Government and climate change

Scientific Reports and PolicyPsychology and Culture
Written By Anonymous

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and governmental systems vary in their ability to respond effectively. This article explores three types of political systems - two party, parliamentary, and authoritarian - and their strengths and weaknesses in addressing climate change.

Two Party Systems

Two-party systems encourage debate, competition, and allow for accountability among politicians. However, polarization often leads to gridlock, leading to no progress, or very slow progress, on passing climate policy. Within the U.S., partisan divisions have stalled an effective collective response to climate change.

The short-term focus of election cycles can also override government efforts towards environmental protection.

Parliamentary government

In parliamentary systems, broader representation and collaboration among parties can lead to effective climate policies. Coalitions can more easily pass legislation across party lines, but frequent elections and shifts in coalitions can disrupt long-term goals. Compromise may also weaken ambitious climate goals as multiple parties negotiate and water down climate policies.

Authoritative governments

Research suggests that as the climate change intensifies, people may vote in authoritarian leaders who promise rapid solutions or downplay the crisis and create a false sense of security.

Authoritative governments can be effective at implementing environmental policies rapidly, at scale, because they are not stalled by lengthy and fraught decision-making and election processes. Risk occurs when economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection, or if the leader and their administration deny the reality of climate change. Even within authoritative regimes, judicial systems can play a crucial role in limiting damage from policies that disregard scientific evidence.

More reading:

Anonymous
Next

The importance of bipartisanship