That climate change is real and caused by humans is obvious. Scientists have known that human activity engenders climate change for years—the idea of the “greenhouse effect” dates back to 1896. Out of populations from 38 countries polled in 2017, 61% of respondents believed climate change to be a big threat. Even traditional skeptics are warming up to the issue (no pun intended). Yet despite overwhelming consensus over global warming’s causes and consequences, solutions for it remain lackluster—nobody seriously wants to limit carbon emissions. A change in thinking is needed: citizens, business leaders, and politicians must understand that they can all benefit from eradicating or at the very least limiting climate change through cutting emissions together. Here’s how.

Start with citizens. Asides from climate change causing fires ruining their Napa wine, smog spoiling their cities’ air, and plastic covering their oceans, the average citizen gains immensely from tackling global warming. When it comes to health, America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paints a grim image of a world with more global warming. It reckons climate change “increase[s] respiratory and cardiovascular disease, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, changes in the prevalence and geographical distribution of food and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases, and threats to mental health”. A heatwave in Japan in 2018 cost around 125 lives. That is just the start of global warming’s nasty consequences.

Concerns over home security should alarm citizens as well, incentivizing them to curtail their emissions. Huge forest fires swarmed Greece, Sweden, and California last year. Northern California fires alone destroyed more than 18,000 homes—the number will only multiply with rising temperatures. Coastal regions today are productive and attractive. But they are also increasingly exposed to global warming’s nefarious effects, falling prey to floods caused by ever-rising sea levels. And it is not just the coast that is at risk. Warmer air holds more evaporated water than its cooler counterpart, meaning precipitation augments as temperatures heighten: America’s Midwest will possibly experience a 30% increase in rainfall if carbon emissions continue to climb, according to the US’s National Climate Assessment (NCA). With intense precipitation being a main cause of floods, even regions far from the coast—such as America’s Midwest—are not safeguarded. The region already fought a devastating “once-in-500-years” flood this year. Its population should expect more to come. Considering these risks, citizens should limit their carbon emissions through recycling, carpooling, using public transport more than cars and cutting their meat portions a tad.

Executives also have a role to play in fighting global warming. In fact, tackling climate change benefits them. Some corporations could lose up to a fifth of their value because of climate change’s harm on their physical assets—and that figure will grow as global warming persists. Witness the utter destruction of Puerto Rico’s booming pharmaceutical industry in 2017 because of Hurricane Maria—a calamity likelier in the future because of increasing global warming.  Furthermore, climate change doesn’t only pose physical harm to businesses. McKinsey, a consulting firm, reckons corporations also have to deal with price and reputation risk. Climate change’s supply-chain disruptions cause price spikes for commodities such as raw materials. A company like IKEA, which uses wood for a myriad of its products, will suffer enormous economic harm in the long run—the price of wood ratchets up since forest fires increase. And as citizens come to accept climate change and its ramifications, companies unwilling to reduce their emissions will face a consumer backlash. Clever businesses can even profit from consumer worries of climate change. The rise of eco-friendly grocery stores today is no coincidence.

Yet despite evidence of its dangers and opportunities for profit, some business leaders are still wary of spreading knowledge of climate change’s consequences—a necessary step for fighting the problem. A common worry is that shareholders might pull back investment if informed. That thinking is counterintuitive. Apprising shareholders of climate change’s risks may hurt in the short run, but acknowledging these risks today mitigates damage tomorrow as shareholders now consider climate change an issue worth resolving. With this in mind, companies can limit global warming’s effects by, for example, pivoting towards renewable energy sources: instead of car manufacturers deriving their factory energy from coal-powered thermal plants, they can encourage utility companies to build more renewable energy plants, and use green energy. They should force their suppliers to do the same, just as Volkswagen does.

There is a clear incentive to shift to green policies for politicians, too. In this year’s European elections, the Green parties were among the largest winners. Furthermore, as businesses experience the consequences of climate change, lobbies will push for more environmentalism in politics as well. Not to mention citizens’ growing fears of global warming will surely lose anti-environmentalist politicians votes. Incentivize is there—politicians just need to know about it.

How should they regulate climate emissions? Limit climate change all while maintaining practicality and prosperity. Few American centrists supported Ms. Cortez’s Green New Deal as it requires massive government expansion—which is both impractical and costly. Moreover, polluting firms, especially those in the oil and gas industry, account for huge sums of wealth—money necessary for welfare schemes. But there are pragmatic solutions. A good start is to decrease the oil industry’s subsidies, giving the saved money to the renewable energy sector. Another policy idea is the carbon price or tax, limiting businesses’ incentive to release carbon emissions by making them pay for the amount they release. And politicians should counterbalance loses in GDP through tax cuts—bolstering popular support for green policies—as to avoid a situation like that of France’s gilets-jaunes.

A world with continuous global warming is a deeply unpleasant place to inhabit. And global warming is a complicated issue. Individually, citizens, business leaders, and politicians cannot possibly beat back climate change. United by common benefits, however, they might just shift the balance of the war on climate change in humanity’s favor.