According to a study by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, the most polarizing issue between Republicans and Democrats is not abortion, the death penalty or evolution. Surprisingly, it's the environment. By one measure, the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue is 53 percentage points, compared with 35 percentage points for abortion.

Our politics seem to be more and more defined by which "side" one belongs to rather than the issues themselves. The issues have become the litmus test for admission to either side. If one side said, "We believe in placing all politicians on Mars," then the other side would automatically say, "No, we should keep them here." You can't be a member of either side until you support that side's issues. The result is increasingly absurd positions on issues. For example, to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants or take everyone's firearms away.

Issues are proxies for what we all want. They become issues because we disagree on how to get to what we want. Yet often we all want the same things: safety and security, opportunity, education for our children, and freedom.

But the reward for this polarization is that one becomes a member of the group in which to feel secure and supported. The downside is that nothing gets done. Belonging to the group becomes more important than moving forward. Our rhetoric becomes: We're right, and they're idiots.

Our electorate seems to be divided almost equally. So here's the proposition. What would happen if one side adopted a position of the other side? Would the balance swing? I believe the biggest opportunity of the right is to adopt the pro-environmental position of the left. Here's why.

First, a swing of a few percentage points one way or the other determines most of our national politics. Second, 74 percent of the population supports environmental causes (Pew Research Center, March 2016.) That is 90 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans, with independents leaning more left than right. Third, it's becoming increasingly apparent that the position of arguing against climate change is a losing proposition. Fourth, the issue of the environment can be tied to many conservative principals: security, jobs, economic growth and even freedom. Interestingly, even a conservative state like Texas is becoming pro-environment, with huge resources in wind and solar power as alternatives to fossil fuel. Texas will not build another coal- or oil-fired power plant for 20 years because of the mainstreaming of renewable energy. This is a jobs, security and freedom issue, especially considering that western Minnesota could be considered the Saudi Arabia of wind.

The position on the Donald Trump/Mike Pence campaign that climate change is a hoax doesn't seem to be winning independent voters. Independents are only slightly less bullish on the environment than those on the left. If Texas can make the transition, maybe it's time to look at the environment as a nonpolarizing issue. It may be seem divisive, but who doesn't want a clean environment?

Hobart Stocking, of St. Paul, is an entrepreneur and writer and founder of Prairie Sky Group consulting.