How is it possible that climate campaigners and fossil fuels lobbyists sometimes form alliances to bring down pragmatic climate action? This is the paradox we explore today.

Climate action has a deep ideological divide: one side argues for urgent, drastic measures, while the other fears that aggressive climate policies could harm economic growth. 

Paradoxically, these opposing camps can form an unlikely alliance: They reject moderate, practical strategies, insisting that only sweeping global systems change can address climate change.

Some climate activists believe pragmatic steps are a distraction and don’t go far enough. 

Fossil fuel lobbyists wager that such radical systemic change is unlikely to occur, deeming it politically unfeasible in any country. They gladly use the “systems” argument to dodge the cost of incremental action.

The result? Even modest, achievable steps get bogged down in endless debate and often don’t happen at all.

How to address the ideologies paradox? How to find majorities for concrete climate action that gets attacked as “too little!” or “too much!”, depending on ideology?