Climate Change: Who Decides What Our Government Does

Everyone seeks to influence the decision-makers in our lives. This is true at work, within the family, and on matters of governance. On the other side, the decision-makers need input from experts, their constituents and even their social groups. However, when all is said and done, the decision-maker is responsible for making decisions.

That explains accountability and responsibility, but still leaves the decision-maker in jeopardy. No such position within any sphere of control is permanent and unchangable. That is, decision-makers are judged and can be removed. When we speak of government leaders, change can be by the ballot box or by other means, largely determined by the prevailing system of government.

This makes it crucial for a decision-maker to listen to his or her judges if continuance in their position of power is desirable. As I watch the protests going on in Copenhagen I do wonder who the decision-makers are listening to, and who they are prone to being swayed by in their deliberations. Is it the protesters, whether they are peaceful or violent, or is it their electorates?

Leadership has a cost. If you go against the electorate to do what you believe is right, you may lose your position. If you follow the electorate -- policy-making by opinion poll -- you may keep your position only to be excoriated later for having chosen power over doing the right thing. Politics isn't easy! It is particularly difficult in the present circumstance since the electorate is uncertain -- we generally want to deal with the problem but are not ready to pay the price -- while the activists are certain (climate scientists, who are only rarely activists, aren't "certain" but strongly lean toward action).

As I write this, it appears that our decision-makers are listening to neither the protesters nor the scientists. I understand the former since protesters do not represent the majority, and seek to circumvent the lack of wide public support by confronting the politicians. I understand the latter since doing what is in a sense "right" will have a cost -- make no mistake about it -- on our standard of living, for the near term at least.

We can criticize our decision-makers, who are all easy targets, yet their job is difficult. The loudest voices seeking to influence them are the ones least able to determine their own political futures, even if they are right. The quieter voices are those of the electorate and the corporations that will pay the price for any radical action, since those are the ones whose immediate interests are threatened. Yes, the electorate's interests are tied to corporate interests whether or not this is acknowledged: we are mutually dependent on economic stability and maintaining profitability, jobs and living standards. Even so, in the long-run the status quo is unsustainable: fossil fuels will inevitably rise in price and climate change will occur to a lesser or greater extent, with all the consequential impacts on local and global economics and social order.

So, what should our leaders do? Go slow, go fast, or find some wishy-washy middle ground? Our current federal government seems to strongly favour the status quo. They may only change their position in order to align our actions with the world's major economies, which at least preserves our ability to trade and therefore offers the best economic protection. Either way, the climate will continue to change and so further action will be deferred to a future time when the problem is more acute. Despite the howls of the protesters and the warnings from the scientists, the government will most likely win this round, where winning is measured when Canadians next go the polls. Whether they, and we, are right is another matter.