Previously, we have relied on 2030 – or approximately 5,000 days – as the deadline for reaching the SDGs. This time horizon provided us with a small but reasonable window. Yet with these new reports, we have a new deadline, which leaves us with only 1,000 days to regroup and make the transitions necessary to be able to control our climate and get on track to solve global risks. The reports all have the ingredients of a blockbuster thriller: We are dangerously close to losing control of our own future, and the actions necessary to regain it require interventions on a scale that will trigger political, economic, and mental unrest. So far, the political transformation has not been impressive but rather inadequate and constrained.

We can conceptualize this as a “Bermuda Triangle” of our knowledge society. The Bermuda Triangle describes three reasons why knowledge disappears and fails to spark change.

Research has shown that only about 15 percent of international reports are read. That number also applies for the group of officials who need the reports to make decisions. This is not a surprise considering that most reports are downright unreadable, as they succumb to the technical and complex jargon of the elite. One study published in the magazine Nature concludes that the UN climate reports, for example, are becoming increasingly incomprehensible. Sadly, the media are of little help. They are either too disinterested or too unskilled to bring to light the mesmerizing dramas hidden in the complex paragraphs and cryptic graphs.

The biggest news often attracts the smallest headlines – if any headlines at all. The paradox is the fact that the most important knowledge of humanity is not understood by humanity, but only by a handful who fails to act accordingly. This could spark a reinforced rebellion against the elite and ruling class (politicians, business leaders, investors and the media) the day humankind is forced to rapidly and radically change living conditions because of accelerating global warming.

The public debate has pushed this reality aside in favour of smaller, more immediate challenges, because the predominant belief is that ‘we can deal with it later’. This ‘later’ is now just a matter of 1,000 days.

We can conceptualize this as a “Bermuda Triangle” of our knowledge society. The Bermuda Triangle describes three reasons why knowledge disappears and fails to spark change.

Unfortunately, it has become too easy to challenge the experts, particularly in a time which fake news are overshadowing real news and credibility is constantly put into question. For example, a solid climate change consensus represented by over 97% of scientists is being misreported as the opposite: a great divide in the scientific community. The supposed lack of consensus suddenly becomes more important than communicating the most trustworthy information. Particularly the UN’s climate reports, known as the IPCC reports, have fallen prey to this tendency.

Because these studies have to be supported by such a wide variety of scientists with different nationalities, backgrounds and beliefs, their conclusions become vague and unspecific with little respect of the state of the world’s climate. This means that the researchers continuously have to update their climate change prognosis because change happens at a quicker rate than the reports had predicted. For example, ice has been found to melt faster at the poles than expected and weather events have proved more extreme than anticipated. We are yet to hear any scientific report that claims the opposite.

I found it interesting to witness the scientific debate in the aftermath of a controversial article “The Uninhabitable Earth“, which ran in June in The New Yorker magazine. In this piece, expert David Wallace-Wells describes a world which in the foreseeable future will be virtually uninhabitable, if we fail to cut emissions. In the article, he grasps a world with a global temperature rise of 4-5 percent and above and describes possible scenarios. These scenarios are quite scary and bring to mind apocalyptic movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow”. The article was criticized by a number of climate scientists who deemed it too extreme and doomsday-like. However, these scientists had to concede that the numbers were indeed correct, and that these scenarios would be possible if not likely.

This is an interesting example as it really shakes our sense of reality. According to his critics, Wallace-Wells’ fault was that he extended reality rather than questioned it. Science was completely on his side.

In a time where scientists have to constantly reassess their results and prognoses, it is up to any of us to choose which predictions to believe, and how far we are willing to take them. It raises the questions of how the general public become aware of the forces that are shaping our future, and how we as individuals can contribute to avoid sudden and unpleasant consequences.

The impression of expert disagreements makes it easy for politicians to pick and choose the ‘truth’ that best corresponds to their political beliefs – and attractive for them to do so.

If we have to create a breakthrough within the next 1,000 days, as the experts predict, we must dissolve well-established political agendas and deeply rooted economic philosophies. It goes for everything from our society’s economic growth to our consumer patterns. Decision-makers would be forced to take significant action if transitions were to be implemented within the near future. It will be unpopular and possibly cause massive protests from every stakeholder group from business to civil society. Therefore, it is much easier and convenient for the politicians to dismiss the hard decisions by pointing to scientific disagreements and then subscribe to the views of whoever expert best fit their established political agenda.

However, this attitude could prove to be out of touch with the expectations of the public. Humanity already seems more worried about the state of the world than politicians do. In the beginning of August, the American Pew Research Center published a study, which reveals that the world’s population rates climate change and Islamic terrorism as the two biggest political threats. The study finds that 62 percent fears terrorism, while 61 percent cities climate change as the greatest threat. In comparison, 51 percent expresses concerns over cyber attacks and the state of the world economy, and only 39 percent believes that the refugee influx is the biggest political security issue.

Despite regional differences, climate change is high up on the list of the biggest global risks in most countries in the world, and this fact further increases the possibility of a widening gap between the elite and the public. The prospect of swift interventions to reduce the effects of otherwise predictable catastrophes provides a dangerous recipe for potentially triggering uproar and divide in otherwise well-functioning societies.