The standard progressive narrative tells us that corporate influence is why we can’t have nice things. But a “nearly united corporate front” of Big Business, according to the New York Times, sided with the left and tried to persuade President Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate pact.

The CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil wrote a personal appeal to Trump. Thirty other corporate chieftains, including those from Dow Chemical, JP Morgan Chase and General Electric, took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, counseling Trump that “Our business interests are best served by a stable and practical framework facilitating an effective and balanced response to reducing global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.” A second full-page ad was spearheaded by major tech companies including Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. After Trump’s announcement, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (pictured) published his first tweet ever, condemning the move as “a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world.”

Even major coal companies like Peabody and Cloud Peak urged Trump to stay in the agreement, fearing lost government support for expensive “carbon capture” technology and lost access to foreign markets. Many of these outfits are bêtes noires to the left, understandably. They include fossil fuel producers that have harmed the environment, Wall Street institutions that have exacerbated economic inequality, and corporations that have practiced extreme tax avoidance.

Yet when it came to an issue of critical importance to the fate of the planet, these corporations fought on the right side of history. Progressives should take note, as they need all the help they can get.

After Trump’s colossal snub, the battle to the save the planet will likely play a bigger role in our upcoming elections than ever before. But that doesn’t guarantee an electoral boon for Democrats. Clear majorities of voters accept the scientific consensus warning us of an overheating world. Yet specific proposals for action inevitably attract fierce counterattacks, raising fears of lost jobs and higher energy costs. Climate warriors could use reinforcements, credible surrogates who can neutralize economic scare tactics.

For example, Trump justified his pullout on economic grounds, claiming that by 2040, “the cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income, and in many cases, much worse than that.”

He was citing a flimsy study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – a fierce opponent of Paris pact, proving how out of step it is with the businesses it purports to represent. The Washington Post’s fact-checking unit explained how the authors skewed their findings to please their client: “the study assumed a scenario that no policy analyst expects — that the United States takes drastic steps to meet the Obama pledge of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in emissions by 2025. Moreover, the study did not consider possible benefits from reducing climate change.”

But all holding up a copy of the Washington Post gets you these days is a knee-jerk cry of “fake news.” Far more useful to the climate cause would be legions of CEOs loudly declaring – in TV ads, YouTube videos, protest marches and candidate endorsements – that their bottom lines will be far better off with American leadership on the climate than with American retreat.

Most corporations are more amoral than immoral. They may not love government regulation, but they crave regulatory certainty. They can’t survive without long-term planning and investment. In turn, they are not served by climate science denial and delusional talking points. They need a clear-eyed view of what the future holds, and a regulatory regime that allows them to still earn a profit.

That doesn’t make them natural progressive allies. But it does make them reality-based. And the broadest possible anti-Trump coalition can be built on a commitment to reality-based governing.

Nurturing such close cooperation between progressive activists and corporate titans is not so simple. Their political agendas diverge in a host of other areas including taxes, regulation, labor rights and even the particulars of climate protections. If progressives are too dependent on corporations, then corporations could dictate the Democratic Party agenda and thwart the ambitions of the party’s populist wing.

However, those committed to a single-payer health-care system, a $15 minimum wage, a cap on bank size and stiff taxes on the top 1 percent need not shelve their agenda to form a climate coalition with Corporate America. Partners on one issue often joust over another. But populist progressives would have to shelve some of their most pointed anti-corporate rhetoric.

If the word “corporate” is constantly used as a toxic epithet, then a corporate endorsement has diminished value. Right-wing populists can more easily characterize the business support as proof of insidious globalism designed to crush small business, family farms and individual consumers. Instead of painting with broad brushes, progressives should be more surgical when targeting bad corporate behavior, so productive alliances with corporations can be forged when opportunity knocks.

Progressives have become accustomed to viewing corporations as multi-tentacled monsters, swamping Washington with dark money and suffocating hope for policies that would serve the public good. But the corporate response to Paris should prompt a reassessment. Sometimes the progressive and corporate agendas overlap. When they do, take advantage.