Progressives are caught in a trap of their own making. In an era of overlapping and mutually reinforcing crises, they have come to view every issue, from climate change and public health to energy, inequality, trade, and war, as part of a single, all-encompassing political battle: the "everything struggle."

At first glance, this approach may appear compelling. These issues are interconnected, and no one lives in isolation. But, forcing every cause into a single battle has serious downsides. Arguing that reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions also requires abolishing capitalism, rethinking gender categories, and freeing Gaza is a formula for political paralysis. Even if each individual fight is worthy on its own, combining them often undermines the broad coalitions needed to achieve meaningful progress.

Progressives would do well to keep this in mind ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil. After the lacklustre summits in oil-rich Azerbaijan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), many activists are hoping that COP30 will mark a return to progressive principles. In that spirit, thousands of climate advocates are expected to descend on Belém for the Peoples' Summit, a gathering of civil society and climate groups held in parallel with the official negotiations.

When it comes to political rhetoric and global temperatures, less is more.

Given today's economic turmoil and escalating geopolitical tensions, the chances of global policymakers producing a bold climate plan at COP30 are slim. But even if they succeed, the broader climate fight is bound to fail without public support.

Alarmingly, support for the climate agenda appears to have declined significantly. From the United States and Germany to Canada, South Korea, and India, climate change barely registered as a major issue in recent elections. US President Donald Trump was re-elected on a platform of "drill, baby, drill," while support for Green parties is collapsing across Europe as the far right continues to gain ground. And when climate change does come up, candidates advocating bold action are routinely defeated.

By now, it is obvious that the "everything struggle" is a losing strategy for progressive parties serious about combating climate change. Even worse, it fuels public scepticism about the viability of climate action.

To be sure, well-funded disinformation campaigns remain the primary cause of declining public trust. But overreaching by some progressive activists also plays a role. The People's Summit manifesto is a case in point. Drafted by a broad coalition of NGOs and activists, the document denounces "false climate solutions" as "instruments for deepening inequality." Only "socio-environmental, anti-patriarchal, anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist, and rights-based" approaches, it insists, can solve the "climate, ecological, and civilisational crisis."

Though certainly well-intentioned, one should ask: Is this how broad coalitions are built, or is this how they unravel?