The Perfect Test For Bipartisan Conservation Just Failed
Bipartisan opposition and a "conservation caucus" couldn't stop Republican representatives from voting to expose the Boundary Waters to mining.
I have readers across the political spectrum. People who disagree about immigration policies, federal authority, and conservation approaches. I relish a good debate about complicated tradeoffs, and I appreciate all of you.
This isn’t one of those times for nuance. Minneapolis is not that kind of story.
Alex Pretti was murdered by undertrained thugs that this administration has given carte blanche to do as they please, constitutional rights be damned. Government officials are fabricating narratives directly contradicted by the video evidence we’ve all seen. ICE is fueling fear and escalating violence wherever they go.
I’m just a guy with a newsletter, but it didn’t feel right to just move on to the next scheduled content. Call your reps, support, and take care of yourselves and each other.
– Kyle
The “Public Lands Caucus” fails its first major test.
In 2023, the Biden administration imposed a 20-year ban on mining near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, in response to a Chilean mining company’s proposal to mine copper, nickel, cobalt and other precious metals in the area. The ban was supported by conservation advocates on both sides of the aisle, in large part due to likely sulfuric acid pollution from mining activities.
Last May, the Public Lands Caucus was formed with the stated mission to “work across the aisle to advance policies for the conservation of and public access to public lands.” This was supposed to be a bipartisan coalition in Congress that could find common ground on conservation.
Last week, the House voted 214-208 to remove the ban on mining adjacent to the Boundary Waters. The decision carries consequences not only for the Boundary Waters but for other protections around the country. Republicans used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the ban. If Congress establishes that it can overturn protections with simple majority votes (enabled by the CRA), then every protection around the country becomes vulnerable.
And how did the Public Lands Caucus vote on this issue? Straight down party lines. All Republicans voted to allow mining. All Democrats voted against.
The caucus wasn’t tested on an issue where there might be disagreement about trade-offs. It was tested on the question of opening one of America’s most popular wilderness areas to mining operations and almost certain pollution–something opposed by both conservative and progressive outdoor advocates.
Ryan Zinke (Republican rep for Montana and former Secretary of the Interior), the caucus co-chair, didn’t just vote for the mine. He actively pressured colleagues to support the repeal. This isn’t just about Zinke (Wes Allen wrote a great piece focused on his involvement in more detail). When someone can simultaneously claim the mantle of a public lands champion (when it affects Montana and therefore his re-election odds) and also work to open the Boundary Waters to mining, it tells you that “conservation” has become so malleable it can mean nearly anything.
The messaging isn't the problem
Last year, I wrote about an advocacy organization called Nature is Nonpartisan (NINP), which formed with the goal of building bipartisan support for conservation. The effort includes familiar names from progressive environmental groups alongside conservative commentators and former Trump administration officials. Their homepage calls on supporters to “Take the pledge & tell your elected leaders that the environment is too important for partisan politics.”
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. I still think the impulse is right, and there are millions of people from both parties who care about public lands. But the problem isn’t whether people of either party care. The problem is whether that care produces meaningful outcomes.
It sure doesn’t seem like it.
Broad polling support for public lands protection (like 75% of Americans opposing public lands sales) doesn’t reliably translate into votes or opposition in Congress when in conflict with Trump or extractive interests. That support might help making things slightly less bad, but it’s not a bulwark against the power that Congress and this administration have to wreak havoc, no matter the “will of the people.” The Public Lands Caucus is just the most recent example. ANWR drilling, NPS cuts, the list goes on. The rollbacks the administration has been able to enact unilaterally with control of federal agencies is…extensive.
Even seemingly perfect political conditions for collaborative work around the Boundary Waters–strong bipartisan constituent support for protection, polling majorities, and a supposed public lands caucus–couldn’t overcome party lines.
In another example, Trump recently vetoed a bipartisan bill to finance clean drinking water for 50,000 Coloradans in a conservative district. The bill passed both chambers unanimously. Trump vetoed it anyway, likely as political retaliation against Lauren Boebert, who spoke out about releasing the Epstein files.
When the veto override came up for a vote, only 35 Republicans supported, and it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed. An extremely straightforward bill that had unanimous support weeks earlier couldn’t get enough Republican votes because crossing Trump was too politically risky.
This is why I worry about focusing on “messaging.” Messaging is important, and there are improvements to be made in how we talk to various groups about conservation, but I don’t think it’s the root problem we face at the moment. The Boundary Waters vote wasn’t a communication failure or a failure of both progressive and conservatives to align on an issue. The political will to protect public lands and the environment exists. It just exists almost entirely within one party’s elected officials.
I know that we need to keep working across the aisle on conservation, and I remain supportive of that work. Modern conservation is full of compromises.
NINP, as well as other conservative-leaning influencers and groups, are quick to drum up support/petitions/etc opposing the sale of public lands or in situations like the Boundary Waters. What they’re less quick to point out (or avoid completely) is the role they played in electing or platforming who was responsible (Republican lawmakers), and preferring to just reference “Congress” and recommend “contacting your representatives.”
It feels a bit like standing in a china shop and saying “We won't tell you not to put the bull in the shop, because that would be rude (and we brought the bull here). But we'll say ‘It’s awful that things are being broken’ once it's inside.”
We can’t pretend that both parties produce equivalent outcomes when holding power in Congress or the Executive.
What actually matters
A lot of people on both sides sat out the election in 2024, undermined progressive candidates, or voted third party because they were “so disillusioned.” And now, much like the media, they all get to generate an unending feed of outrage content as the administration and lawmakers they enabled are dismantling the things they claimed to care about.
Len Necefer wrote this week about how how outrage isn’t power, saying, “The people who voted “uncommitted,” or sat out, or told others that voting was complicity—they got to feel righteous. They got to perform moral clarity on a platform optimized to reward that performance. And they got to do it from a position of relative safety: citizenship, resources, mobility, options…This is not abstract. Today, it’s violent deportations. That’s defunded programs. That’s judicial appointments that will shape the law for decades. That’s the slow strangulation of the administrative state by people who understand exactly how power works and don’t need you to be morally perfect—they just need you to be absent.”
So, can we actually enact meaningful change as “advocates for the outdoors”?
I think the honest answer is: only if we’re willing to do the boring work of electing people who will hold the power that can affect positive conservation outcomes. That means voting, every time, even when the options aren’t perfect. As Necefer says, “if your politics is mainly a posture on the internet, you will be out-organized by people whose politics is mainly a plan in the real world.”
I’m not going to stay negative; I want pragmatic, non-partisan collaboration to produce conservation wins. I don’t want to tear down conservative advocates–they’re an important part of the equation around conservation. I hope future efforts will find more success. I hope NINP builds more successful outcomes, even if I’m currently less enamored with their approach.
The Boundary Waters vote isn't the end of bipartisan conservation work, and it still needs to pass the Senate. But for me, it’s a repudiation of the idea that we can find common ground and expect positive outcomes for nature without addressing the truth in front of our faces: until Republican politicians can reliably stand up to their party leadership, dear leader, and business interests, "Nature is Nonpartisan" will remain an aspiration divorced from how political power actually works. Don’t get fooled again.