to reduce their dependancy on fossil fuel and to reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible are going to be economically & socially stronger. Those economies still heavily reliant on fossil fuel and wasteful of resources will be unable to compete as they will have a far higher cost base.

Answer 14

Mitigating  'climate change'  is like stopping the sun from shining and stopping all human eandeavor. Do you really believe that either of these are possible? Have you not any respect for the human condition? Have you not any respect for predicted solar actions upon this solar system? I strongly suspect that you opperate in a selfish universe where everyone of your concerns are of your own fabrication. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself to accepted known science before you begin placating false science as your 'trusted base' of foundation. You really should abahndon these sands of mis-information.

Answer 15

Because people aren't. They are elected by these people.

Answer 16

That's a reason, but they know it's a lie too.

Dana - go tell Africa and Asia that you recommend they cap their carbon & accept poverty over electricity.  Tell Australia to stop selling carbon to everyone who breathes - ditto Russia.

Thank G-d for China & India - building on average a new coal fired power plant every week.

The lie that human CO2 hurts the climate is being used for dangerously wrong and discredited socialist policies that WILL hurt the U.S. economy.  They are wrong and thank goodness more and more Americans see through the lie.

People in the know understand that Schmidt, Hansen and others are in stiff competition with other research groups for funding -- and are willing to make up lies about climate catastrophe to get their money.  This is nothing new!

Follow the money.

Answer 17

There are too many lies for most governments to destroy their own peoples lives over.

Answer 18

simple, money. the U.S spends 700 billion dollars to get oil from the saudis, so the saudis dont want it to stop. then the U.S ships 2/3 of that oil to other countries for profit. nobody wants to spend money on experiments when they dont have to. but look at brazil, they were so poor that they chose to stop using oil and instead use biofuels. and big surprise, they're now the largest economy in south america and a very rich country. only when it hurts the economy do we listen.