Return to Speeches Index

Energy as the Key to Republicans' Hearts

by REP Policy Director Jim DiPeso
delivered at Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia, Washington; January 27, 2004

Good afternoon. I'm Jim DiPeso, the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection.

I know what some of you are thinking. Republicans for environmental protection. Sounds like the world's funniest oxymoron - kind of like light traffic in Seattle, or an easy legislative session in Olympia.

But we're a real organization made up of real individuals. In fact, some of those folks in Olympia who have your fate in their hands are members of REP. A few examples include state Representatives Fred Jarrett, Glenn Anderson, Toby Nixon, and Rodney Tom, as well as Senators Don Carlson and Cheryl Pflug.

I want to start by giving you a brief history of the organization, why it was founded, and what we hope to achieve. Then, I'll point out some ways of engaging Republicans constructively on environmental issues, using energy as an example.

REP was founded in 1995 by three women who went to an endangered species conference that year in DC and discovered they were among the few Republicans in the room.

Right there, they realized something was wrong with this picture and they agreed on the spot to establish our little upstart organization. Our message is that the Republican Party must reclaim the mantle of conservation leadership that, in many ways, it has unwisely forfeited.

Our mission is to restore the Republican Party's conservation tradition, to encourage and cajole the Republican Party into taking more responsible positions on environmental issues. Make no small plans. Because, after all, conservation is conservative.

Protecting the environment is consistent with traditional Republican values regarding fiscal responsibility, taking pride in our country, strengthening the economy, creating business opportunities, and keeping the nation strong and well defended.

Whenever I talk to audiences of younger people, they often are surprised to hear that Republican leaders of yore championed conservation and environmental protection. They weren't born when Dan Evans was prodding those folks a few blocks from here to pass laws to protect Washington's air, water, and exceptional natural beauty and when, at the same time, Oregon Governor Tom McCall was doing likewise down in Salem.

To this day, Evans says environmental protection was one of his proudest achievements as governor.

Evans and McCall are just a few examples of Republicans who understood that protecting public health and our country's natural heritage are consistent with truly conservative principles and ideals.

Let's take a walk down the halls of history and I'll show you what I mean.

Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke was a British parliamentarian and political thinker who is widely regarded as the father of modern conservatism. One of Burke's most penetrating insights was that society is an intergenerational contract. Today's generation is morally obligated to protect the gains of past generations and pass them on, intact, to future generations.

This principle has great relevance to today's environmental issues, in ways Burke probably could not have imagined.

Jump ahead to the mid-19th century. Abraham Lincoln, the first and greatest Republican president, established the reserve that later became Yosemite National Park. Lincoln set an important precedent - setting aside land and keeping it intact purely for public enjoyment and for the benefit of all citizens.

Lincoln's precedent was followed in 1872, when Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant established Yellowstone National Park. President Benjamin Harrison signed the legislation that established forest reserves, forerunners of our national forests.

In the mid-1890s, conservative New York City business interests led a popular campaign to amend the state constitution to declare the 2.7 million-acre forest reserve within the Adirondacks to be "forever wild." Why? They understood that protected land has economic value, in this case, as a source of clean water for the nation's commercial capital. Some people still don't get that.

Theodore Roosevelt set the conservation gold standard. During his eight years in office, he established 130 million acres of national forests, two-thirds of the present system, including forests here in Washington. He also established 18 national monuments, five national parks, and 55 bird and game refuges.

If you study TR's biography, you'll find that he had a lifelong interest in natural history, wildlife, and conservation. But his achievements were based on much more than personal interest. His conservation record was based on a powerful insight - which some politicians a century later still don't get - that conserving natural resources is the basis of the nation's prosperity and security. In 1910, he said, "Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation."

Conservation is patriotic. Words from a Republican, my friends. We're here to help today's Republican leaders remember and act on those words.

Roosevelt's record was not an aberration. When you think of our nation's conservation heroes, not many people would think of Herbert Hoover. We all remember Herbert Hoover, to the extent we remember him at all, for his ineffectual response to the Depression. But let's give the Great Engineer his due. He expanded our national parks system by 40 percent. He established large national monuments in the Southwest - Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, White Sands, and what later became Arches and Saguaro National Parks.

Hoover believed that outdoor recreation was a healthy antidote to the moral decay he feared would be a consequence of material affluence. Imagine that, a Republican politician concerned about the downsides of material abundance.

Let's head towards the 21st century. In 1960, Dwight Eisenhower set aside the land that is now known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon established EPA, and proposed a comprehensive environmental program, which emerged as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and many others.

Republican senators championed sound environmental policies. John Chafee of Rhode Island worked to protect and expand wilderness and parks, a cause taken up by his son Lincoln, who now holds his seat in the Senate. Charles Percy of Illinois promoted energy efficiency and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Governors, such as Evans, McCall, Bill Milliken in Michigan and David Cargo in New Mexico, did the same at the state level.

So, you may ask, what happened? How did the party of Theodore Roosevelt become the party of James Watt and Tom DeLay?

A few things happened.

Number one - The environment became identified with the politics of the left. That was a significant change from the 1950s, when the conservation movement was led by mainstream, middle-class, middle-aged Americans, both Republicans and Democrats. For example, during that era, Congressman John Saylor of Pennsylvania was a budget-cutting and fervently anti-communist conservative Republican. He also was a dogged, committed advocate of wilderness protection. A decade or so later, however, the face of the movement had changed.

Number two - Politics have become much more polarized in this country over the past 30 to 40 years. In the 1960s, Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey fought tooth and nail in the Senate over many issues. Yet, at the end of the day, they were good friends who did not let political differences circumscribe their humanity. Not so today. Today, ideologues are in control and partisan divisions have taken on a bitter animosity that has impaired Congress' ability to function.

Moreover, the Republican Party is now dominated by an ideological element that views environmental protection suspiciously as a plot to curb individual liberties and which asserts that environmental problems, to the extent they exist at all, should be left entirely to the market.

Number three - Follow the money. Politics has increasingly become a money chase and those who write the biggest checks have the loudest voices. In the 2000 presidential election campaign, George W. Bush and Al Gore spent more than $300 million. In 2002, $1 billion was spent in all House and Senate races. For 2004, the numbers will violate the basic laws of gravity - what goes up, will go up even more.

So, here we are. The environment has become a deeply polarized issue. President Bush seems to have embraced the views of ideologues and special interests which argue that 1) the market will solve whatever environmental problems may exist, and 2) environmental protection inevitably and always results in economic harm.

For example, in the energy realm, we are very disappointed that President Bush hasn't shown the kind of energy leadership we need and which the attacks of 9/11 provided a huge opening for.

On Sept. 12, 2001, President Bush could have had a "Nixon going to China" moment on energy. As a former oilman, he was perfectly positioned to educate American citizens about the security/energy connection and lead a Manhattan Project-type effort to push for greater efficiency and to aggressively expand renewable energy sources. So far, we have seen no sign that national energy policy will progress much beyond the grabbag, "Hooters and polluters" energy bill currently before Congress.

These are views and actions that are deeply at odds with Theodore Roosevelt's vision.

This is a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs. For the Republican Party, having its elected leadership out of step with the American mainstream could lead to losses in places where environmental constituencies can swing a close vote.

For the environment to be a partisan political football means that we will see these political boom-and-bust cycles - wild pendulum swings between support and opposition to environmental protection measures. That is unhealthy. Bill Ruckelshaus, who was twice administrator of EPA and is still active here in Washington on salmon recovery and marine policy issues, has seen this pattern since the 1970s.

Today, we're at the point where many, not all, but many Republican elected officialss don't know how to talk about the issue in terms that will resonate with the things that are important to them.

There is plenty of blame to go around. The language around this issue originates in sharply different world views, so you have people talking past each other, like two radio sets tuned to a different frequency. Too often, environmental groups put an anti-business slant on their rhetoric, which is a real turn-off for Republicans. Too often, Republicans speak as though environmental issues were dreamed up by the liberal media and environmental protection is a code word for social engineering and overbearing government.

That is where we come in. We try to talk about the environment in ways that don't sound like your "typical" environmental group. We talk about economic opportunities, strengthening security and defense, and protecting our great American heritage, the great places where our history and culture were forged.

We praise Republican leaders who do the right thing by the environment and don't hesitate to let Republican leaders have it when they say or do something that lets the public down on this issue.

Here is the good news. There are ways we can get past this logjam. Energy is an especially promising area where Republicans can talk and act positively on the environment in ways that look and sound Republican. That, we believe, is the key to engaging Republicans on these critical issues. You have to engage them on their terms, by using language and frames of reference that fit with their world view.

Here's how:

Number 1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy are economic and business development opportunities waiting to be tapped. You know better than I how Washington's economy and the national economy would benefit from aggressive policies to reduce energy waste and diversify the resources we use to generate power, produce useful heat, and transport people and goods.

That's how a renewable energy portfolio standard was sold in Texas. The state's politicians saw the dollar bills blowing in the wind. They put in place a well-conceived, well-executed standard that has made Texas, hardly a hotbed of radical greenies, the nation's second highest in utility-scale wind generation.

Electric energy efficiency is a billion-dollar industry in this state when you add up all the value contributed by energy service companies, engineers, technicians, electricians, contractors, and suppliers. Not to mention the money that efficiency is saving for households, businesses, and taxpayers. That's what our leaders need to hear - over and over.

Many of the businesses supplying efficiency services and commercializing new energy technologies are small businesses, which historically have been seedbeds of innovation that are keys to continuing national prosperity.

Last week, I attended the Harvesting Clean Energy conference in Portland. The kickoff plenary speakers were two conservative Republicans - Congressman Greg Walden and state Representative Jeff Kropf, both from Oregon. They understand fully that wind, biomass, and other renewables are a promising way to build on our region's hydro system, revitalize rural economies, and reduce the economic risks of overdependence on gas-fired generation.

Number 2. Energy efficiency and renewable energy ought to be an integral part of our national security strategy. We know that oil is a global market. We know that much of the world's proven oil reserves are in the world's trouble spots and that crucial swing production capacity is held by Saudi Arabia. We know the risks of failing to rein in our growing appetite for oil through proven efficiency measures and fuel diversification - risks of supply disruptions, price shocks, entangling alliances with unsavory regimes, and military conflict.

Unrestrained growth in petroleum demand is a dangerous indulgence that we can no longer afford. To put it simply, oil is a magnet for conflict.

That's why a mainstream Republican like Indiana Senator Richard Lugar is pressing for strong national efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum by tapping new fuels. Lugar is a strong proponent of developing cellulosic ethanol. No doubt, cellulosic ethanol would create a giant new market for Indiana farmers, but, what's wrong with helping Indiana farmers? He has proposed a viable solution and is articulating sound arguments that touch on security and economics, as well as the environment.

Number 3. Republicans strongly believe that the market is a wonderful tool for delivering desired results at the lowest possible cost. And, properly designed, market-based policies can do just that. The SO2 trading element of the 1990 Clean Air Act worked because it rewarded utilities that found low-cost ways of reducing their SO2 emissions. Texas included credits trading in its renewable portfolio standard. Again, that rewards the innovative that find ways of accomplishing results at low cost. Flexibility does not have to be a code word for rollbacks, as long as there are strong accountability mechanisms in place.

So, from an energy standpoint, adding market-based mechanisms to an energy portfolio standard is a promising way to win Republican support. Convince Republicans that you view business as a friend to work with, not an obstacle to overcome.

Number 4. Republicans are strong proponents of expanding the sphere of individual liberty. What better way to do so than providing for greater energy efficiency and expanding the market for distributed energy sources? In doing so, we will create greater freedom for consumers and enable them to take responsibility for their energy choices and become more self-reliant.

So, to wrap this up, what does the future hold? We were a long time getting into this pickle, where environmental issues have become badly polarized, and it will take some time getting out of it.

Energy is an area where the potential is especially high to craft mainstream environmental solutions that will have bipartisan appeal. One of the keys to tapping that potential is to talk to Republicans in terms that resonate with Republican philosophy.

If people of good will in both major parties look for opportunities to work together in ways that make sense for both, we believe that the environment can once again be a high-priority issue for both parties, as it must be to ensure a healthy, prosperous future for our country.

Thank you and I'd be happy to answer your questions.