Are There Votes in Letting Things 'Go to Hell'?

The UK's Conservative party is set to ditch its 'commitment' to net zero by 2050 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/17/conservative-party-to-ditch-commitment-to-net-zero-in-uk-by-2050). The party's current leader, doesn't claim rampant climate change isn't occurring. She maintains, as there wasn't a 'plan',  it's not 'affordable' by that date. Perhaps they should have started earlier? Mood music from the ruling Labour party also suggests they are  more intent on boosting 'growth' rather than responding to environmental challenges. Historian Richard Power Sayeed suggests they are still committed  to meaningful change, He thinks the 'anti-green noise' is because they perceive this to be popular with some voters (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/12/labour-climate-plans-anti-green-noise). Reform UK are simply 'in bed' with US climate change deniers, funded by big oil (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/15/farage-and-truss-attend-uk-launch-of-us-climate-denial-group-heartland). They, want to appeal to voters by claiming that extreme weather events 'just happen' and that climate change is just a conspiracy theory, they don't like. Only the Liberal Democrats and the Greens seem to believe there're votes in tackling the climate crisis. The Green's Co-Leader has even described Labour's suggestion, that nature concerns mustn't block growth, as 'an outrage' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/15/green-leader-adrian-ramsay-labour-growth-v-nature-framing-is-an-outrage). Consequently, the majority of UK parties seem to conclude that voters are more interested in their disposable income, than in what's happening to their planet. Short-termism is, of course, built into democracies. As votes come round every few years, politicians tend to focus on the short term. This 'merry-go-round' isn't helpful for long-term challenges like anthropogenic climate change. Responsible government, should be advising their populations about what urgent priorities need to be. After all, they get the best scientific advice. In stead, a majority of politicians are currently trying to whip up short-sighted resentments about 'costs', in order to win seats. They must think voters are incapable of behaving in unselfish ways? The costs of not doing anything to counter climate change, however, will be considerably greater, than any price of meaningful action. It's all a question of timing? The longer it's left, the more it will cost.