Or the person you are communicating to has a conflict of interest and has a strong incentive to feign ignorance. Usually referred to as being "corrupt" for short.

In that case, "communicating to them was not an effective strategy".

"Their strategy is not effective" is quite different from "they are the problem."

Anyway, what would you propose that they do?

If B is ignoring A, for whatever reason, then A can talk to others. Or more generally, do whatever it takes to workaround B.

A does talk to others. It still hasn't worked, and now B is trying really hard to make A stop telling everybody about this stuff.

So A has to get rid of B, or make them irrelevant.

How? B has all the power. It's easy to say "get rid of them" but how do you actually do it?

Maybe B has overwhelming power now. But if B's position is untenable, that will eventually become apparent. And yes, that may take far too long to be of any good.

I thought that this subthread was about US politics. That's so knife-edge that it could flip in four years. But yes, if the US goes full-moron, and takes a military approach to climate mitigation, all bets are off :(