Good evening, I'm Jim DiPeso, policy director of REP America, the national grassroots organization of Republicans for environmental protection.

I'm always pleased to speak with groups of younger people who are involved in conservation and environmental protection. Your interest and fresh perspectives are a beacon of hope that the next generation will have a little more wisdom and will set about putting things right.

Environmental issues -- whether you're talking about climate, forests, oceans, agriculture, or persistent toxins -- are linked in many ways, on a global scale, which I'm sure does not come as news to folks like you who are involved in international environmental issues. As population grows, consumption increases, and technologies become more ever powerful, the pressure on our global life support system will increase. We could push things past tipping points, causing widespread damage that will take lifetimes to overcome.

We at REP America do not view stewardship of the global environmental commons through an ideological lens. We view stewardship as practical household management. If the roof is leaking, you don't obtusely insist to the rest of the family that the puddle on the living room floor doesn't really exist. Instead, you marshal your resources, roll up your sleeves, and fix the problem.

Let me tell you a bit about REP America, the history of Republican conservation achievements, and some thoughts about how they relate to global environmental protection. Republican conservation is something of a forgotten history and it often comes as a surprise, especially to younger people.

REP America was founded in 1995 an Illinois county commissioner, and two activists from San Diego and Jacksonville, who attended an endangered species conference here in DC and realized they were among the few Republicans in the room. This was at the time of the 104th Congress, when Congress was fixing sights on the nation's most basic environmental laws -- the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act.

Right there, these intrepid women created REP America. Since then, we've grown by word of mouth and lots of public attention to our provocative message.

Our mission is to restore the Republican Party's conservation tradition. We want our party's leaders to take positive, responsible positions on the environment and act accordingly. We want to move from today's situation where the issue is polarized, with one party monopolizing the issue, the other indifferent and even hostile. Instead, we want both parties to have a constructive debate about the best ways to protect our global life support system. This is an issue that must transcend petty partisanship.

We talk a lot about the consistency between environmental protection and traditional conservative values -- ordered liberty, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, stewardship, intergenerational equity -- and that cardinal conservative virtue -- prudence.

Edmund Burke, the 18th century British statesman who was a founding father of traditional conservatism, said: "[O]ne of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is [that] the temporary possessors and life-renters in it [should be mindful] of what is due to their posterity . . . [and] should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation . . .."

Two centuries later, another British statesman named Margaret Thatcher said we do not own the global commons. It is a mere tenancy, with a full repairing lease.

We also talk a lot about the linkage between environmental health and economic health, to show our Republican friends that conservation is eminently practical and laden with opportunity if we will only open our eyes to see. Indeed, you really can't have one without the other, because the environment forms the supporting matrix that makes economic prosperity possible.

We have to keep the focus on the practical -- wild nature provides nearly $40 trillion worth of essential services every year worldwide -- water storage, water filtration, atmospheric balancing, plant pollination, topsoil formation, waste recycling -- that we cannot do without and that we cannot replicate in any known fashion. Don't believe that? Try building a butterfly from scratch and program it to maintain itself, reproduce, and pollinate crops without further human intervention.

The Republican Party actually has very old conservation roots. The history of Republican conservation achievements dates to the party's early years. Abraham Lincoln protected Yosemite Valley. Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the legislation creating Yellowstone National Park. Benjamin Harrison, as obscure a 19th century president as you'll ever find, signed the Forest Reserves Act. Republican businessmen led the drive to save the Adirondacks by amending the New York State Constitution.

Even the very early conservation achievements had a practical dimension. The landscape architect who wrote a report on the new Yosemite park in the mid-1860s discussed in great detail the practical benefits of protecting natural scenery in order to maintain human health.

But Theodore Roosevelt set the Republican conservation gold standard. He established 150 national forests, 18 national monuments, 55 wildlife refuges, and five national parks. It's a record of achievement that no succeeding president has matched.

One of TR's greatest insights was that conservation is essential for keeping America strong and secure for generations to come. Another, related insight was that conservation is the essence of democracy and that wasteful consumption actually weakens democracy. Here's why: conservation provides choices to future citizens, who today have no voice except those of us alive who speak for them.

As he wrote in 1916: The "greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

Remember his phrase: the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time. A century after TR's presidency, his insights are more timely than ever, in ways that even he probably could not have imagined. We can apply his insights to today's issues. If we really want to protect and promote democracy, stimulate economic development, and spread the blessings of a sustainable good life around the world, conservation and environmental protection are essential.

For example, an ambitious, U.S. effort to commercialize renewable energy, invest in energy infrastructure overseas, and help developing nations diversify their economies will do a great deal to build global prosperity and protect the global commons.

As Nebraska's senior Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, said in a speech at Notre Dame University (in January 2003): "Enlightened and wise leadership must guide us through the often difficult and unclear paths that characterize the dynamics of historic change in world affairs. American power must be balanced with a nobility of purpose grounded in the art of the possible."

As economist Jeffrey Sachs tries to get across to politicians over and over, America's foreign policy must do a better job of addressing long-term ecological risks -- climate change and depletion of vital biological resources -- that have potentially grave consequences for the global environment, world economy, and prospects for peace.

But Sachs' message doesn’t play with radical think tanks which spend their time, as Republican commentator Kevin Phillips said once, "worshipping flat taxes and dead Habsburgs." Over the past 20 years or so, the Republican Party's leadership has changed -- a strident, highly ideological faction has stepped to the fore, holding to the false notion that conservation and environmental protection are, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, an anti-capitalist plot to send us all back to the caves.

Fortunately, there are still a fair number of Republicans who are consistently pro-environment and see the intersections between sound environmental protection, economic betterment, and greater security.

Example: Congressman Sherwood Boehlert and other Republicans co-sponsored legislation to codify the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We would go even further and advocate the designation of all qualifying roadless areas in the national forests as wilderness. Wilderness is permanent protection of forests that provide clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, open space, carbon storage, and living connections to the wild America that once was extant on the continent. Wilderness is an effective, low-cost method of dealing with the HIPPO problem that conservation biologist E.O. Wilson describes in his book, "The Future of Life," (Habitat loss, Invasive species, Pollution, Population, and Overharvesting).

Now, the U.S. wilderness concept cannot be replicated exactly the same way everywhere. Land protection must complement local conditions, development needs, and cultures. In developing countries, for example, the World Wildlife Fund has made some progress in getting local buy-in by working on innovative projects, such as elephant conservation, that integrate social and economic development.

Conservation biologists have suggested a "hot spots" approach -- focus conservation efforts on those places exceptionally rich in plant and animal diversity and at greatest risk of human-caused damage. Conservation International has identified 25 hot spots -- in Central America, Brazil's Atlantic Forest, the Andes, the Guinean forests of West Africa, Southeast Asia, and others.

However you slice it, the central idea is still there -- to designate and protect reservoirs where natural processes can provide critical ecological services without disruptive human interference.

I am reminded of the Western public lands issues we work on. If you think about it, you can see interesting parallels between the economic history of the Western U.S. and the state of developing countries today. Out West, we still have politicians who insist that if we could turn the clock back and build an economy based primarily on extraction -- timber and mining -- good times would roll. The facts in the West have shown otherwise -- protecting nature, rather than liquidating it, attracts human capital that broadens and stabilizes the economy, shielding it from the whipsaws of raw commodities markets that you have no control over.

That's the situation facing a billion and a half people in the Andean region, sub-Saharan Africa, and much of Central and South Asia. What little foreign investment they receive is primarily for raw materials extraction, with little diffusion of technological innovation into the remainder of their economies.

Private markets aren't going to solve all these countries' problems. The developed world needs to invest much more in building up health, education, tropical agriculture, clean water, and clean energy infrastructure appropriate to the conditions imposed by these countries' physical geography. Ultimately, it's in our own best interests to insure that a billion and a half of the world's most impoverished people do not sink further into the despair of disease, deforestation, desertification, and destitution.

Let's focus on climate change, because of its vast implications for the global life support system, and because of the enormous opportunities it represents.

The climate change picture is especially ugly for the developing world. Higher temperatures are likely to make tropical agriculture more difficult by increasing heat stress on plants. Another factor is the increased frequency and intensity of "El Nino" events that disturb weather worldwide, causing flooding and landslides in developing nations least able to cope.

How else will climate change affect the developing world?

Increased loss of coral reefs that sustain fisheries.

Rising sea levels and concomitant higher storm surges threaten coastal erosion and devastating floods in low-lying nations such as Bangladesh and total inundation of small island states in the Pacific and other seas.

Less fresh water available in water-scarce regions such as central Asia and southern Africa. We already have 1.7 billion people living in water-stressed countries. By 2025, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that number will be 5 billion, more than half the estimated global population.

Greater incidence of vector-borne disease in the tropics.

Inundation of wetlands and mangrove ecosystems.

Then, there are the wild cards. Suppose warmer temperatures melt carbon and methane-rich permafrost in the polar regions. Suppose the world's forests dry out and start releasing instead of storing carbon. Suppose the West Antarctic Ice Sheet takes a dive. Support the oceanic circulation system seizes up.

Abrupt climate change is a concept that has been discussed in the IPCC reports but is now getting more widespread attention. Global warming is something of a misnomer, as it implies a slow, steady increase in average temperatures. What could happen, according to scientists, is abrupt climate change that could, ironically, bring a deep freeze to Western Europe and eastern North America, the core of the global economy, even as global temperatures rise worldwide. Not a pretty picture.

So, what do we do about all this?

We have to realize that we are conducting an uncontrolled science experiment on the only atmosphere we have. If you are a true conservative, one who believes in minimizing risky behavior, acting prudently, and saving valuable capital for future generations, this is reckless behavior. It is irresponsible in the extreme.

Ultimately, every nation will have to do its part. At some point, we will need a long-term international agreement focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds or more. In that context, Kyoto is only the first step on the road.

First, we believe that U.S. withdrawal from Kyoto was done in a manner that needlessly damaged relations with the nations we will need to negotiate that long-term agreement with. Eventually, we will have to revisit this issue, and we will have to spend precious time mending fences and demonstrating good faith.

Second, we need a real action program that will show good faith to the world and develop technologies that will put the brakes to greenhouse gas emissions. REP America has called for a New Manhattan Project to speed the transition to low or zero-carbon energy technologies -- wind, solar, geothermal, ocean, low-impact hydro, biomass, and hydrogen fuel cells.

Our New Manhattan Project has a number of components -- greatly increased R&D; stronger energy efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, and industrial equipment; diversification standards requiring utilities to buy more non-fossil energy; financial incentives to buy more energy efficiency, zero-emission vehicles, and renewable energy, and stimulating markets and price reductions through government procurement policies.

We support the McCain/Lieberman bill that would cut greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2016, through market-based cap-and-trade requirements applied to electricity generation, petroleum refining, commercial, and industrial sectors.

Third, the U.S. and other developed nations can the developing leapfrog past fossil fuels and develop their economies on a foundation of clean energy.

We'll probably have to think seriously about a revenue-neutral tax shift -- a tax on carbon in exchange for reductions in income or payroll taxes.

Will a lot of Republicans endorse this approach? Certainly not all at once and probably not all the components. But let's look hopefully. Renewable energy is really catching a breeze with Republicans who appreciate its many attributes. John McCain is on board with the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Hagel has introduced a bill to boost ethanol, and you can be sure Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations, will back it. Senator Larry Craig attended a conference in Boise this week on manufacturing fuels and generating electricity from farm products. Senator Conrad Burns knows that wind could be the salvation for many distressed rural communities in Montana.

Republicans can be sold on clean energy if it's presented right -- in terms that resonate with them -- economic development, national security, even the freedom to choose.

But we will still have a lot of educating to do. And time is a luxury we don't have. Greenhouse gas concentrations are rising, wilderness areas are being lost, species are winking out. We have to show our political leaders that sustainability is a practical necessity. As Jeffrey Sachs told Scientific American, we have to cooperate on a global scale, which we've never done before. "We have to do the things we've never done before."

Let me close with an observation that Abraham Lincoln, the first and greatest Republican, made in 1862: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." And, I might add, the world. Thank you very much.