Why Does the 'Climate Crisis' Not Receive Much of a Mention By Most Politicians?

500 scientists have signed an open letter to leaders of UK political parties, wondering why 'plans' for dealing with what's now inevitable climate change are a) vague or b) retrograde. The signatories, consequently, wonder why this hasn't become the 'climate election' (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/10/disappointing-and-surprising-why-isnt-this-a-climate-election-in-the-uk). Environmental issues have also failed to receive strong support in the current elections for the EU parliament (https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2024/jun/09/european-elections-results-2024-europe-eu-parliament). There's been surge in favour of nationalistic parties, with a focus on concerns about the 'cost of living'. Currently, the UK electorate place environmental issues near the top of their concerns. In traditional democracies, however, politicians have tended to be distinctly short-termist. They only think of the next electoral cycle, of circa 5 years. Many still appear to think they 'have all the time in the world'. That's no longer true. It's now estimated that action in the next 5 years is crucial, if there's any chance of ameliorating the 'climate crisis'. It will also cost money to mitigate the consequences of climate change. Many politicians apparently prefer to use any available finance to appeal to the electorate's raw self-interest. Perhaps, substantial numbers of people are better than that?