There’s a debate raging between those calling for “climate pragmatism” and others who see it as a corporate excuse to avoid fundamental change. It’s an argument that misses the point.
Having waited so long to get serious about climate action, we need to set ambitious goals. But we’ll never reach them if we don’t focus on the tough, pragmatic choices that will move us forward in the real world. To solve the climate crisis, we need to dive into the “messy middle.”
The “middle” does not mean halfway, compromise measures. It’s way too late for that. The messy middle refers to the difficult decisions that need to be made, guided by science and hardheaded economics. It requires bridging the gap between scientific facts and human needs—and understanding the priorities of people who are impacted by this crisis and its solutions.
This approach to environmental action tends to produce results that can be sustained over time because they are aligned with real-world economic incentives. We’re not going to change human nature, so durable progress requires meeting people where they are and finding a path that works for them. It’s change that builds year over year, like compound interest.
Methane matters
A decade ago, we were in the midst of a heated debate about fracking. There were serious concerns about health human health and water pollution—but very little discussion about the climate impact of methane leaking from those wells and pipelines.
Researchers have since uncovered that much more was leaking into the atmosphere than previously thought. And it turns out that fixing this problem is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit global warming in the short term.
Progress required showing policymakers and companies the data, developing new technologies, and working with oil and gas companies who were willing to cut methane leaks—even if we environmentalists disagreed with them on other issues. Fifty major fossil fuel companies have now pledged to cut their pollution which could result in as much as an 80 to 90% reduction by 2030. They’ll be helped (and held accountable) by a new methane-detecting satellite that will provide open-source data to everyone
The same messy middle approach is underway with climate change and agriculture, which is responsible for approximately 40% of human-caused methane emissions. Dairy helps support the livelihoods and food needs of billions of people, including many of the most vulnerable, so today’s answer can’t simply be saying no to this global source of nutrition. Durable solutions require digging into the science and working with dairy farmers and industry in both low-income and high-income countries to limit emissions from their operations. We need to help farmers increase income, provide nutrition, and support the climate. And we have the solutions available today to achieve this.
The next big ‘messy middle’ challenges
Hydrogen, a potentially clean energy solution, is receiving billions in government and private support. While hydrogen has promise, its climate impacts depend very much on how it’s made, managed, and used—and whether it leaks. To reduce the emissions associated with hydrogen deployment, we must develop sensors, reduce leaks, and use hydrogen only when direct electrification isn’t a good fit.
A similar debate is ongoing over carbon markets—a tool that allows companies to provide funds for climate solutions, such as tropical forests. While proponents point to the billions that could be generated to help developing nations fund clean economic growth, critics want to shut down these markets because of questions about the climate impact, integrity, and transparency of past projects. . The smart path for those who want faster climate action is to get markets right so the money can flow. That requires rigorous science to determine environmentally effective investments, strict accounting, and commitment that companies won’t use carbon markets to replace reducing their own pollution.
I know this messy middle approach works because I’ve seen it in action. I spent much of my career trying to save our fisheries. When we began, fish populations in the U.S. were rapidly declining and boat crews were facing shorter and more dangerous seasons. The debate was so acrimonious that when I spoke about my research at meetings with fishermen, police stood by with their hands on their holsters.
Today, after a lot of work in the messy middle, the U.S. has some of the best-managed fisheries in the world. This turnaround happened because we started being honest about the trade-offs of different solutions, prioritized improving people’s lives and environmental performance, and worked with those who made their living on the water.
While solving the overfishing problem isn’t as complex as limiting climate change, it showed the way forward: embracing the messy middle, bridging from science to people, and working together for results. That’s the truly ambitious and practical path this crisis requires.
More must-read commentary published by Fortune:
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
