there’s a new flashpoint to drive profits in the political war on climate.

michael shellenberger’s controversial new book, “apocalypse never: why environmental alarmism hurts us all,” describes how “climate change has been polarized between those who deny it and those who exaggerate it.”

there’s no denying that climate is a polarizing political issue. like abortion, guns, and immigration, climate is one of four wedge issues many partisan power-brokers never want to resolve. by amplifying every extreme assertion by either side, professional manipulators can keep republican and democratic voters far apart, in opposing media silos, where they can hate on each other. shellenberger’s new book not only documents the divide, but intensifies it.

that’s not all his fault. let’s face it: politics and media demand that climate change be cast as either a full-on catastrophe or a cynical hoax. to generate attention, print and online publishers tell environmental writers to hover close to one of these two hotspots. if we want to sell books or generate headlines, we need to stay as close to the heat as we can — even if that means falling into the sun and being devoured.

it seems odd to have to say this, but climate change is a looming catastrophe, scientists overwhelmingly agree. that other ecological problems may be even worse is no cause for comfort. we have an abundance of riches — if our objective is to sell the prospect of catastrophe. 

but solving environmental problems requires rational action, not panic or denial. shellenberger is right in one respect: crisis or not, our movement’s overwhelming focus on imminent disaster is not helpful if we want to actually avert disaster. constant gloom-and-doom exhausts our supporters, funds our opponents, and makes the war on climate change so profitable to cynical political and media manipulators that they’d prefer to risk the end of the world, rather than sacrifice a crisis they can exploit for years.

the result is a big setback for effective action before catastrophe is upon us.

we contemplated a similar strategy when we began writing our new book. to sell our case for bipartisan climate solutions, we could either pander to the right with an attack on fear-mongering, or pander to the left by attacking skepticism and denial. instead, we took the riskier approach: tell a more complicated truth that doesn’t fit either narrative or congratulate either side. 

our book, “in this together,” is not another shocking expose of the conniving left-wing statists or evil right-wing corporatists that must be stopped. it is an honest look at how to end the politically co-opted, media-friendly “war for the planet,” and save the environment instead.

such earnest objectives grate on the nerves of most sophisticated political observers. like the boy scouts and league of women voters, bipartisan efforts like ours seem quaint, quixotic, and hopelessly naive. as veteran climate journalist david roberts wrote of one of our favorite initiatives, the bipartisan climate leadership council, “this is the way of the very sensible centrist, an american political creature that rarely produces tangible results, but always garners heaps of praise. many center-left dems view it as the sine qua non of politics. but it’s utterly disconnected from anything going on in u.s. politics right now. it’s a fantasy, a trip to la-la land. it amounts to a kind of enforced naivety that centrists too often mistake for virtue.”

roberts is a fine journalist, but his political analysis is self-defeating. true, centrist solutions are dead-on-arrival in today’s political industry. they are a threat to the gridlock that maximizes revenue for lobbyists, pollsters, communicators, media, and the elite strategists who keep voters divided so they keep their policy-making power. so long as climate protection is owned by one party, it will forever be held hostage for political gain. rational policy will never be rational politics. only competition between the parties — a battle for how and not whether to solve the problem — makes saving the world a sensible political strategy.

the political war on climate change — pitting progressives against conservatives — pays off quite nicely for the entrenched partisan power-brokers who keep us fighting. they make money by selling protection to vested interests. the best way to drive demand for protection is to create danger. by keeping the left and right in battle, each side intensifying the hatred and extremism of the other, they not only dominate the policymaking process — they also harvest an abundance of risk that they can deliver to their clients, and squeeze vested interests for maximum profits.

the only losers are, in the end, everybody.

here is the simple truth we all know. climate change is real. it is human-caused. and combined with devastating destruction of oceans, forests, and biodiversity, it is a threat to our prosperity, security, and lives — if not today, then soon, by any reasonable standard.

the political media industry has set a trap for all sides in the climate debate, and every one of us has fallen in. we’re engaged in a war that leads only to more war. the $17 billion our donor friends have allocated for climate and ocean protection won’t end the hostilities — it will drive even more dollars to our opposition, and push resolution further into the future. ultimately, our endless war will turn a potential catastrophe into a real one — no matter how long it takes.

there is one way out, but it’s so radical few will entertain it. end the war. join forces with past enemies. engage in radical collaboration.

more than 7 in 10 of us can come to agreement even on the most divisive wedge issues. the political party that appeals to that 70% first will win most every race they enter — no need to raise and spend billions with that level of support.

let’s end the war and save the planet.

here are 10 traps environmental donors and activists are lured into, and ideas on how to free ourselves to get the job done:

mistake no. 1: selling catastrophe 

it seems to work every time. catastrophes blamed on evil villains generate more money and media coverage, compared with narratives of hope and optimism. but these benefits come with hidden costs. catastrophism exhausts our support base. it numbs the public to our calls-to-arms. it alienates those concerned but not alarmed.

a better way: cultivate hope and optimism. optimism does not raise as much money or media coverage, but it rejuvenates and broadens our base. and new methods of digital outreach can multiply the power of optimistic problem-solvers. 

mistake no. 2: demonizing too many enemies 

demonization builds opposition to our proposals. every dollar devoted to demonization generates an opposition dollar. the more demons we target, the more enemies we attract. corporate leaders are trapped in the debt-and-consumption machine, just as much as you and i are. they exploit it, as do we, and they profit more than most of us. but they can’t change it alone.

a better way: the enemy isn’t corporations, capitalism, government, or consumers. the enemy is the entrenched system that drives overproduction and overconsumption. we’re all part of that system. we need to engage stakeholders across the system to understand our mutual struggles and work together for change.

mistake no. 3: speaking only to the left 

the right and left are natural partners. their differences are real, but resolvable—and often complementary.

trying to persuade conservatives to adopt progressive points of view is often futile.

a better way: speak with conservatives in their own language. understand their worldview. respect their desire to protect what we have. develop policy options that reflect their priorities. it won’t generate as much media, and the power brokers will threaten to abandon you, but that’s the cost of earning broad support.

mistake no. 4: dismissing conservation and stewardship 

the left, believing that people are selfless and nature is supportive, tends toward a preservationist agenda that treats humans as invaders of nature. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are often regarded as enemies of nature, when considered from this point of view.

the right, believing that people are selfish and nature poses risks, tends toward a conservationist agenda that treats humans as stewards of the land. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are good stewards who love the land and know it more intimately than most coastal progressives. they are the overlooked half of the environmental movement, only recently being rediscovered.

a better way: celebrate hunters and fishers. learn how many farmers and ranchers are shifting to regenerative agriculture. their forebears fed ours for millennia. invite them to be central players in reducing damage to nature.

mistake no. 5: condemning climate denial 

a wedge has been driven deep between the right and left because it’s profitable for the media and political industries. the fear and hate they are generating is extreme. we feed into it, when we focus on fear, and drive hatred of our adversaries, even those who deny climate change.

a better way: the best remedy for climate denial is respect for conservative principles and acknowledgment that overconsumption threatens both our ecological and economic foundations. denial will dissipate when our solutions are economically sustainable.

mistake no. 6: aligning tightly with democrats 

over 70% of the public is with us. aligning with either party turns our majority into a minority. it makes victory impossible. any cause or community dependent on just one party is a slave to that party. the democratic party will delay effective climate action until after the next election. there is always a next election. the only way to win is with a bipartisan coalition.

a better way: grow an authentic bipartisan coalition where conservatives are free to advance their ideas for meeting the climate crisis, without sacrificing the economy. challenge conservative donors to join the cause, and match their commitments to climate actions that respect conservative principles.

mistake no. 7: opposing corporatism with statism 

big corporations have too much-concentrated power. the federal government does too. corporations and governments grow together. conveniently, the warrior left fights corporate power by building government power, while the warrior right fights government power by expanding corporate power. power brokers on both sides just smile.

a better way: use markets before mandates. support effective corporate campaigns. mobilize activists and consumers to avoid companies that aren’t part of the solution. when companies step up, reward them, with clear positive recognition their competitors will notice. above all, use prices to prevent pollution. support revenue-neutral carbon prices, as advocated by groups like climate leadership council and citizens climate lobby.

mistake no. 8: just buying access and influence 

it’s tempting to play the inside game, and buy access and influence so politicians will vote for clean energy. some of this will likely be necessary. but too much can backfire in two ways. first, the cost of democracy will rise. when clean energy bids up the cost of access, their competitors can match their bids. the result is a more expensive stalemate. second, the inside game is rigged in favor of the entrenched. it’s not just the fossil fuel sector that’s opposing change. it’s hundreds of powerful players and the political pros who take their money. they can overwhelm any team we field. our democracy is rigged to resist change, not encourage it. buying access can protect past gains, but it can’t win many new ones. 

a better way: end-run the power-brokers. invade from two directions at once. organize the left and right together.

mistake no. 9: suing the bastards 

fossil fuels aren’t like tobacco. they helped build the industrial economy, overcome the depression, and defeat fascism. they spawned the technologies that can gradually replace them. suing the tobacco industry didn’t destroy tobacco. it simply drove the industry into less democratic nations. it feels good to sue the bastards. but it just creates more bastards.

a better way: stop creating bastards. challenge fossil fuel companies to put real resources behind their commitments — lobbying resources that can shift the republican party’s position on climate, and compel democrats to collaborate on real solutions. champion bp for its historic shift from energy products to energy services — a business model that could change everything. support the carbon pricing proposals of exxonmobil and conocophillips — a policy coalition that could break the stalemate.

mistake no. 10: declaring war on climate change 

war is supposed to be the last resort. but we’ve made it the first. war is built into our political genes. whenever we’re serious about attacking a problem, we declare war on it. we’ve declared wars on poverty, cancer, drugs, terror, and hunger. now we’ve launched a war on climate change. wars are profitable for media and campaign strategists, but they rarely solve problems. and the war to save climate is doing just the opposite. it is exhausting our base, discouraging recruits, and increasing the size and power of opposing armies. climate change is not a challenge that can be won by war. its systemic cause is an economy and culture addicted to overconsumption. the remedy is the very opposite of war. we need to come together to create, not destroy.

a better way: stop the war. start creating. engage capitalists, activists, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians. explore solutions that apply the best ideas from all of them. end-run the debt-and-consumption machine. create evolutionary change.

what can you do to help?

you can start by signing our declaration of interdependence. then let’s compete as our founders intended, to bring the best of the right and left together, meet the climate challenge, and move america forward.

—

about the authors:

trammell s. crow is a dallas, texas-based businessman, philanthropist, entrepreneur and innovative leader in business development and operations. he is the founder of earth day texas, and is on the center for climate and energy solutions (c2es) board of directors.  

bill shireman is a social entrepreneur, environmental policy innovator, and rare san francisco republican. he brings together people from all sides of the political spectrum. he is president of the nonprofit future 500 and teaches leadership and negotiations at the uc berkeley haas business school.

this wildlife children’s book is for the kids at a south african primary school for their reading club where they practiced their english. the book translates from english to their local language sepedi. i wanted to educate them on the wildlife essentially in their backyards, so they have a better appreciation. along with showing beautiful photos to foster a love for animals, i highlighted the threats these animals face to help encourage the next generation of conservationists. the use of both images and text show the beauty of the wildlife in need of protection.

planet forward: can you tell us a little bit about your work at the delaware riverkeeper network and how you got involved in this group?

maya van rossum: my official title is the delaware riverkeeper. my job is to be the voice of the delaware river. what that means is that i work hard to make sure that any time decisions are being made, or actions are being taken that would impact the delaware river or any of its contributory streams, that the delaware river has a voice in the room. [i make sure] its needs and goals of protecting it are given the highest priority in the decisions that are being made. now of course that’s not the job of one person. there’s no one person that can protect an entire river or, certainly, an entire river’s watershed. it really requires a community effort. and so, i do have a wonderful community that works with me. i have a staff of 20 at the delaware riverkeeper network… and then we have nearly 20,000 members throughout the watershed that help us fight the good fight for the river.

planet forward: in your book, you talked a lot about the failures of the pennsylvania department of environmental protection. can you tell us why these environmental agencies tend to fail at fulfilling their basic duties? would you equate these failings to regulatory capture [that is, where a regulatory agency doesn’t act in the public interest]?

van rossum: so it’s not just in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, it’s really every environmental agency at the state level and at the federal level across the nation. they are not doing anything and everything that needs to be done to protect our natural resources, [and] in order to protect people’s health safety and the quality of their lives. a fundamental reason why that’s the case is because the laws in the united states of america, whether we’re talking local, state, or federal law, are not written to prevent environmental degradation or to protect people’s rights to a healthy environment. [these laws] are actually written to allow pollution. they just put in place a process to identify: how much, when, and where that pollution or environmental degradation will be allowed. the implications for community health, individual health, and individual and community quality of life isn’t given independent consideration in that legal process. it’s presumed that people’s right to a healthy environment or the concept of the right to a healthy environment will be protected by virtue of the fact that you’re going to regulate the how, when, and where environmental degradation takes place. it’s not really considered, legally, on its own as an overall concept that needs to be achieved. in some cases, such as the federal energy regulatory commission, regulatory capture is absolutely taking place. that is a federal agency responsible for reviewing and approving pipelines and fracking infrastructure projects. in over 30 years, ferc has only denied one pipeline project brought before its commissioners for approval. there are a handful of ways we can demonstrate that that agency really does suffer from regulatory capture. and i’m sure there are others depending on the state you’re talking about. however, broadly speaking you don’t have to have regulatory capture for agencies to day in and day out be making decisions that really side with industries ability to pollute, over the health and safety of people.

pf: you also talk about the overbearing power that industries and corporations have when it comes to forming policy in the united states. do you think the u.s. has reached a point in our democracy where it is dominated by oligarchical forces, especially after citizens united v. fec?

van rossum: i think we’ve reached a very problematic situation in the united states, were people’s rights, people’s needs, people’s voices really are subservient to the desires, goals, and greedy nature of industry. many politicians prioritize their own political careers and desires to advance and make money, over their obligation to protect the health and safety of people and the environmental resources we depend upon. i think that the u.s., for a long time, has been suffering from this reality that people are subservient to the goals and desires of industry, who [are able to] capture politicians. i do think that it is getting worse and worse every year. part of it is because of legal decisions such as citizens united that make it easier for industry to co-op with politicians and hold the power of the purse over their heads — if they want to continue their political careers. that being said, i think we’re at a tipping point, a moment in which the overreach by industry and self-serving politicians, is now blatantly obvious to an increasing number of people. no longer are people counting on their representatives to do the right thing and prioritize people’s needs over industry’s needs. people are now trying to find ways to hold government officials accountable. so while rallies, protests, and certainly voting are important ways to do that, i think that the passage of constitutional provisions to protect our environmental rights is a high priority way to hold government accountable for protecting people’s right to a health environment.

pf: can you tell us more about this constitutional approach to environmentalism and why that would be more constructive than our current legislative approach?

van rossum: so our constitutions, whether you’re talking about the state constitution or federal constitution, are above the law. so when you have a constitutional right, like the right of free speech, it’s a higher level of protection. government officials have to prove they are complying with the law but also have to prove they are complying with the constitution. in the case of the environment, if you have a situation where an industrial operator is spewing pollution into a waterway, and the people downstream are upset about it, these citizens may not be able to do anything because the operator has a permit to pollute backed by standing law. but if there’s a constitutional provision in place, the industrial operator and the government official stating that they complied with the law on the books is not good enough. [a constitutional right] is another layer of review and another obligation for protection. if a constitutional right to a healthy environment is violated, or a person believes their right has been violated, they can go to the courts to vindicate their right. they do not need a law written by a legislature… they can go straight to the courts.

pf: if a concerned citizen does notice environmental degradation occurring in their community, how should they go about defending their right to a clean and healthy environment?

van rossum: if you’re seeing pollution, you’re going to want to contact your local regulators. this might be your local town or the police if it’s a significant danger. all state agencies and federal agencies have pollution hotlines you can contact to request for a survey of damage that may be taking place. you may even have a constitutional issue if you live in pennsylvania or montana which do have constitutional protections for the environment. if your state doesn’t have a constitutional protection, then you’re really going to have to count on your regulatory agencies or state law. and if these avenues fail, that might just inspire a person to fight for a constitutional right for a clean environment within their state.