Neither Left nor Right: Forward! In climate, energy, and agricultural policy, beliefs often take precedence over facts. The American think tank The Breakthrough Institute demonstrates a different approach: embracing disagreement, evaluating technologies with an open mind, and viewing productivity as an ally of environmental protection. Monday, June 8, 2026 Anyone who still believes that political debate naturally leads to the best possible solution through reasoned discussion may fairly be called an idealist. Not because debate itself is naïve, but because among ideologues, genuine debate often never takes place. And anyone who believes that their own political camp is free from ideological constraints is probably an ideologue as well. A glance at the political landscape shows that virtually every political movement has its sacred truths that must not be disturbed by empirical evidence. If the facts do not fit the ideology, then so much the worse for the facts. The Power of Ideological Beliefs This is especially true in the two policy areas that have dominated public discussion in recent years: climate policy and the closely related field of energy policy. Beliefs and entrenched enemy images continue to shape the debate. Yet much could be gained if ideological blinders were set aside and these issues approached with greater openness. The American think tank The Breakthrough Institute provides a compelling example of how this can be done. The Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung recently profiled the organization. What emerged was almost unusual: an environmental organization committed to climate protection that simultaneously supports nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and intensive agriculture. Even its hiring process is telling: applicants are asked to explain a time in their lives when they changed their minds—and why. As a result, the staff includes everyone from left-wing socialists to right-wing libertarians. Why Disagreement Matters “Achieving disagreement” is the institute’s motto. Differences of opinion are not smoothed over; they are deliberately encouraged. The reasoning is simple: only by understanding the true nature of disagreement can durable solutions be found. The result is a consistent commitment to technological openness. Rather than engaging in ideological battles between solar power and nuclear energy, the institute argues for advancing both, recognizing that no single technology will meet the world’s energy needs on its own. And instead of making fossil fuels more expensive, it seeks to make clean energy so affordable that it becomes the obvious choice. Unsurprisingly, this approach attracts criticism from both the political left and right. When all camps are equally uncomfortable with your ideas, you may well be doing something right. Technological Openness Instead of Ideological Warfare For the Swiss agricultural debate, the institute’s core philosophy is particularly relevant: productivity is not the enemy of environmental protection—it is a prerequisite for it. Alex Trembath, the institute’s deputy director, put it succinctly in the NZZ: “Technology is not necessarily opposed to nature. High-tech solutions can actually be very beneficial to nature. An industrialized, highly productive agricultural system can produce more food on less land, leaving more space for birds, bees, and trees.” By contrast, abandoning modern breeding techniques, effective crop protection, and efficient production methods means requiring more land to achieve the same output. That land must come from somewhere—either from natural habitats at home or from agricultural expansion abroad. Domestic extensification then becomes little more than the outsourcing of environmental impacts. What Switzerland Can Learn The lesson for Switzerland is both simple and demanding: define clear objectives—climate protection, biodiversity, food security—and then assess, with an open mind, which solutions deliver the greatest results. Whether a solution sounds left-wing or right-wing, high-tech or traditional, is secondary. What matters is its impact. Neither left nor right: forward! Kindly note: We, a non-native editorial team value clear and faultless communication. At times we have to prioritize speed over perfection, utilizing tools, that are still learning. We are deepL sorry for any observed stylistic or spelling errors. It will soon become clear whether plants developed through modern genomic breeding techniques will be allowed to be cultivated in European fields in the future. Switzerland in particular would be well advised to at least keep an eye on decisions made in Brussels in order not to fall behind. New Breeding TechnologiesAn overview article in Schweizer Bauer shows how much the new breeding methods are preoccupying farming circles. Once the consultation process on the federal law has been completed, a bill is expected – then it will become clear whether there is actually the political will to approve it. Agriculture is increasingly under pressure to become climate-neutral. But how can this be achieved without jeopardising food security? In the agricultural policy podcast, Hannah von Ballmoos-Hofer, head of the energy division at the Swiss Farmers' Union, emphasises that climate protection is important, but must not come at the expense of food security. They are small, highly mobile and extremely persistent: invasive species are spreading increasingly across Switzerland. Whether it is the Japanese beetle, the Asian hornet or newly discovered ant species, these unwelcome guests threaten not only native ecosystems, but also agriculture and residential areas. There is an urgent need for pesticides – including biocides and plant protection products – to combat these pests effectively. Diseases such as malaria claim hundreds of thousands of lives every year. With so-called gene drive technology, scientists now have a tool that could theoretically eradicate the mosquitoes that spread these diseases. Yet the approach raises profound ethical and ecological questions. While heating oil prices in Switzerland are on a rollercoaster, a far greater catastrophe is looming elsewhere. The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz is not only cutting off oil supplies, but also disrupting the global lifeline for fertilizers – with devastating consequences for global food security. With CRISPR/Cas technology, genetic material can now be modified more precisely and efficiently than ever before. In plant breeding in particular, these “gene scissors” raise high hopes: crops that are resistant to diseases and pests, can withstand drought, and at the same time deliver higher yields. But how realistic are these expectations? What can genome editing actually achieve today – and what progress can we expect in the near future?
The American Think Tank The Breakthrough Institute on Pragmatic Solutions for Climate, Environment, and Energy
