Cambridge’i Ülikooli kliimamuutuste poliitikate uurimisgrupi juht ja Tartu Ülikooli külalisprofessor
Even in climate change science and scientific-based policymaking, ideology and activism must be left at the door, writes Annela Anger-Kraavi, head of the Climate Change Policy Research Group at the University of Cambridge.
A climate law is planned to be adopted in Estonia. In December, Estonian officials announced in Brussels that they support the European Commission’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. Interestingly, Estonia presented its position without anyone directly asking for it.
However, many entrepreneurs oppose climate-related actions, as they feel that their interests are not considered when additional obligations are imposed on them. Setting and implementing goals in climate policy is arguably more important than the goal itself. This is because if the transition to a low-carbon economy is not socially accepted, it is impossible to achieve these goals in a democratic society.
On the other hand, public debate has been sparked by the tendency to point fingers at scientists, blaming them because people and businesses do not understand officials’ expectations and fail to grasp why they should simply say yes to proposals that lack substantive discussions and impact assessments. A relevant example is a statement made by President Kersti Kaljulaid at the 2024 Polar Conference in Tallinn: “The Estonian scientific community has done an infamously poor job in helping our politicians convey the message of climate change to citizens, especially in terms of making it clear that climate change is a serious issue.”
The scientific community is not an activist group
It is not part of scientists’ job responsibilities to influence politicians in a particular direction or to lobby to apply their research findings. Scientists exist to study and discover things that we do not yet know. This is the essence of science, and scientists follow specific methodologies and ethics. This means, for example, that the results of scientific research must not depend on a scientist’s worldview or desires.
The scientific community is not an activist group that influences the public or businesses. That is the role of ideological activist organizations, such as the Estonian Fund for Nature. Likewise, government officials should not be activists – their role is to fulfil the mandate given to them by the people, and their decisions must be based on the best available science. Each scientist conducts their research and provides fact-based recommendations. If fact-based work is replaced by ideology, the scientist has become an activist. A recent article in the world’s leading scientific journal, Nature, warns against such practices.
Of course, a scientist can be ideologically or politically active outside of work, but extra-scientific activities must not influence scientific work and its results. This is not always easy – let’s be honest, scientists are human too, and they have emotions. If they didn’t care deeply about the climate system, they wouldn’t be doing this work (here is an English-language article on how scientists navigate the climate crisis era).
It is correct that climate scientists should be listened to and that policies and measures should be science-based, meaning they should consider synthesized and reliable findings from the latest research. However, even scientific evidence can cause disputes and be complex.
Each scientist conducts their research and provides fact-based recommendations. If fact-based work is replaced by ideology, the scientist has become an activist.
When factuality is replaced by ideology, a scientist becomes an activist. The image is illustrative. Photo: Markus Spiske/Unsplash
Science Does Not Take Moral Stances
Science is not about searching for answers that suit specific individuals while rejecting others. First, science does not take moral stances—it does not dictate what is right or wrong, nor does it sweep inconvenient truths under the rug. Of course, scientific work itself must be ethical (no one should be exploited unethically, human rights must not be violated, and no one should be placed in a difficult situation due to the publication of results).
Second, science is not dogmatic; it does not serve any individual or group’s faith, beliefs, or worldview. Third, science is not democratic—majority opinion may not align with research results, and unfortunately, voting does not secure the desired outcome. Fourth, all scientific results are welcome; they are discussed, evaluated, and, if necessary, revised. Methods must be reliable, and those who wish to replicate the research must be able to achieve the same results. Methods must not be distorted to obtain preferred results, such as ignoring confidence intervals or reinserting statistical outliers into calculations, even if doing so is methodologically incorrect and unacceptable.
Science is not democratic—majority opinion may not align with research results, and unfortunately, voting does not secure the desired outcome.
Thus, one should be cautious with decisions based on an out-of-context sentence from a scientific article. Trustworthy information is compiled from numerous independent studies. Such information is provided in the reports of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The articles in these reports undergo peer review before publication, and the reports go through multiple rounds of assessment by scientists, citizens, and governments, further enhancing their credibility. The expectations of the UN Climate Convention are based precisely on this scientific information.
I am surprised by how little IPCC reports are discussed in Estonia. The silence stems from the fact that these documents contain messages that contradict the ideology of certain groups, and using the reports would lead to uncomfortable discussions. I have also been told that the information in the reports is simply incorrect because Estonia has a different opinion or that the most important studies showing different data have not been sufficiently considered. In such cases, I recommend submitting these concerns to the IPCC authors. The email addresses of the working group leaders and lead authors of the chapters are freely available to everyone. However, dismissing the work that summarizes thousands of articles by hundreds of authors is not justified.
Unlike other countries, Estonia does not have scientists dedicated exclusively to climate change. Only a handful of researchers study the impact of specific processes or substances on the climate system. Consequently, relatively few media articles and policy summaries introduce climate change-related findings to policymakers. Climate education in schools is also inadequate.
As a result, public awareness of climate change and ways to address it is low, allowing both ideologically driven scientists and activists, including climate change sceptics, to manipulate society.
Moreover, interest groups have been included in legislative processes primarily for appearance’s sake, and impact assessments are generally inadequate. Proper impact assessments would help individuals and businesses better understand the issue and its implications, alleviate fears, and enable collective efforts to find solutions for climate change and the adverse effects of related policies—ultimately advancing toward a more climate-friendly economy. Since climate change is a global issue, simply ceasing the burning of fossil fuels will not shield Estonia from its effects if other countries do not follow suit. Therefore, much more attention should be given to climate adaptation strategies.
