Philipp Pattberg

Attending ESA’s 2025 Living Planet Symposium in Vienna, I encountered a familiar refrain: if only we had more and better data on the state of our environment, from climate change, biodiversity loss, and air pollution to plastics and pesticides, then, surely, decision-makers would finally act. And if they don’t, it’s because scientists haven’t communicated the facts clearly enough. If we just simplify the charts, make the message more digestible, talk like normal people, the change will come.

I’m very sorry to burst that bubble.

Politics isn’t failing us because scientists have failed to explain the problem. It’s not a lack of pie charts or language for five-year old children that’s keeping action at bay. The truth is far more unsettling: policy-makers already understand the mess we’re in. Many of them are fully briefed. They’re not confused. They’re conflicted at best, corrupt at worst.

So why does the data so rarely lead to meaningful decisions? Let’s consider three uncomfortable truths.

First, politics runs on power, not on evidence. In the political realm, power is the only currency that matters. Scientific insights, no matter how profound or urgent, are powerless unless they can be translated into influence. A dataset without a constituency, a model without a lobbying arm, is simply background noise. If your science doesn’t threaten or bolster someone’s power, it might as well not exist.

Second, politics is emotional, not rational. Voters don’t support leaders because of their nuanced grasp of atmospheric modelling. They follow charisma, storytelling, and tribal signals, well-fitting suits, soundbites, and sometimes the yellow-press home story. Political movements thrive not by appealing to rational self-interest, but by channelling emotion: fear, hope, anger, pride. Facts are too often bystanders in this game.

Third, science often challenges the status quo, and that makes it a threat. Research on climate, biodiversity, or pollution doesn’t just reveal problems; it implicates specific industries, disrupts business models, and demands transformation. Those benefiting from the current system have every incentive to delay, discredit, or distract. Entire industries exist to muddy the waters just enough to make inaction seem like a reasonable choice.

So no, the problem isn’t a lack of data, or that scientists are too obscure in their messaging. The problem is that information alone does not change power structures, emotional narratives, or entrenched interests.

We must stop pretending that clarity will save us. The facts are already clear. The question is: who has the power to act on them, and who is willing to give up what it takes to let them?

What can be done? Here is a simple (but difficult to enact) recipe.

Show how your scientific findings empower actors. Connect your findings to emotions. Connect your findings to those interests challenging the status quo. This should ensure that scientists are heard and not silences. Give it a try!