Why do Politicians Seem to Hate the Planet?

As wildfires rage, seas rise, and air becomes harder to breathe, one might expect our elected leaders to lead the charge toward a sustainable future. But instead, we see watered-down promises, fossil fuel subsidies, and outright climate denial. Why do politicians act like the planet doesn’t matter?

Even while there is little question that humans are the primary cause of climate change, political reactions have frequently been marked by inaction, symbolic gestures, or a lack of adequate legislative solutions. This phenomena is caused by a combination of structural disincentives and conflicting interests that make taking decisive action on climate change politically expensive, rather than necessarily stemming from a direct disregard for the environment.

Much of this issue lies in the short-termist nature of politics as election cycles promote short-term wins over long-term sustainability. the issue of climate change, in contrast, is a long and complex challenge whose most severe consequences may not materialise within a single political term and subsequently not seen as urgent by politicians standards. Dr Leah Stokes (University of California) notes the friction between action and inaction from politicians, stating: “The political system is set up for inaction. Fossil fuel companies have enormous power to veto policy through lobbying, donations, and media influence. Politicians know they risk their careers by challenging that system”. Since climate policies often bear fruit decades later, it is easy to treat climate issues as second class matters. This is common from politicians across the globe, such as with Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement in 2017 with his decision framed around protecting domestic jobs and economic interests, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, despite its global ramifications. 

Whilst we know the President of the USA isn’t always the firmest believer of the threat of global warming, our previous Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced rollbacks on key net-zero policies in 2023. Pushing back deadlines on the phase-out of petrol and diesel cars and relaxing home heating regulations, these decision were widely perceived as attempts to reduce economic burdens on voters ahead of a general election. Whilst ignoring climate issues looking the rosy-lens of a potential further political future, critics argued the decisions instead undermined investor’s confidence, and risked his credibility as a leader as a whole. 

What this boils down to is that political views have a considerable impact on environmental policy, often by restricting it. Climate change is now seen as a cultural and ideological issue as well as a scientific and economic one in many nations, especially those where right-wing populism holds power/ influence. Many libertarian and conservative politicians support a free-market philosophy that opposes government involvement. Climate change mitigation, by contrast, requires decisive and collective action, regulation, and often market correction, all of which are anathema to pure laissez-faire capitalism. In the U.S., the Republican Party has long opposed climate legislation on the grounds that it interferes with the free market. Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, funded by fossil fuel interests, have historically pushed the narrative that environmental regulation equals economic ruin. It seems Economist Milton Friedman had it figured out when he concluded “the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem”; the ‘follow the money’ attitude cannot reap climate wins.

Criticising politicians for failing the earth is simple and frequently justified, but it's also critical to recognise the difficulties and complexities they deal with. Not every leader is complicit or disengaged.  Voters, businesses, and political institutions oppose those who are sincere about taking climate action. Ideology, institutional resistance, and democratic realities—rather than pure animosity—are frequently the causes of inaction. There are in fact numerous examples of leaders who have pushed hard for climate policy, often as great personal-political risk. Jacinda Arden declared a climate emergency in 2020 and introduced the Zero Carbon Act despite criticism from both sides, Gustavo Petro openly opposed new oil and gas drilling, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been branded the ‘Champion of the Green New Deal’. 

Nonetheless, whilst surveys show general support for climate action, when environmental protection poses itself in conflict to economic stability or job security, voters often choose the latter. This in turn creates a feedback loop where politicians avoid ambitious policies because voters aren't demanding them forcefully enough, and voters don’t push harder because they don't see political courage being rewarded. 

What seems to be the case at hand is that not all politicians hate the planet. Many care deeply, with some risking their careers over it, but political systems reward immediacy and punish uncertainty. We are caught in a viscous cycle of lack of will and inefficacy where the only possible outcome is that of a lose-lose situation. As such, until climate action is seen not just as morally right but politically rewarding, the gap between rhetoric and reality will persist.