In the current global environment, it is becoming increasingly clear that the biggest obstacle to effective climate action is not a lack of technology, but ecological myopia. This phenomenon, defined as constantly The focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term value and sustainability creates a dangerous blind spot in the decision-making processes of both governments and businesses.

Economic horizon: 2 versus 15 years

While the scientific evidence of the accelerating climate crisis is undeniable – 2024 was the warmest year on record, with a global temperature increase of 1.6°C – there is a noticeable cooling of enthusiasm for net zero in political manifestos and corporate boards.

The main driver of this myopia is pressure for immediate financial return. Many companies today prefer projects with a return on investment (ROI) of 2 to 3 years. However, true decarbonization and sustainable infrastructure (such as renewables or circular design) typically require an investment horizon of 7 to 15 years. This mismatch causes strategic environmental projects to be shelved in favor of „business continuity“ under the pressure of economic volatility and inflation.

The tragedy of the commune and motivated reasoning

This problem has deep roots in a concept known as tragedy of the commune. When individuals or firms maximize their personal benefit by exploiting a common limited resource, it ultimately leads to its depletion and loss for all. The rational pursuit of individual gain thus becomes a collective tragedy.

Added to this systemic flaw are psychological barriers such as motivated thinking. If information about climate change is perceived as too threatening or catastrophic, voters and decision-makers tend to ignore it to avoid stress. This attitude encourages politicians to be inactive because they are afraid of proposing measures that voters with a short-term thinking horizon would perceive as painful.

Intergenerational injustice

The blind spot of myopia is most pronounced in distribution of costs between generations. Current economic optimization models (like DICE) often balance today's costs of climate mitigation against future damages, resulting in future generations bearing disproportionately higher costs relative to their GDP.

Research suggests that in classical models there is approximately 70-year time shift between investment in reducing emissions and its real impact on reducing damage. This means that today's generation benefits from postponing action, while future generations "pay the bill" for our inaction.

The Way Out: Reframe Strategies

Overcoming ecological myopia requires a fundamental change in approach:

• Investment criteria must evolve: Companies should move from a pure financial ROI to an approach total value return, which includes avoided carbon costs, resilience benefits and brand equity.
• Building trust in institutions: Trust that the government is implementing optimal measures acts as a coordination tool that reduces the tendency to deny the facts.
• Nature as the basis of strategy: Sustainability should not be seen as an „extra cost“, but as a condition for survival. Companies that fail in transition risk not only reputational damage, but also the emergence of stranded assets and disruption of supply chains.

In reality, companies and governments cannot afford not to finance sustainability; in fact, they cannot afford to be inactive. Shortsightedness only makes the future more expensive and challenging for both business and society. JRi