The victorious fight against climate change lies at the interface between environmental protection and economics

There is a heated debate between those who call for “climate pragmatism” and others who see it as a corporate excuse to avoid fundamental change. It’s an argument that misses the point.

After waiting so long to get serious about climate action, we need to set ambitious goals. But we’ll never get there if we don’t focus on the difficult, pragmatic decisions that move us forward in the real world. To solve the climate crisis, we must delve into the “chaotic middle.”

The “middle” does not mean half-compromise measures. It’s far too late for that. The messy middle refers to the difficult decisions that must be made, guided by science and hard-nosed economics. It requires bridging the gap between scientific facts and human needs – and understanding the priorities of the people affected by this crisis and their solutions.

This approach to environmental action tends to produce results that can be sustained over time because it is aligned with real economic incentives. We are not going to change human nature, so lasting progress requires meeting people where they are and finding a path that works for them. It’s a change that builds up year after year, like compound interest.

Methane is important

A decade ago, we were in the middle of a heated debate about fracking. There were serious concerns about human health and water pollution – but there was little discussion about the climate impact of the methane leaking from these wells and pipelines.

Researchers have now discovered that much more has been released into the atmosphere than previously thought. And it turns out that solving this problem is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways to limit global warming in the short term.

Making progress required giving policymakers and companies the data, developing new technologies, and working with oil and gas companies willing to reduce methane leaks—even if we environmentalists disagreed on other issues as they. 50 major fossil fuel companies have now committed to reducing their pollution, which could result in an 80% to 90% reduction by 2030. They will be supported (and held accountable) by a new methane detection satellite that will provide open data. Make source data accessible to everyone

The same messy middle ground is being pursued in climate change and agriculture, which accounts for about 40% of human-caused methane emissions. Milk helps support the livelihoods and food needs of billions of people, including many of the most vulnerable. Therefore, today’s answer cannot simply be to say no to this global food source. Long-lasting solutions require engaging with science and working with dairy farmers and industry in both low- and high-income countries to limit emissions from their farms. We must help farmers increase their income, provide food and support the climate. And today we have the solutions to achieve this.

The next big “chaotic middle” challenges

Hydrogen, a potentially clean energy solution, is receiving billions of dollars in government and private support. Although hydrogen is promising, its impact on the climate depends heavily on how it is produced, managed and used – and whether it is phased out. To reduce emissions associated with the use of hydrogen, we need to develop sensors, reduce leaks and only use hydrogen when direct electrification is not suitable.

There is a similar debate about carbon markets – a tool that allows companies to allocate money to climate solutions such as tropical forests. While supporters point to the billions that could be generated to help developing countries finance clean economic growth, critics want to close these markets because of questions about the climate impacts, integrity and transparency of past projects. . The smart path for those who want faster climate action is to get the markets right so the money can flow. This requires rigorous science to identify green investments, rigorous accounting and a commitment that companies do not use carbon markets as a substitute for reducing their own pollution.

I know this messy middle approach works because I’ve seen it in action. I have spent much of my career working to save our fisheries. When we started, U.S. fish stocks were declining rapidly and boat crews were facing shorter and more dangerous seasons. The debate was so bitter that when I spoke about my research at meetings with fishermen, the police stood nearby with their hands in their holsters.

Today, after much work in the chaotic middle, the United States has some of the best-managed fisheries in the world. This shift came about because we began to speak honestly about the trade-offs of different solutions, to prioritize improving people’s lives and environmental performance, and to work with those who made their living on the water.

While solving the overfishing problem is not as complex as mitigating climate change, it showed the way forward: embracing the difficult middle, building a bridge between science and people, and working together to achieve results. This is the truly ambitious and practical path that this crisis demands.

More must-read comments published by Assets:

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com comments are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Assets.

This story was originally published on Fortune.com