Fresh air (continued)

If right-wingers will listen to anyone, she says, they might listen to a "small but vocal grassroots army" that speaks out as Republican. She invokes President Theodore Roosevelt, who saw conservationism as a conservative mission, as well as a moral one. To that end he established the country’s first national park in 1902 (in Oregon), developed the concept of wildlife refuges, and created the National Park Service.

It’s been 100 years since Roosevelt’s presidency, but Republican environmentalists build on that theme, notably on land-protection, water- and air-quality, and climate-change issues. They try to cast these concerns in today’s socially conservative vernacular. Marks’s favorite phrase? "Pollution is not a family value."

In that vein, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which represents about 50 denominations and churches, last fall released a statement titled "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." It includes a subsection on "creation care," which outlines the "biblical duty to care for that which God has put us here to steward," says the Reverend Rich Cizik, vice-president for governmental affairs.

While that might sound chillingly similar to other, less-palatable evangelical positions, the fact remains that on global warming ("We don’t buy into this whole idea that global warming is a hoax," says Cizik) and environmental regulations ("absolutely, government has a responsibility here"), the NAE is on a green track. In today’s political climate, it certainly helps the cause to see the evangelical constituency — 30 million strong and 40 percent of Bush’s election returns — sounding the alarm.

Don’t call Cizik an environmentalist, however — he rejects the label. "It’s not me-too environmentalism," he explains. "I’m not interested in joining anyone else’s parade." Indeed, while REP America and NAE share many traditional-environmentalist goals — and are certainly willing to sit at the same table with traditional green activists — representatives from both organizations shudder at the idea of being lumped together with a bunch of liberals. Marks and Cizik, who know each other and will most likely collaborate in the future if momentum keeps growing, say that remaining distinctly conservative is a strategic move.

The sneering goes both ways, says Chuck McGrady, a former Republican president of the Sierra Club’s board of directors who thinks his political leanings partially cost him re-election to that body. "One, you’ve got to lower your anti-Republican rhetoric," he advises environmentalists who bristle at the notion of a card-carrying Sierra Club Republican. "Two, you’ve got to move away from framing things in ways that make Republicans really uncomfortable."

Many conservatives carve out their own version of environmental protection, based on traditionally Republican philosophies such as free-market capitalism and property rights. Initiatives like these, which treat natural resources as economic assets — providing financial incentives for land protection, for example, or holding polluters liable for the damage they cause — can be immensely effective, says Terry Anderson, executive director of the Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center, a free-market environmental think tank that appeals to conservatives. Anderson points to the North Maine Woods, where multiple land owners formed a public-private partnership to manage 3.5 million acres for sustainable forestry, while encouraging habitat conservation, outdoor recreation, and improved water quality. The for-profit endeavor provides incentives to protect not just logging interests, but environmental interests as well.

Certainly, such "pragmatic environmentalism," says Anderson, could attract outdoorsmen, such as hunters and anglers, along with Western Republicans who traditionally support mining, timber, and energy interests. This "key faction of the Republican base ... often hailing from rural, culturally conservative areas," is already starting to lash out — at the polls — against GOP efforts to "erode protections for outdoorsmen," wrote David Sirota, a fellow at the DC-based liberal Center for American Progress, in January.

Maybe 2008

Talk about an environmentalist’s dream: according to a new poll released last week by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, a full 92 percent of all Americans want decreased dependence on foreign oil. On top of that, and also by large margins, they support alternative energy technology as a means to achieve those ends. It all seems to add up — a receptive public, an environmental movement with a desire to reform, and growing conservative concern. But it’s unlikely to get very far while Bush is in office and anti-regulatory Republicans, whose policies often thwart such goals, dominate Congress.

That’s why Nordhaus, co-author of "The Death of Environmentalism," remains skeptical, even as others shyly entertain a meaningful conservative green movement. Nordhaus asks: "If those [GOP] folks aren’t taking action that matters politically, then what’s the point?... We [environmentalists] haven’t constructed a politics and a vision of the world that can compete with these other ideas," such as religiosity, free-market capitalism, or rugged individualism.

However, with a more conservative-values-friendly environmental movement, that sense of futility could be quelled. Greg Wetstone, of the liberal Natural Resources Defense Council, already sees a "growing awareness of the degree to which the fundamentals of conservatism are in sync with core conservation values," and that could grow if more politicians come around. Imagine a presidential bid — by John McCain or some other Republican moderate — where environmental concerns might be placed center stage.

If momentum continues to build now, green politics could be back on the table nationally by 2008.

Deirdre Fulton can be reached at dfulton[a]phx.com