As a science policy wonk, I spend an inordinate and probably unhealthy amount of time learning about and discussing efficient processes for ensuring that good science informs effective policy.

And as someone who worked in a research capacity for one of the leading political communications firms in the world, I’m also not nearly naive enough to believe that much of it will ever work.

There is a core truth in politics that many of us know: politicians often reflect policy positions that voters find meaningful and important. I bolded “and” because the distinction is key. Many issues are meaningful to voters, but not important enough to alter the voting decision.

The economy is consistently ranked as the most important voting issue. For the 2016 election, PEW Research Center found that “84% of registered voters say that the issue of the economy will be very important to them in making their decision about who to vote for in the 2016 presidential election.”

The environment ranked important with only 52% of voters. But are they really two distinct issues?