Under the assumption of perfect information, yes. Politicians should be afraid of doing unpopular things that will not get them re-elected.
A problem that exists down there, outside the internet bubble of information overload, is that people _aren't_ reliably informed. A human in a vacuum without access to accurate information will never spontaneously guess that they should care about the environment.
A politician's decisions are informed by voter preferences. That's good.
But the voters, themselves, how should they know whether to care or not care about any particular subject they're not experts in? Who do you trust? Where does information come from?
Well, there isn't a widespread decentralized information effort. It's not billions of us independently doing investigatory work. It is a handful of us, a small relative percentage. Voters can't all be experts. They have to trust some smaller group.
If you think democracy is a system for getting the government to do what the people want, then it's working as designed in many places.
The problem is not politicians, the problem is not democracy. We are the problem, we the people who want more more, and do not accept the consequences of our actions. We vote for cheap gas, then shift the blame wherever we can: to politicians, to democracy, to other countries etc.
If a politician doesn’t think global warming is true, at least be open to the fact they might be wrong and be careful with their choices. The environment is a fragile balance, better to be careful and limit things that might impact this fragile balance.
Ask why. Consider why it is that people do that. Is it really human nature? Can't we imagine a world, or even a country, where the cultural zeitgeist is different?
We certainly can have smaller communities where people accept the consequences of their actions, where people will hear about what else happens besides "more" when you ask for more. It's not that the human brain floating in a vacuum is incapable of understanding that actions have consequences. We develop that skill pretty early!
I think it's interesting to look at what separates these smaller groups from the bigger groups. I don't think it's people themselves being built of a different stuff. It's the inputs and the norms that differ.
I can certainly think of norms for a group that result in worse outcomes. I also don't think we're necessarily at an optimum in epistemics, looking around me. So optimistically, candidly, there's room to do somewhat better.
If we all voted together it might be different. Though I doubt it, to be honest.
Isn't this how democracy is supposed to work? Isn't it, as a general rule, preferable that politicians fear being voted out, and so do the things that the voters want, so they get reelected? The alternative seems to me for a politician to say one thing in the campaign - what the people want to hear, and then do something else when elected - what he thinks is best. Some do that, but they're not loved for it.
I am pretty sure that even when or if politicians do not care about the voters, they still do not do the right thing, but some other wrong thing, like enriching themselves.
What you are in fact complaining about is that politicians elected by other people did what those people wanted, instead of what you wanted. While not laying the same complaint on those you voted for - greens. They obviously did right to listen to their voters - you and people you agree with.
It's not about the guts of a chosen few. It's about humanity overall. If we do not care about the environment, billions of us, a handful who care will not, can not change much.