Is Bipartisan Environmental Action a Pipe Dream?

When Obama debated with House Republicans and broadcast the discussion on live TV last week, he was heralded for bringing a bipartisan spirit to the political process. The debate focused primarily on health care and the economy, but the President also bantered with conservatives about his relatively moderate environmental agenda, which includes both sweeping investments in renewable energy and GOP-friendly ideas like "clean coal" and nuclear energy.

But is bipartisan progress on the environment really possible—and, if so, is it worth the trouble?

The biggest hurdle to meaningful compromise seems to be a faulty ideological schism. As the general partisan thinking goes, Democrats believe in global warming and want to protect the environment, and the GOP doesn't. This premise is supported by evidence like the recent Gallup survey that revealed 66 percent of Republicans doubt climate change, up from 59 percent the year before, as well as the rhetoric of vocal GOP climate change deniers like Sarah Palin and George W.

But it hasn't always been this way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were well-known conservationists, and it was Nixon who created the EPA. Even today, there are plenty of Republicans who buck the conventional party line. Former EPA administrator Russell Train called Dubya's Big Oil policies "deeply disturbing," a sentiment echoed by former Michigan governor William Milliken and former Senator Bob Smith, among others. And grassroots organizations like Republicans for Environmental Protection (motto: "Conservation is conservative") are actively trying to change the discourse.

So there's real potential for the GOP to shift its environmental platform, and become more amenable to climate change action. But it will take an investment in principle over politics. Tellingly, last year 45 percent of Republicans said they viewed Obama's clean energy bill favorably, yet less than 5 percent of the Republican House voted for it. That's precisely the kind of unnecessary political partisanship Obama is fighting against.

At the same time, Democrats may have to cede some ground if they want environmental legislation to pass. There are very valid concerns with nuclear energy and "clean coal" investments, but if including them is the only way to push through more progressive measures, it may be worth the compromise (especially considering the GOP's newly-minted filibuster power). This is something Obama clearly seems to be aware of—but he can't make bipartisan change happen alone.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons