The U.S. House of
Representatives was created in part as an outlet for the immediacy of a people’s
passions; other governmental institutions at the federal level provide a check.
The term of a House representative is only 2 years, whereas that of a U.S.
senator is 6 years and that of the U.S. president is four. So presumably societal or even global problems requiring immediate action find pressing representation in the House, whereas the perspectives of U.S. senators and presidents, being limited to six and four years respectively, are not long-term-oriented enough for problems that could blow up in decades. To register in the crowded minds of House representatives, a long-term problem yet in need of immediate attention must trigger the immediate passions of the constituents unless the representatives value principled leadership (i.e., acting in the best interests of the constituents and the country). Yet passions demanding immediate action
tend, I submit, to involve anger. Climate change is thus excluded, and the
long-term forecasts do little to impress upon a people how urgent rectifying
action really is. Even if the scientific reports of current conditions emphasize extant dramatic changes (not to
mention future forecasts with disastrous implications for humanity generally
and particular regions, immediate passion is not sufficiently stirred for the
U.S. House at least to prioritize addressing the problem.
The full essay is at "Climate Change: An Outsider in Democracies.
