Over the past year I have made a point of learning about the views of conservative leaders who are on the front lines of tackling climate change. This has included conversations with corporate executives, board directors, investors, think tanks, and NGOs. At the end of last year I wrote up a summary of what I’d learned so far. I continue to learn more.

In the course of this work I’ve met a number of think tanks and NGOs in the “Ecoright” field. One of the leading groups in this space is the bipartisan organization DEPLOY/US.

I was introduced to DEPLOY/US’ founder and CEO, Dr. Andrea Yodsampa, by Philip Rossetti at the center-right think tank The R Street Institute. It turns out that Andrea and I live in adjacent towns, so we met last fall for lunch.

I am impressed with DEPLOY/US’ strategic approach and growing momentum. They are not only working to accelerate conservative leadership on climate change as a necessary foundation for bipartisan action; they are playing a unique role in advancing the growth and impact of the Ecoright field, the ecosystem of civil society organizations working right-of-center on climate change. This work is essential under any election outcomes.

Vox recently named DEPLOY/US one of the “most high-impact, cost-effective, evidence-based” climate organizations in the country. And Founders’ Pledge, a leading philanthropic advisory group, has recommended funding DEPLOY/US as a “promising bet to improve US climate policy, increasing the likelihood of further bipartisan policy wins and making the US climate response more robust.” So I am especially excited for today’s conversation.

I asked Andrea and Alex Bozmoski, Vice President of Programs, if they would be willing to do an interview with me, and they kindly agreed.

 

Eccles: Andrea and Alex, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Let’s start with a foundational question. Why should we care about bipartisanship on climate change, especially at this moment of intense polarization?

Yodsampa:  Thanks so much for inviting this conversation, Bob.

Bipartisan support in the U.S. for climate action is not a nice-to-have; it is a need-to-have. Between now and 2050, the U.S. will be governed by 14 Congresses and at least four Presidents. Any strategy predicated on sustained periods of one-party rule is extremely unlikely to succeed. Any strategy based on ratcheting climate policy gains via partisan pathways is too slow.

The good news is that bipartisan climate leadership is much more possible than recent headlines would make it appear. And, due to converging tailwinds that I hope we’ll have a chance to discuss, bipartisan climate leadership is increasingly within reach.

Eccles: I think you’re right that bipartisan climate action is both necessary and possible, and I’ve written a piece that provides some data on that. But simply because something is possible doesn’t mean it will happen. This takes work and that’s where DEPLOY/US comes in so please tell me more about what you’re doing.

Yodsampa: DEPLOY/US was created and designed specifically for this purpose.

The DEPLOY/US team is bipartisan, and our board is bipartisan—at a time when that is rare and important. Our goal is the enactment of durable, increasingly ambitious, bipartisan climate policies. Our strategy, though, is focused right of center, because that is where the need is.

A huge environmental movement, grown over decades and supported by billions of dollars in philanthropic investment, pushes, pulls, and guides Democrat policymakers to take action on climate change. That robust, well-funded, and coordinated climate action ecosystem does not exist on the political right – and it’s urgently needed.

A recent analysis published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that roughly 0.5% of U.S. climate philanthropy have flowed to the organizations best suited to engage with right-of-center Americans. That means that the civil society groups that exist to push, pull, and guide Republican policymakers to ambitious climate action lack the capacity to do so at scale.

The good news is that this is beginning to change. We’re seeing more and more funder interest, and that’s starting to translate into funding momentum for the field.

DEPLOY/US works closely with philanthropy as a core part of our mission. We are the only organization focused on building the capacity and impact of the entire Ecoright field, the nonprofit groups and civil society leaders who are credible right-of-center and committed to the policy changes needed for U.S.-led decarbonization.

 

Eccles: That statistic that only 0.5% of climate philanthropy has flowed to groups that can effectively engage conservatives on climate is a real eye opener. Please tell me how you’re addressing this problem.

Bozmoski: In part by helping funders to see the impact story of the Ecoright field. We fund Ecoright nonprofits as a re-grantor, with every dollar invested going towards principled and pragmatic climate action. We’re also deeply embedded in the Ecoright field. We coordinate partner-grantees’ efforts, supplement their capacity with talent and infrastructure, and support their success in driving narrative change and delivering policy change. We also work closely with individual and institutional funders to inform and support their investments in bipartisan climate action by offering research, convening, and regranting support.

Eccles: Andrea, I know you worked for many years in international conflict and peacebuilding. How did you come to found DEPLOY/US? 

Yodsampa: My early professional and academic work was in the energy and environmental space. Then, I ended up spending many years in the conflict resolution field—mediating disputes, teaching negotiation, and working in international peacebuilding.

Ten years ago—when my now 17-year-old son was seven—I was reading him a book and climate change came up. I realized, in that moment, how important it was to me to pivot back to my roots working on climate. I took six months off to study the landscape, doing my own strategic gap analysis. I spoke with business leaders, retired military officers, policy experts, activists, entrepreneurs, investors, scientists, virtually anyone who touched climate change or clean energy in a strategic or leadership role. I was trying to answer one question: “Where is the leverage? What isn’t being done, or isn’t being done well enough, that has the potential to mitigate global climate change?”

It was a remarkable six months of conversations and three things became clear. First, the world can’t get there fast enough on decarbonization without the United States in a leadership role. U.S. leadership is not sufficient, but it’s necessary. Second, policy change is essential. And third, given how deeply divided our country is, durable policy change requires at least some degree of bipartisan support.

What’s interesting is that, as DEPLOY/US’ leadership in this space has grown, it’s become clear how relevant that earlier peacebuilding experience is to work on climate change. Not only are we seeing more climate funders beginning to invest seriously in this work. We’re also hearing from democracy funders how hopeful and promising they find DEPLOY/US’ work in terms of depolarization. Our bipartisan team is experiencing this every day. We disagree on many issues that matter for the country and for the world. But we share a passionate commitment to protect our climate.

Eccles: Alex, you come from a very different background. Why did you join DEPLOY/US?

Bozmoski: For a long time I was a conspicuous climate guy in conservative circles, or a conspicuous conservative in environment circles. But it’s a lot less lonely today than 18 years ago when I started working on climate.

Before finding my way to the Ecoright, I developed offset projects in East Africa and taught energy-related courses through technical assistance programs. In 2012, I more-or-less stalked Bob Inglis, a former member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, who had just politically martyred himself by sticking his neck out on climate, and Bob already had a great idea and some core support to start something to represent conservatives and libertarians who care a lot about climate issues. He brought me in, and we launched the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University.

The Ecoright field didn’t much exist back then. The field in 2012 was really just Rob Sisson and his team at the then-recently rebranded ConservAmerica; a few folks with Eli Lehrer at the just-established R Street Institute (which formed after a split from the Heartland Institute over Eli’s and others’ principled stance on climate change); Catrina Rorke was at the American Action Forum; and the Energy and Enterprise Institute Bob and I were starting which grew into republicEn.

I’ve been spectacularly lucky, first at republicEn and now at DEPLOY/US, to grow up with the Ecoright field and benefit from the wisdom and passion of so many thinkers and doers committed to decarbonization.

I wanted to play a part in growing the reach and impact of the Ecoright which is what drew me to DEPLOY/US. It was pretty frustrating to experience the Ecoright field showing outsized impact yet struggling to attract the resources to scale. I’m so excited that DEPLOY/US is making progress in solving this problem because the Ecoright field really has the opportunity to change the political conditions that are currently holding back progress. At DEPLOY/US, we are hyper-focused on creating the broad, bipartisan mandate needed for sustained decarbonization.

 

Eccles: Alex, I believe you actually coined the term “Ecoright.” Who are they?

Bozmoski: Incredible Americans and our best shot at America-led decarbonization. They’re bridge-builders and they lead by example. They include long-time conservationists, climate policy wonks, experts in clean energy technologies, grassroots organizers, political operatives, business leaders, and others.

There are about a dozen national and right-of-center organizations in the Ecoright field (think tanks, advocacy, and educational efforts), plus many right-of-center organizations in key states, and lots of leaders and efforts who may not be right-of-center, but who engage key conservative constituencies, for example in national security, small business, hunting, angling, and faith communities.

As individuals, institutions, and a field, the Ecoright punches way above its weight class. Goliath was probably not more than 50% bigger than David. The Environmental Left is probably more than 10,000% better funded than the Ecoright and yet you’ve seen Ecoright-guided Republican leadership translate into a number of bipartisan climate breakthroughs in states and in Congress, which I look forward to discussing.

Yodsampa: We’ve recently completed, with support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, a benchmarking survey of the field, including its composition, activities, and policy priorities. There’s huge potential for this field to help transform US climate politics, but only if key capacity gaps are filled.  That’s why we’re so encouraged to see that funders are starting to recognize and invest much more seriously in this work.

Eccles: I have had the pleasure of getting to know a number of Ecoright leaders such as Alex Flint of the Alliance for Market Solutions; Danielle Butcher Franz (I’ve done Part 1 and Part 2 interviews with her) and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition; Heather Reams of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (am doing an interview with her); and at the R Street Institute I’ve done Part 1 and Part 2 interviews with Eli Lehrer, I’ve written on carbon capture and storage and climate change and human rights with Philip Rosetti, and I know Devin Hartman. I am inspired and impressed with the work all of these people are doing.

Yodsampa:  The people you’ve been talking with are examples of the exceptional leaders in this space. It’s wonderful you are elevating their climate work. Alex and I are eager to connect you with others you may want to interview, too.

Eccles: Please do! And please explain to me how DEPLOY/US fits into the picture. I know your regranting is really starting to gain steam now. What else is DEPLOY/US doing to build the Ecoright field and advance solutions, and how does it all come together? 

 

Yodsampa: As Alex shared, we’re unique as a funder intermediary because we are deeply embedded in the Ecoright field. We exist to support its success in achieving ambitious, bipartisan climate policy outcomes.

We do three main things. First, we drive funding to Ecoright field nonprofits to advance their climate work (we only fund decarbonization-related work) both as an intermediary that funds directly, and as a catalyst, educating funders about the opportunities in the field and advising on pathways to bipartisan results.

Second, our team coordinates or orchestrates among partner-grantees to achieve decarbonization policy outcomes. This model is proving quite effective in red states, delivering climate wins ranging from incremental to huge.

Third, we build and share infrastructure that helps field organizations become more efficient and more effective. For example, early on we hired a lead for learning and assessment to assess fieldwide progress and sharing learning across the field. Another example is our first-rate communications team that helps field leaders elevate their media where it counts.

Our grantmaking is really starting to grow in exciting ways. Being embedded, on the ground with partners is a key part of our strategy. We make quicker and better decisions because of the relationships and perspective that offers us.

Eccles: This sounds good but how high of a mountain is this to climb? What is your honest assessment about where Republicans stand on climate change?

Bozmoski:  There is far more support for climate action among key segments of Republican voters than is amplified in the public arena and in our politics. And beyond that, far more potential to increase Republican climate leadership than most people realize.

Apathy is a bigger barrier in Congress than dismissiveness. A helpful tailwind against apathy is the enthusiasm for conservative climate leadership among critical segments of the electorate. For example, we read with delight your awesome interview with Dani Butcher at ACC. She’s a star, and ACC’s smart and passionate team are doing incredible things to organize the 80% of young Republicans who worry about climate risks and want their politicians to lead.

Most Republican members of Congress don’t hear much about the importance of climate from their constituents. This underscores the opportunity—the need—for civil society to help close this gap.

Yodsampa: This is the huge need, and opportunity, and funders are beginning to take note. If we accelerate the growing investments in this space and grow this young Ecoright field, we can get to a very different place where the national conversation isn’t about the nature or seriousness of the climate problem. It’s a debate about the wisest policy solutions, with that debate translating into action that endures across changes of power in Washington, D.C.

Eccles: I agree that civil society has an important role to play, but is bipartisanship really possible on climate—or anything else?                                                                               

Yodsampa: Yes, absolutely! On climate change and other topics, there is more bipartisan activity than you’d think. For example, just in the last Congress, bipartisan coalitions materialized in support of major legislation on infrastructure, marriage equality, science and tech competition, gun safety, and democratic reform.

Each of those laws was enabled by civil society infrastructure; there was deliberate, targeted organizing that applied pressure and helped deliver the necessary votes.

Eccles: Encouraging, but what about climate?

Bozmoski: A growing number of Republicans in Congress are engaging in the climate policy dialogue, joining climate-related caucuses, and supporting climate- and energy-related legislation. This includes the overwhelmingly bipartisan passage of the Energy Act in 2020 which supported investments in a range of clean energy technologies; the Growing Carbon Solutions Act in 2022 supporting farmers, ranchers, and foresters to reduce emissions; the ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2022; the formation of the House Conservative Climate Caucus in 2021 (at 83 members, the fourth largest GOP caucus in the House); the recent relaunch of the House Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, with the immediate goal of addressing permitting reform; the introduction of legislation that would implement a border pollution fee; and bipartisan collaboration in the Senate to introduce legislation that would fast-track next steps on permitting reform.

 

Eccles: All good examples. I’ve been following the work of the Conservative Climate Caucus for some time. I recently wrote a piece about its founder and Chair Emeritus, Rep. John Curtis (R-UT) who is now running for the U.S. Senate and I’m very pleased about this. More generally, what do you think is driving Republican interest in climate change?

Bozmoski: Climate change is an increasingly important issue for Republican voters, especially young Republicans. As of 2023, two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral. These and other forces are creating electoral pressure on GOP policymakers.

In addition, the private sector is marching toward a clean-energy future, and the business community is increasingly embracing the associated economic opportunities. And now, federal incentives are driving climate investment dollars disproportionately into red states, creating economic opportunities that are bringing new Republicans into the clean energy fold.

Eccles: What kind of capabilities are still needed on Ecoright and what are DEPLOY/US’ plans and priorities to grow this field?

Yodsampa: We’re working on a big capital raise to ensure the Ecoright field has the capacity to seize the federal opportunities here now such as permitting and transmission reform, foreign polluter fees, and nature-based solutions, as well as significant opportunities in conservative states.

At the same time, we have to be ready for risks and windows under different political scenarios, and we shouldn’t wait to build out the needed capacity. In any political scenario, a broader bipartisan mandate will be helpful, and likely essential, for ensuring we have climate policies that pass and last.

Bozmoski: As Andrea said, infusing major capital into this field, quickly, is essential. In D.C. and state capitals, we need to invest in direct advocacy and lawmaker education, influential stakeholder mobilization, policy research, grassroots, and media. All these capabilities require significant new investments, but among them, policy research and grassroots are the most flagrantly under-funded.

Eccles: Thanks to both of you for the important work you’re doing and taking the time to talk to me about it. Any closing thoughts before we wrap it up?

Bozmoski: We have strong evidence of what’s possible where the right-of-center climate field has engaged in recent years. And with smart and serious philanthropic investment, we can spur more, and much-needed, bipartisan breakthroughs.

The lingering partisan divide around climate change may seem daunting, but the solutions needn’t be. American civil society has so much agency and power to change the politics of this issue and create the bipartisan mandate for action we so desperately need. But whether we get there or not depends hugely on philanthropy.

Whatever the country and the world is dealing with in 5, 10, and more years, I’m certain that a well-coordinated and better-funded Ecoright field means more ambitious U.S. leadership on climate change.

Yodsampa: There is still a huge gap between the capacity of the Ecoright field and what is needed. But the momentum now building for major philanthropic investments in the Ecoright field has the potential to transform US climate politics and to advance, under any election scenarios, more ambitious and sustained US climate leadership.