Green elephants on parade

Green Republicans? “You’re kidding,” you say. After all, we’re talking about the party whose leader just summed up the greatest environmental problem facing the world with a glib, “Global warming, get used to it.” And yet, it was Republican Teddy Roosevelt who gave us the National Park and National Forest systems. In fact, in the first half of the last century, it was the GOP that was home to the environmental movement, not the Democrats.

Now, in the face of an uncertain energy future, and certain global climate change and dwindling natural resources, some folks, like Janice Forbes, say it’s time for the GOP to reclaim its environmentalist heritage. Forbes, who lives in Auburn, is publisher of Sierra Heritage Magazine, just one of her many business ventures. She is also head of the Northern California Chapter of Republicans for Environmental Protection, aka the Green Republicans. Think about it. What’s more conservative than conservation?

What is a Green Republican?

Well, I consider myself a “Mainstreet Republican.” I believe in small business, I believe in the free-enterprise system and the free market. I don’t like subsidies for anyone.

And I find it unbelievable that we give subsidies to outdated technologies or dangerous technologies. If we are going to subsidize, we should be giving those subsidies to new and inventive technologies that will take us to the next rung of prosperity.

You’re talking about the automotive and energy industries?

Yes. To me, it’s like subsidizing the buggy whip. Why would we possibly do that?

How do you square the ideas of environmental regulation and free markets?

I think polluters should pay their own way. If the market required them to pay their own way, we wouldn’t have so many environmental problems. To me environmental problems stem from people stepping on the rights of other people. We all are owners of the national forests, yet some elements want greater rights to those national forests. When we sell off the national forests to timber companies at dollar amounts that are lower than the replacement costs, one has to ask whether that’s a good business decision. If the markets were really true markets, not subsidized, then there would probably be fewer conflicts. It would be part of the mantra of everybody doing business.

This reminds me of Amory Lovins’ book Natural Capitalism.

Yes, right. I think he’s put his finger on a lot of it. What is encouraging is that those people who have gotten involved in the environmental movement in their business have found that it really improves the bottom line. For people who are in business who cry about rules they find objectionable should really look and determine where they can take advantage of, say, the need to recycle. Another example, if we closed down national forests to lumbering, we hear we’ll lose many forestry jobs. But what nobody mentions is that thinning and cleaning up the forests, and biomass production and other activities, could create more jobs. It’s complicated; there are no easy answers. But the moment we start subsidizing certain industries, we skew the balance.

What issues have the Green Republicans been working on?

We were very active on the greenhouse gas legislation the governor just signed. Also, [Barbara Boxer’s] wilderness legislation.

We were very active on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, speaking out as Republicans who feel our party is doing things that are not really in the national interest.

Have you endorsed a candidate for governor?

We haven’t endorsed a candidate for governor. I doubt we will. I don’t think the Republican candidate has demonstrated a track record that indicates he understands the impact of the environment on the economy. … John McCain understands the linkage between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. If he were to run again in a primary, we would probably support him again.

The group talks about returning the GOP to a pro-environment party …

We recognize that some environmentalists are extreme. But we also recognize the historic role of the Republican Party in the environment, starting with Teddy Roosevelt. He saw the national forests as a great treasure of the nation that didn’t belong to any one person, that they belonged to the people of the United States. It was a resource that could be used in many ways, and timbering is part of it. But you have to be good stewards of the land. Just as a good financial planner is a good steward to a portfolio.

We’re looking to re-establish our environmental roots as part of our overall philosophy. What’s happened is that many of the newer people who have come into the party over the last 20 years or so have lost that portion of our heritage. If you look back, the EPA was created by a Republican administration, and the Clean Drinking Water Act. These are basic ideas. We have somehow gotten off track.

Is there a particularly good issue out there that Republicans could reclaim their environmental heritage?

Yes. The Green Republicans have called for a new Manhattan Project. We developed a nuclear bomb to save ourselves in World War II. If we put the same kind of resources into finding new energy sources, it would have as dramatic an impact on the next generation as WWII had on my generation. It would free us from the turmoil in the Middle East, it would free us from a great deal of environmental damage, and it would free us from much of our air pollution. And it’s doable. Instead of giving subsidies to coal and nuclear energy and oil companies and obsolete technologies, we should be giving the money to the new technology.