Why has there been so little action taken by Governments against Climate Change? Wouldn’t the long term economic repercussions of inaction outweigh the short-term benefits of ignoring it?
Two reasons: Voters are short termist – what matters to them is that they lost their job due to the car factory closing, not that in 50 years temperature will rise by 2-3 degrees (the effects of which, whilst serious, are incomprehensible to them) basic game theory – If no one else cuts as much a…
The Short Answer
Two reasons: Voters are short termist – what matters to them is that they lost their job due to the car factory closing, not that in 50 years temperature will rise by 2-3 degrees (the effects of which, whilst serious, are incomprehensible to them) basic game theory – If no one else cuts as much as you, you still suffer the consequences of climate change whilst also taking the huge economic costs of action. Therefore if you suspect that other countries will not similarly reduce emissions (this might even be justified, see China/India – they have a lot of emissions to increase before they come anywhere close to Europe/US emissions per capita) you might take a fatalistic view of "fuck it, increase our prosperity so we can better handle the climate change caused by global third parties"
Analysis
Key Concepts: Emissions, whilst, climate
This explanation focuses on emissions, whilst, climate and spans 138 words across 2 sentences. At 94% above the average Nature explanation (71 words), this is one of the more thorough answers in this category, reflecting the complexity of the underlying question.
What This Answer Covers
This is a focused, single-point answer that gets directly to the core of the question without detours.
How This Compares in Nature
Ranked #46 of 500 Nature questions by answer depth (top 10%). This places it in the comprehensive tier — the top quarter of most thoroughly answered questions. Questions at this depth typically involve multi-faceted topics requiring nuanced explanation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a simple explanation for why there been so little action taken by governments against climate change? wouldn't the long term economic repercussions of inaction outweigh the short-term benefits of ignoring it?
Two reasons: Voters are short termist – what matters to them is that they lost their job due to the car factory closing, not that in 50 years temperature will rise by 2-3 degrees (the effects of which, whilst serious, are incomprehensible to them)…
How detailed is this explanation compared to similar Nature questions?
This is one of the most thorough answer at 138 words, ranked #46 of 500 Nature questions by depth. The key concepts covered are emissions, whilst, climate.
What approach does this answer take to explain there been so little action taken by governments against cli?
The explanation uses root cause analysis across 138 words. It is categorized under Nature and addresses the question through 1 analytical lens.