Can liberal democracies solve climate change?

Political decision-making in a liberal democracy is to a significant extent preoccupied with policies that are beneficial to voters right now. The phenomenon has been termed short-termism by philosophers (Caney, 2016; King & Crewe, 2014; Nordhaus, 1975). An important source of short-termism in political decision-making is the incentive structure for politicians in liberal democracies. Fear of electoral defeat in the short term disincentivizes politicians from defending policies that impose short-term costs on the electorate for the sake of significant long-term benefits (Caney, 2016; Caney, 2019; Gersbach, 2010; MacKenzie, 2016).

If we combine this insight with the looming threat of climate change, then we can see that the decision-making bias towards the short-term is an obstacle, as this requires a focus on the long-term (Boston & Lempp, 2011; Weber, 2006; Meleady & Crisp, 2017; Caney, 2019; Lazarus, 2009). Policies aimed at mitigating climate change often require costly investments in the short term, whereas the benefits of these investments only arrive in the long term (Caney, 2016; Caney, 2019; Stern, 2006). One example of this could be the now (in)famous ‘hockey stick’ approach of the current government. Here investments in co2-reductions are postponed to the latest possible point in time, to lower the current costs of the green transition.

In the project, we want to investigate under what conditions or using what arguments voters can be motivated to look beyond the short-term when it comes to climate change. Policymakers respond to the shifting attitudes and agendas of their electorates, hence public support is imperative for long-term policy solutions (Ibenskas & Polk 2022).