POLITICIANS’ MENTAL HEALTH… as we flout Planetary Boundaries
Here in Aotearoa/New Zealand, we’re witnessing the bizarre spectacle of legal action being taken against the (Green) Minister for Climate Change Issues (James Shaw) for the current Labour-led government’s failure to implement policies recommended by the Climate Change Commission.
“Lawyers for Climate Action (LCANZI) says Cabinet’s decision to reject the advice of the commission on price controls in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) violated the Zero Carbon Act’s requirements.”
I fully approve of the Lawyers’ action. I also sympathise for Minister Shaw — he’s an ally in the fight for the future. But he’s in an impossible position in an insane society: we love our cars more than our kids’ future.
Reflecting on this led me to ponder politicians’ mental health, and that of treasury officials and central bankers.
For any one individual, there seems to be three broad options:
(a) Delusional: they still genuinely believe in endless GDP growth (green or otherwise) leading to the glossy magazine lifestyle for all.
(b) Sociopathic: they are aware that we are flouting planetary boundaries — but are utterly cynical, and happy to lie and manipulate the public in order to maintain their own wealth and status.
(c ) At Risk: They are science-literate enough to be well aware of resource limitation issues including climate disruption; but they feel obliged to maintain an optimistic public persona, for fear of being voted out. And while in power they can at least have some influence on the future.
But when away from the limelight, and able to reflect privately on our current disastrous trajectory, they are deeply conflicted.
Any politician with integrity and compassion must eventually find themselves in option (c). That’s why I label them at risk — they are too honest to last long in power.
This link reveals the stress on UK politicians, but its relevance is surely global: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/29/mps-on-the-hidden-toll-on-their-mental-health
And that, unfortunately, leaves power in the hands of the delusional and the sociopathic. We can’t leave our young peoples’ future in their hands. Under these circumstances, choosing inaction is choosing complicity in slow motion genocide. The only sane response from you and I is to get political and do what we can:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/on-climate-our-job-is-to-keep-politicians-on-task
The bottom line is we are facing, and causing, catastrophe “on a biblical scale” as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres put it
Our language gives us away: journalists and commentators still routinely use terms such as ‘environmentalists’ or ‘activists’. Why?
I would prefer to label people choosing to do nothing as inactivists, and to question why they are choosing to do nothing to protect their own’ kids’ future.
