[lucianbr]

> they didn't have the guts, being voted in again was more important

Isn't this how democracy is supposed to work? Isn't it, as a general rule, preferable that politicians fear being voted out, and so do the things that the voters want, so they get reelected? The alternative seems to me for a politician to say one thing in the campaign - what the people want to hear, and then do something else when elected - what he thinks is best. Some do that, but they're not loved for it.

I am pretty sure that even when or if politicians do not care about the voters, they still do not do the right thing, but some other wrong thing, like enriching themselves.

What you are in fact complaining about is that politicians elected by other people did what those people wanted, instead of what you wanted. While not laying the same complaint on those you voted for - greens. They obviously did right to listen to their voters - you and people you agree with.

It's not about the guts of a chosen few. It's about humanity overall. If we do not care about the environment, billions of us, a handful who care will not, can not change much.

[ako]

Problem is that democracy doesn’t seem to work in bad times, voters only want to hear that they have more, more, more. More jobs, more income, more houses and cars. No politician will win the election by stating voters will have to work longer hours, for less payment, have to pay more taxes, and send their kids to the army to protect our freedom. As soon as that is necessary, populist politicians will gain votes by stating all of that is not needed.

[lucianbr]

If you think democracy is a system for obtaining good outcomes, then yes, it doesn't work too well. Actually I think we don't have any system for obtaining good outcomes consistently.

If you think democracy is a system for getting the government to do what the people want, then it's working as designed in many places.

The problem is not politicians, the problem is not democracy. We are the problem, we the people who want more more, and do not accept the consequences of our actions. We vote for cheap gas, then shift the blame wherever we can: to politicians, to democracy, to other countries etc.

[tux3]

>We are the problem, we the people who want more more, and do not accept the consequences of our actions

Ask why. Consider why it is that people do that. Is it really human nature? Can't we imagine a world, or even a country, where the cultural zeitgeist is different?

We certainly can have smaller communities where people accept the consequences of their actions, where people will hear about what else happens besides "more" when you ask for more. It's not that the human brain floating in a vacuum is incapable of understanding that actions have consequences. We develop that skill pretty early!

I think it's interesting to look at what separates these smaller groups from the bigger groups. I don't think it's people themselves being built of a different stuff. It's the inputs and the norms that differ.

I can certainly think of norms for a group that result in worse outcomes. I also don't think we're necessarily at an optimum in epistemics, looking around me. So optimistically, candidly, there's room to do somewhat better.

[ako]

Yes, it would help if we would be more careful with our choices. But it would also be nice if politicians could be held accountable: if they say global warming is fake, and it turns out to be true, they should get some sort of penalty. Same with allowing pollution, you’re responsible for the health impact.

If a politician doesn’t think global warming is true, at least be open to the fact they might be wrong and be careful with their choices. The environment is a fragile balance, better to be careful and limit things that might impact this fragile balance.

[tux3]

>Isn't this how democracy is supposed to work?

Under the assumption of perfect information, yes. Politicians should be afraid of doing unpopular things that will not get them re-elected.

A problem that exists down there, outside the internet bubble of information overload, is that people _aren't_ reliably informed. A human in a vacuum without access to accurate information will never spontaneously guess that they should care about the environment.

A politician's decisions are informed by voter preferences. That's good.

But the voters, themselves, how should they know whether to care or not care about any particular subject they're not experts in? Who do you trust? Where does information come from?

Well, there isn't a widespread decentralized information effort. It's not billions of us independently doing investigatory work. It is a handful of us, a small relative percentage. Voters can't all be experts. They have to trust some smaller group.

[bobfromhuddle]

Billions of people do care https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for...

[vasco]

The majority of people aren't deniers, so the minority that wants super aggressive change in policies just has to realize that not everyone is a revolutionary, and people shift their voting very little so this needs to be done over generations.

[CalRobert]

The problem here is the benefits are localised but the harm is globalised. Nobody in Micronesia can vote to raise fuel taxes in the US, despite being very much affected by US energy policy.

If we all voted together it might be different. Though I doubt it, to be honest.

[doubtfuluser]

This is exactly the problem. Above assumptions about democracy simply are not true at world level. I would imagine that if every person in the world would be able to vote equally on these topics - and everyone would have the same impact, things would look different. The rich countries are a minority population wise (or better: the people benefitting from non-ecological behavior are a minority). But when climate based refugees come, people might change their mind - or when we see in the news people dying in those affected regions… (oh wait - we already don’t care about seeing people starving… :( )