In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush said the words freedom and liberty 42 times. The number of times he mentioned the environment: zero.

This may not surprise many who supported the reelection of a president whose environmental record was awarded a failing grade by the League of Conservation Voters. But it might surprise some of the Grand Old Party’s forefathers. GOP Presidents, after all, signed some of the country’s most important environmental laws.

Although Theodore Roosevelt—a close friend of Sierra Club founder John Muir—is often the first name mentioned by modern conservationists for his work protecting the Grand Canyon and establishing the first national wildlife refuge, it was Woodrow Wilson who created the National Park Service in 1916. And Richard Nixon signed into law the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts.

The traditional values of conservation and environmentalism are what Jim DiPeso, a policy director for the Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), says are missing from the current generation of Republican lawmakers.

“It’s the move away from conservation-oriented policies that is so frustrating about the Republican Party,” DiPeso said. “To move from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of (Rep.) Tom DeLay (R-Texas) does not leave us smiling.”

Now, with greater Republican control of Congress and the security of a second term, the Bush Administration is well positioned to pursue environmental policies that maintain focus on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, as well as continued research into hydrogen fuel cell development and implementing the Clear Skies Initiative—criticized by environmentalists as rolling back Clean Air Act standards.

The increased Republican majority in the U.S. Senate also portends continued efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—territory originally set aside by another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

While opposition to the administration’s environmental policies is not new, an increasingly vocal group of Republican environmentalists, along with some religious environmental organizations, are hoping to bend a friendly ear in areas such as climate change and renewable energy.

“There are ways to address these problems that are consistent with traditional Republican values,” DiPeso said. “We’re asking Republicans to take a broad look and work proactively to address these issues that we’re concerned about, rather than let them fall into some partisan box.”

Congressman Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) rejects the anti-environmental label associated with Republicans. Ehlers, a trained physicist, sits on the House Science Committee, and several subcommittees which influence environmental policy.

“I think it’s a false juxtaposition to say that Democrats are environmentally-friendly and Republicans are not,” Ehlers said. “I’m from the tradition of (Theodore) Roosevelt, but I take it a step further in not just dealing with conservation, but with pollution, invasive species and energy, and I do it out of my concern for the environment and my religious commitment to protect it.”

Out of 232 Republican representatives in the U.S. House, Ehlers feels there are 30 to 40 that place a high priority on environmental issues. DiPeso listed a much smaller nucleus of Congressional allies, including Representatives Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), as well as Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.).

All received endorsements from REP’s political action committee, but the group did not endorse President Bush. “We felt that his record on environmental issues in the first term did not merit our support,” DiPeso said.

Environmental battles are frequently settled in the Senate, and 109th Congress looks to be no exception. The increased Republican majority in the Senate—now controlling 55 seats—could provide the votes needed to open ANWR for oil drilling.

Because it is unlikely Senate Republicans could muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster, the ANWR provision was inserted into the annual budget resolution process, and a 51-49 Senate vote on March 16 thwarted an amendment by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to remove it. To take effect, the provision must still survive the final Budget Reconciliation bill later this year, which will likely receive the same heated debate as the current resolution.

Congress hasn’t completed the budget process the past two years, and failure to complete it in 2005 means the ANWR debate would start all over again.
Ehlers voted against ANWR both times it passed the House in 2004, but thinks there are misconceptions on both sides of the issue. “It’s not as bad as the environmentalists think, but it’s not as harmless as the supporters say it is either,” he said.
One group of Republican environmentalists that supports energy exploration in ANWR is the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit group.

Founded by Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 1998, CREA focuses its energy at the state and local levels by promoting “community-based solutions to environmental challenges” and publicizing environmental accomplishments of Republicans and the Bush Administration.

“We believe that local folks have a better idea of local problems than the federal government,” said Jared Carpenter, CREA vice president. “You can’t just issue blanket rules, and I think Republicans would agree with that.”

There is growing pressure for the Bush Administration to address what is arguably the most important environmental challenge facing the world in the next century—human impact on climate change.

“If I had to point to one mistake, out of many, that this Administration has made, it’s the failure to come up with a clear climate change policy,” DiPeso said. “We’re falling behind the rest of the world on this and we either need to get on that train or it’s going to run us over.”

A coalition of religious environmental groups is focused on global warming. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) is an umbrella organization of four denominations: the Coalition on Environment and Jewish Life, United States Catholic Conference, National Council of Churches of Christ, and the Evangelical Environmental Network.

What the NRPE originally coined the Interfaith Global Climate Change Campaign now bears a softer name: the Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign (ICEC). Kim Winchell, assistant state coordinator for the Michigan ICEC, said their focus is shifting to the local level because, aside from McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), there has been little response from the Administration or Congress.

“Because of constant inaction on this at the national level, and really an impediment to progress at the international level, we’re shifting our focus to the states in the near-term,” Winchell said. “We just see more potential for change at the state and regional level.”

DiPeso said REP America will focus efforts at the local and state levels, encouraging its 10 chapters and 2,000 members to create a patchwork of allies that could support targeted environmental policies during a second Bush term.

The group will also step up lobbying on targeted issues to what DiPeso called the “middle category” of Republicans, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who has expressed an interest in increased ethanol production due to the potential economic benefits to corn farmers in his home state.

“If conservationists can forge alliances with constituencies that the Administration listens to—local landowners, conservative politicians, and sportsmen, for example—there is a better chance, although not a guarantee, that conservationists can prevail,” he said.