Business used to be a dirty word in the environmentalist community. Old-line activists like Lester Brown preached that there was “no middle ground” between ecological and economic interests. The last decade, however, has seen a shift in the environmental movement away from radicalism and go-it-alone activism, and toward alliances with elements of the “machine” that environmentalists once fought so staunchly. Rallying around issues of mutual concern, like energy independence, broad-base green coalitions now include corporations, unions, and policy groups. These pro-environment alliances, which would have been impossible twenty years ago, represent the changing face of environmental action as these issues gain relevance to all sectors of American society.

Strange Bedfellows?
Groups from the AFL-CIO to the Sierra Club endorse the Apollo Alliance, a pre-eminent example of one of these new green coalitions. “Every major environmental group and union in the country is a part of Apollo,” said Kate Gordon, Apollo’s program director, in an interview with the HPR. Apollo proposes a $300 billion restructuring of America’s economy towards energy independence. Their plan emphasizes a public-private approach, using economic incentives to bring business interests to the table. “We’re supportive of economic development programs such as tax credits given to new entrepreneurial efforts,” Gordon explained.

The Energy Future Coalition, a group focused on American energy independence through clean power, is presenting an equally imposing plan. Formed in 2002 by representatives from groups as diverse as the National Resources Defense Council, the Virgin Group, the National Association of Evangelicals, Shell Oil, Goldman Sachs, and the United Nations Foundation, the Coalition paints a picture of mutual understanding and cooperation. Consequently, the Coalition is changing the way that interest groups approach environmental legislation. The Coalition allows its diverse membership to reach internal agreement, and then present a more powerful, unified front to Congress, according to Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition.

Such unprecedented cooperation between American environmentalists and private groups did not occur in a vacuum. At least partially, the direct dialogue has been prompted by the longtime political dominance of Republicans reluctant to tackle climate change. “I think that environmental groups recognized that they were not going to be able to succeed on their own,” said Detchon. Indeed, even more traditional environmentalists are becoming receptive to groups like the Coalition and Alliance. “We need as wide a coalition as possible,” said Chris Miller, global warming campaign director for Greenpeace, in an interview with the HPR, “I’m pleased to see industry increasingly calling for action on this issue.”

Division Despite Vision
Still, reconciling environmental and economic considerations is not always easy. The debate over ethanol, for example, is a particularly thorny issue that can expose a coalition’s prioritization of interests. Environmentalists and corporations have often split on policies such as the current 54 cent-per-gallon tax on foreign ethanol, which has been supported by domestic producers but opposed by environmentalists eager for energy change. On the one hand, Detchon said, “The mere fact [that ethanol] comes from another country is no more of a concern [to the Energy Future Coalition] than the fact we get steel from Japan or any other product.” In contrast, the Apollo Alliance is more interested in harnessing environmental policies to promote domestic job growth. One of Apollo’s “main points,” Gordon explained, had been that more eco-friendly jobs are going to appear in the coming years, but “they will not be American jobs or good jobs unless we’re proactive.”

It is easy to dismiss the Energy Future Coalition as a cynical front for business, or the Apollo Alliance as a subsidies vehicle for unions, but their large environmental commitments, and the partnerships with environmental groups, suggest that they have found a way to make their objectives and beliefs coincide with those of environmental movement. Their emphasis on consensus may provide the cohesion needed once the American political climate is receptive to reform. And as long as these movements can link jobs, growth, and security to a better environment, their message will likely resonate. For now, environmentalism has a powerful new voice.¨ ]]>