The Future or Now?

In 2002, the Liberals held a retreat in Meech Lake, QC to debate whether to ratify the Kyoto agreement on climate change. (Globe and Mail, January 29, 2007, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070129.wxclimate29/
BNStory/ClimateChange/home)

At the time, Dr. Gordon McBean, one of Canada’s top climatologists warned the Canadian leaders of the effects of climate change, but admitted that society would only see the benefits a few decades down the road. According to the article, one of the ministers had an unfortunate but predictable reaction: "And there will be nothing for us between now and the next election?" the minister asked, "Why would we do this?"

When political leaders have some of the most power and influence in making significant change in society, how easy is it for them to balance the need for human benefit, and the need to be re-elected? I think that in an ideal situation, political leaders join the ranks to "change the world" or at least, to make positive change in their country. But isn’t it a realistic fact that on some level, all politicians share the same common goal: To be re-elected? How does a four-year cycle impact the decision-making in a country?

With important and on-going issues such as the environment, health care, and education often topping the lists of issues that politicians need to deal with, how do they appropriately balance the benefit to future generations and the benefit to themselves? As we’ve seen, even when certain governments agree to abide by long-term agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, it is easy for another government to choose not to fulfill that obligation. Are there ways to coerce the country to think in long-range forecasts?