Gene Karpinski, who retired from leading the League of Conservation Voters after two decades, said the group that once backed G.O.P. candidates now finds it difficult to do so.
By Carl Hulse, NY Times, Aug. 10, 2025
When Gene Karpinski took over as the president of the League of Conservation Voters nearly two decades ago, 20 percent of the candidates the environmental lobbying and political powerhouse endorsed for federal office were Republicans.
Last year, none were.
After almost 50 years as a top progressive advocate in Washington, Mr. Karpinski, 73, retired in the spring from his position leading the L.C.V., which is known for its voting scorecard that rates lawmakers on environmental policy. It was also once known for its record of bipartisanship in backing both Republicans and Democrats for office, a relative rarity for Washington interest groups.
But the polarization of Washington and the growing divide between the parties on climate issues has made bipartisanship much more difficult to embrace. President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s climate law was enacted three years ago over the uniform opposition of Republicans, who repealed large swaths of it in the recent domestic policy legislation President Trump signed into law.
In a recent interview, Mr. Karpinski, a well-known figure on Capitol Hill who started in Washington in 1977 as one of Ralph Nader’s “raiders” and headed the Public Interest Research Group for 21 years, reflected on the shifting politics of environmental policy.
This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
What do you see as your biggest achievement at the L.C.V.?
On the institutional side, we built it from a staff of about 30 to a staff of over 200, from a budget of $12 million to a budget of over $200 million and a state L.C.V. network that has also grown significantly. Just as importantly in the long run, we won some significant victories, including the biggest climate bill that the world has ever seen, which, as you know, passed in August of 2022 after a failed effort back in 2009 and 2010.
Learned a lot of lessons. So built the institution into a much more significant force, and won some important policies. Along the way, helped win a lot of elections and became the biggest player in the progressive community to help win elections, to elect climate champions and defeat climate enemies.
One of the interesting things about your group was that you were bipartisan — you endorsed candidates from both parties. Did that stay true through the end of your tenure?
When I first started, I would say about 20 percent of our endorsements at the federal level were Republicans. You needed to work both sides of the aisle to get things done. But that has shifted in the last bit of time, as the Republican Party, frankly, has become captured by the special interests, particularly the oil, gas and coal industries, and did their bidding.
The environment was historically a bipartisan issue. You remember in 1990, the Clean Air Act passed with over 400 votes in the House, 88 votes in the Senate. George [H.W.] Bush, the president, proudly signed it. That bill would not pass today, because the Republican Party leadership would not let that happen.
So has it become impossible for an environmental group such as the L.C.V. to get behind Republicans?
Not impossible, but much, much, much more difficult. I think it remains easier at the state level. We have a network of 33 state LCVs across the country. They do the same kind of work we do — do elections and win policies. Because the fossil fuel industry is not as powerful in some of these states, they can find more bipartisan support there. In Washington, it’s not impossible, but it’s not easy. [Representative] Brian Fitzpatrick is a shining example, someone from a swing district in Pennsylvania who has the highest Republican score. I think he’s probably got about a 70 lifetime score [out of 100]. There used to be a lot more Brian Fitzpatricks.
I remember when congressional Republicans were among the leaders of the environmental movement.
When I started in 2006, the guy I recruited to be my vice chair was a guy named Sherry Boehlert [former Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York]. When he retired in 2006, he chaired the House Science Committee as a Republican and held hearings on climate change, and talked about the problems with climate change. We had a whole slew of folks we would meet with all the time: [then-Representatives] Chris Shays, Wayne Gilchrist, Connie Morella, Mark Kirk and many, many more. We would meet in their offices and strategize with Republicans who cared about the environment. Right now the list is far too short.
You named the 2022 climate bill as a major achievement. Do you worry it will all come undone?
[Mr. Trump’s domestic policy legislation] was a horrible bill that will significantly hamper the ability to go forward at the federal level. The good news is, in state after state after state, we continue to make progress. In 2017, after Trump became president, we weren’t going to make any progress at the federal level on climate, so we went back to the states, elected a lot of new governors, a lot of state legislators. Literally less than 1 percent of the public lived in a state with a policy that said we need 100 percent clean energy back in 2017. Now over 40 percent of the country lives in a state with 100 percent clean-energy policy, and the programs will continue in most states.
The progress at the federal level has been severely impacted by the ugly bill and what the [Environmental Protection Agency and Department Of Energy] are doing as well. And the latest E.P.A. proposal coming out very soon — to declare climate change pollution does not impact public health — is appallingly dishonest, and would be deadly for generations to come. We have to continue to play the best damn defense, but we can continue to be on offense in state after state after state.
One of the subjects that emerged in the debate over the so-called big, beautiful bill was a new push to sell public lands for revenue. One of the main priorities of the L.C.V. is to keep public land public. Does it concern you that there’s a new discussion to unload federal property in the West?
It’s absolutely concerning. The good news on that is even most Republicans in the West said that goes too far, because people in the West appreciate, respect and enjoy those public lands, and they bring a lot of resources to the state, which is great. That was a rare example in the moment we’re in where there was bipartisan opposition to that crazy proposal, and therefore it failed.
In recent years, how much did the L.C.V. typically invest in political campaigns?
2024 was our biggest ever. Go back to when I started, it was a little less than $5 million. If you add in the state and federal in 2024, we invested over $160 million in mostly national, but also state elections as well.
But no Republicans?
At the federal level, we did not support any Republicans in 2024. Definitely in some of the states we did. We made support of the Inflation Reduction Act a litmus test. As you know, that passed on a purely partisan basis.
Hopefully that can change again over time, because we want to build back more bipartisan support. But it’s really hard. Even those who want to do the right thing: They fly in the face of leadership, because the leadership on this issue in the Republican Party at the national level is just atrocious. They’ve sold their heart and soul to the big polluters. The polluters are getting their payback, and it’s ugly for the public.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/10/us/environmental-leader-bipartisanship-climate.html?searchResultPosition=1