[Raptor235]

I mean they have families just as we do... so surely they want their families to be safe and they want their kids to grown old... I don't understand can it be greed?

[Protectress]

Is it all about money=power?

Perhaps they have enough money to ship themselve and their children to another planet...things to ponder....

Protectress

[LADawson]

I think it comes down to a number of factors. One simple one is that it is difficult to explain to people. Politicians nowadays almost all work on one or two line talking points. If they can't get their message across in that amount of space, the subject is largely ignored and the average person on the street simply doesn't understand how a single degree of average global temperature increase can make much difference, especially to them personally. It is easy to say "Well, all they have to do is pickup a copy of Newsweek or watch a little National Geographic channel, it's right there." but most people just don't want to do that. Granted, education is improving, especially when climate shifts directly effect people's daily lives; hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, and so forth are great motivators to get people to educate themselves. Still, the nay sayers just point to such events in the past and say it is all just cyclical.

Money is definitely a factor, especially when you're talking about a big corporation that answers to its shareholders. How does a CEO justify spending millions on research for something like alternative fuels or a new kind of emissions scrubber for their manufacturing plants when they could be giving that money directly to their shareholders as profit? We are an instant gratification society, telling them that it will pay off in the long run doesn't always work. That money filters down to politicians in many ways (with some politicians more directly than others). In the end, money is like a big magnet, when you bring it close to one's moral compass, it can often skew the direction the needle points.

[GreenGeek]

it's the same as in the food and drug industry, acknowledging the issue means admitting there's a problem with "business as usual". A certain prominent politician is widely known for having extensive connections with the oil industry, and has gone to war seemingly over an oil-related issue, so it's no secret there why that particular person isn't too supportive of the issue in general... to do so would anger the people who fund him.

The other part is that by admitting there's a problem, it would amount to telling people their beloved lifestyles (and the associated hummers, 56" plasma TVs, 4,000 sq ft houses, etc) are causing the problem and they can't have those nice things anymore if they want the problem to be fixed.. that tends to make people react badly, which makes them not want to support that politician anymore.

There's likely a great deal more to the issue, but it's almost 4am here and I think I'll get some sleep instead of typing a few more paragraphs.

[Raptor235]

Hmm, I agree the general public is not as educated as they should be... but you would think the politicians would be at a higher level... they should recognize that their children will suffer because of their actions... but then again look at who the people elected to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world... :

I think another problem is that corporations have become a higher power then the government... check out the movie "The Corporation" it's great.. it talks about how much power a corporation has and how it's become more powerful then a single government by going multi-national...

Hopefully more of the general public will find places like here to read and learn about their future and what is at stake...

[Pauline]

I don't think the politicians are ignorant or negligent. I think they are making a conscious choice (to downplay environmental issues) according to risk/reward logic.

Public outcry isn't as harmful to them (yet) as consequences from big corporations. Only when the reasons to change things outweigh the reasons not to, from the perspective of being favourable for the politician to get re-elected, will they come on board.

Or when they elect Al Gore, whichever comes first.

[saturnsc]

Good responses. I can definitely agree with the money/corporation argument.

In effect corporations will seek to gain increasing profits via any means possible. One of these means, unfortunately, is by influencing politicians and changing the laws (or shall we say, having the laws changed?) to the corporation's own and sometimes sole benefit.

Another argument that I have heard a lot is that politicians are working on an election-to-election timeframe. This means that they are not extremely interested in improving conditions in or investing in times 20 years down the line. Politicians and political parties want to win elections and so this means that typically they have a 4 or/to 8 year time frame in which to keep the public on their side or get them on their side. If an immediate environmental disaster happens you can bet the politicians will solve it. If not, they have little reason to think about environmental issues just as long as enough of the people are appeased about it.

The point of view that I am closest to right now, however, is that the world is being controlled by an increasingly small elite of corporates. Their primary job is to make money for their shareholders. If they do not do this they will lose their jobs in favour of someone who can do it better. Shareholders as a whole are interested in making money. They think it would be nice to see environmental change, but the average middle class to upper middle class shareholder wants profits and has no time to protest for the environment, let alone investigate and try to influence companies that he/she holds an infintessimally small amount of stock in.

[ona]

Ya, I have never understood that either. Don't they realize there future is also in danger or do they think there invisible or something. I personally think they want to control everything so much, they don't want to face that fact that this is something they can't control. I also think it's also possible that they really just don't care because they figure they wont be around to see any real change, which of cource is a big mistake. I also believe they really don't care about the future of humans, they have got it in there heads to only live in the moment not what can happen later on. Anyway, great question, just had to put a little of my thoughts in.

Ona

[Nate Martin]

Make sure you check out the recent Air Quality Bill that the California Gov... has signed. It is actually impressive, especially for a psuedo republican.

[horselover]

They only care about themselves, that's the problem, and it sucks. That's one reason why I don't vote.