Q&A: Back to the Future With Environmental Bipartisanship Last month a new conservation pledge , the American Eagle Compact, was propounded by the leaders of the National Audubon Society and ConservAmerica. Its purpose, like that of some earlier alliances, is to counter the political polarization that now characterizes most debates about clean air, clean water, habitats for plants and animals and, in particular, climate change. The notion is to revive the sense of shared purpose that led to overwhelming approval of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency four decades ago. The idea is hardly new: a coalition of sportsmen and progressive environmental groups was organized to lobby President George W. Bush on wildlife issues eight years ago, and local and regional nonpartisan alliances have formed on a number of specific issues. These days, however, the very words "environmentalist" and "Environmental Protection Agency" elicit a fiercely hostile reaction in some conservative circles. We spoke with Rob Sisson, the president of ConservAmerica, and David Yarnold, the president of the National Audubon Society, about their new alliance's efforts to find common ground and give Republicans "cover" and a base of support when they seek to discuss habitat, climate or pollution. I know you are building on common ground. But in this world there are divides on many issues that seem unbridgeable. Energy is one. How constrained are you on taking stands related to energy exploration? What about fracking for natural gas? (Mr. Sisson): Our organization actually has a policy up on our Web site called Cleaner Here and Now. We think natural gas is an incredibly important energy source for the coming decade. Call it a bridge fuel or whatever, we see it as much more preferable to coal. We support nuclear energy - sort of "all of the above" - but we want to find a pathway from the high-carbon fossil fuels. (Mr. Yarnold): My view on that is that there are plenty of Republicans who believe in responsible energy legislation and reducing carbon. We know there are plenty of Republicans who, if they weren't so intimidated by the hard right, would be at the table more often, and we know that there are Democrats who if they weren't so afraid of being hammered and labeled as tree-huggers would be more willing to compromise. Go to fracking specifically? There have been questions of safety of the water tables, questions of leaking methane into tap water,and particularly what chemicals are used. (Mr. Sisson): Fracking's been done for 50 years in this country. In Michigan, where I'm based, the natural gas boom is really expanding all of a sudden. We'd like to see fracking come under the Clean Water Act requirements. We think fracking can be done safely to realize the benefits natural gas can bring us environmentally and economically. There are some areas of the country where, based on sound science, it cannot be done safely. We're not ready to go back to the fallback that states should be alone in regulating this. There is a national interest in interstate commerce. (Mr. YarnoId): I agree. That's a sound and responsible approach. As Rob said, the Susquehanna River doesn't recognize any boundaries. Audubon actually is not suggesting that fracking is a terrific thing. I think the science is unclear. We think the Clean Water Act ought to apply. We think that a whole lot more needs to be done before we understand what places are suitable and what places aren't. The elephant in the room for many conservative Republicans is climate change, or more specifically the question of what causes it and what to do about it. Rob, can conservatives who care about conservation build a consensus in this area ? David, can major environmental groups work with conservatives on this issue? Where is the common ground? (Mr. Sisson): Absolutely conservatives can find common ground and develop approaches to solving or mitigating the problem. The issue, as David alluded to earlier, is the way our political system works right now. With primaries so partisan, most Republicans don't dare mention it publicly for fear they won't come out of a primary. We have close relationships with maybe 50 or 60 Republicans on the Hill. They all get this - they understand the enormous ramifications and risks to our nation and to national security. But they have a question: "Would you rather have me here or have me lose to someone who comes from an entirely different place?" There are a lot of conversations in conservative circles right now about the evidence that man, particularly with a lot of burning fossil fuels, is the primary driver of what we are seeing. Those must be quiet conversations. They are quiet conversations. That's one of the great things about the compact. These Republicans are looking for cover. They are looking for support back home from a broad range of constituents who will back them up when they take a stand on this and other issues. (Mr. Yarnold): Forty percent of Audubon's members identify as moderate to conservative. They are advocates for clean air, clean water and good habitat. Whether they want to say that climate disruption is human-caused or whether it's natural, I really don't care. I have not found very many who these days resist the evidence that it's human-caused. I know from my visits to places like South Carolina, Louisiana and Colorado, where people tell me that getting outdoors, taking kids out, whether fishing or hunting or seeing birds, is something that they value highly. They don't see it as a partisan issue. I think what we have here is yet one more issue where the American people are out ahead of their leaders. The idea of saying, "Enough, enough with conservation being a political football." (Mr. Sisson):That plays into a tenet of Republican politics, that is, the best government is that closest to the people, that's in people's backyards, in their communities. That's where a lot of the real work of conservation gets done. On the ground, grass-roots conservatives not only value conservation, they also see how action to protect and conserve natural resources makes a difference. Endangered species issues were one of the sparks for the Sagebrush Rebellion in the Western states in 1979. Not quite two decades later, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt tried to find common ground by introducing habitat conservation plans. But right now, despite cooperative efforts around the West on some issues, things are nearly as divided as they were before. This is particularly true when it comes to the potential listing of the sage grouse. David, is there a way to protect the grouse without reigniting the rebellion? (Mr. Yarnold): Yes. You've seen it at play in Wyoming. Audubon and other conservation organizations worked with landowners and the governor in Wyoming to come up with the right formula to protect 15 million acres of core sage grouse habitat. The other thing we know about the West is from two recent surveys: a Colorado College one done for the second time and one that the National Wildlife Federation did. What we know from these studies is that Westerners believe that energy development and habitat protections are not contradictions in terms. (Mr. Sisson): ConservAmerica's members go from Montana down to the Rockies and New Mexico. With the advent of the big energy boom out west, we have seen a coalition of what David and I would always have thought were likely compatriots but the media see as competitors - ranchers, hunting guides, the granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing crowd. (Mr. Yarnold): Hey, those are my people. (Mr. Sisson): I've got a pair in my closet. They are coming together. Everyone, the Chamber of Commerce is out there - everyone's coming together and saying: these energy booms come and go - our unique landscape, our wildlife, that's what pays the bills decade after decade after decade. And we need to really pay attention and work hard on that. Your common ground begins with animals and landscapes, which most people can easily grasp and feel strongly about. But industrial pollution was the thing that sparked the first two major environmental laws of the current era, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Cleaning up industrial pollution like mercury from power plants is going to quite possibly cost jobs in traditional industries - at least that is what many conservatives argue. Is that a necessary cost of further lowering the levels of pollutants like fine particulates? (Mr. Sisson): I don't agree with the premise that it is going to cost jobs. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions released a report - it was a survey of the top 500 companies in the country and the amount of money that climate change is already costing them. When you factor in the health costs of mercury and other toxics being emitted by burning fossil fuels - actually solving those and protecting human life and health from environmental threats - there are opportunities to create new industries and new jobs. There are other examples of conservative free-marketeers working with more traditional environmental organizations - the former South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis's group, the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University or Young Conservatives for Energy Reform. Could you both make common cause with them? David, what price could you pay with members of the Green Group or other longtime allies for working with ConservAmerica? Rob, are there environmental groups you could not join? (Mr. Yarnold): I don't think that there's a price to pay for working with ConservAmerica. ConservAmerica was active on climate legislation. The green groups know Rob and ConservAmerica's reputation - the green groups know that the divide isn't all that it's cracked up to be. In fact there's more common ground than cable news would like you to believe. You haven't gotten raised eyebrows from your usual allies? (Mr. Yarnold): We got a little bit of blowback from some chapters, primarily on the West Coast, when we talked about extremes on the left and the right. The fact is there are extremes on the left and the right and we all know it. (Mr. Sisson): I don't think there's any group we couldn't work with in terms of upsetting our membership - about one-third of our members also say they are Audubon members. But we want to work with and influence Republicans and conservatives. We do watch how we lock arms with some of the progressive environmental political groups. Republicans in Congress, probably deservedly, get knocked around by the left-of-center enviro groups. In order to maintain their trust and their ear, we try to we let them know we want to help them get to a better spot, for themselves and for the nation. (Mr. Yarnold): This is not just some kind of feel-good campaign. This is not symbolic. The idea here is to recruit advocates from common sense. The steps are pretty straightforward. We want to identify the advocates; No. 2, to help them organize and help them get out and influence lawmakers. (Mr. Sisson): We try to be very careful and pick and choose the projects and issues we work on at any given time. We might be the only conservation-slash-political group out there that really is excited about natural gas and that accepts fracking as a necessary part of making that natural gas happen. Nobody is going to accuse us of carrying someone else's water. More importantly, what we're trying to do - Bob Inglis, did you see what happened to him? He's kind of the poster child for what happens when a real conservative wants to have a conversation about an important issue. The American Eagle Compact is going a long way to helping create an environment where at least we can have an open conversation. To create an environment where it's at least safe to have a dialogue - that's something we're missing right now because of the polarization in our political universe. To make the world safe for future Bob Inglises? (Mr. Sisson): To make it safer for them at least to have a conversation.