by John Hereford, a REP member in Colorado published February 1, 2004 in the Denver Post
Over the holidays, the Bush administration issued a guideline reintroducing commercial logging into roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Like many Republicans, I read this news with resignation. While not exactly the coming of the apocalypse, it does appear to be yet another disappointing example of the GOP coming out on the wrong side of an important and mainstream environmental issue.
In this particular case, the decision seems based not on economic or scientific logic, but almost exclusively on political pressure successfully applied by a narrow special interest group. The Tongass provides some of the best wilderness hunting and fishing opportunities in the country. It is part of a recreation complex that provides more than five times as many jobs in the area as logging, an industry that in the Tongass alone received more than $38 million per year in government subsidies. Nor is there a national economic imperative to exploit one of our last best wilderness treasures for paper supply. Even major corporate consumers such as Staples oppose the decision, noting that there is already plenty of supply from other, less threatened areas.
Yet the Tongass example highlights the larger issue of how the Republican Party, both nationally and in Colorado, confronts mainstream environmental issues. Whether they become a defining element in the current election cycle is unclear, but a growing number of moderate Republicans and independents are clearly frustrated with the way the GOP is perceived and how it allows itself to be perceived on critical issues of open space, clean water and land-use planning.
Having worked on the front lines of Colorado's environmental politics as head of Great Outdoors Colorado, I have been surprised at how far the party has shifted from its conservation and environmental roots. At what point did support for clean water, abundant open spaces and wildlife habitat, and sensible land-use planning become a threat to the GOP's defining political philosophy?
While there are certainly Republican leaders nationally and here in Colorado with an environmental ethic, as a whole, the party seems adrift on these issues, despite the growing number of self-described conservatives who both oppose increasing subsidies for polluting industries and who worry greatly about the impact of sprawl and bad planning on our community, our values and spiritual integrity.
Election after election indicates how important conservation measures are to voters in Colorado, particularly among Republican voters. GOCO polling in 2001 showed that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to support additional funding for open space, parks and wildlife habitat, with the strongest support coming from the Front Range suburban communities that are considered bedrock Republican country.
So why are the people so far ahead of the politicians? One reason is that moderates are not voicing their opinions on these issues in sufficient strength or at sufficient volume to neutralize the more vocal and significantly better-organized ideological wing of the party. Perhaps the more important reason is that the party's political leadership has failed to recognize the sweeping demographic shift in the state.
More and more people moved here specifically because of our outdoor resources and quality of life. This, combined with increasingly centrist Democratic positions on other issues, makes environmental concerns a potential wedge between the GOP and those critical swing votes that have been so important to Republican statewide candidates. If the Republican Party and its leaders fail to recognize that Colorado voters want economic growth that doesn't come at the expense of clean water, abundant open spaces and a high quality of life environmentally, then they will have left very fertile ground for Democrats to harvest.
One important step is for Republicans to move beyond the widely held notion of environmental politics as defined by the Sierra Club, the Snail Darter and scruffy young guys throwing bottles at a World Trade Organization conference. The resulting frustration with the tactics and demeanor of the environmental left can lead the Republicans to discount what may otherwise be very important and legitimate issues.
Fortunately, there is a more centrist brand of environmental politics that seeks to move beyond the daisy-chain recriminations and partisan gridlock of the past. Led by groups like The Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land, traditional antagonists come together - ranchers, mining companies, local governments, and environmentalists - in order to identify common interests and develop common solutions. Of even greater importance, this results-oriented work can be a beacon around which Republican environmentalists can rally.
Republican environmental advocacy requires challenging false truths, often cloaked in the compelling but false rhetoric of economic development. But these battles are not new to environmental Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt faced down enormous political pressure in order to save the Grand Canyon from development and to set aside millions of acres for the national forest system. Indeed, Roosevelt's example presents a good case of how the "economy versus the environment" argument is turned upside down when considered through the prism of true conservative values - objective economic analysis and abiding concern for future generations. After all, who could dispute the economic, much less aesthetic, wisdom of Roosevelt's actions 100 years ago?
Of course, contemporary critics, like their forebears, will claim that environmentalists oppose any land- or water-development plans. That's not true - just particularly bad plans. In fact, there are many successful conservation projects in Colorado that include limited development, including a GOCO project that provided for the protection of more than 30,000 acres in the Bosque Del Oso near Trinidad. The parties involved in that project were able to protect a critical elk migratory corridor while allowing for significant natural gas development.
The purists on either side may not have loved the outcome, but the gas company has an arrangement it can live with, and the elk are thriving.
What anti-environmentalists fail to understand is that the economy is a central reason why we need sensible environmental and conservation measures. In Colorado, more than $3 billion in state gross domestic product is generated by industries such as hunting, fishing and camping - industries that are directly dependent on our ability to preserve our natural resources. By comparison, extractive industries such as oil and gas generate around $2.8 billion.
This is not to say that we should forgo mining and drilling in Colorado. Rather, it is to suggest that we recognize the economic realities of 21st-century Colorado and provide the "green" industries with a bigger seat at the table.
The indirect economic stakes of environmental protection are even higher: Many people move here and corporations choose to relocate here because Colorado is a special place. In the competitive marketplace, it is our streams, our mountains, and our recreational opportunities that distinguish Colorado in the eyes of corporations and educated citizens. Protecting these resources should be the centerpiece of any long-term economic development strategy.
Staking out the middle ground is challenging. More traditional environmentalists will question your commitment to the cause, and those on the Republican right will try to marginalize you as a closet liberal. But supporting the preservation of natural resources for future generations is not a radical or "liberal" idea, it is sensible. Support of lower taxes, tough-love social policies and a muscular defense can coexist quite comfortably with environmental protection.
Given where the Republican Party is right now, it will take some time and fortitude to successfully "green up" the GOP. But the pendulum will swing. In the end, the stakes are too high and Republicans have too much history on environmental issues to allow irresponsible and anti-conservation radicals to take over the party without a fight.
