Kristen Berry.
With what environmental organization are you affiliated?
I am the president of BirdPAC.
What does your organization do?
We are a fledgling political action committee dedicated to protecting the environment and species by harnessing and focusing the power of conservationists on the political process — specifically elections. We are one of only a handful of conservation- and environment-focused political action committees. There is a clear need for bird enthusiasts to have access to a higher caliber of advocacy training and information regarding the politics of conservation, the environment, and birds.
What are you working on at the moment?
We are currently in the midst of a grand assessment. It seems funny for a three-year-old organization to be engaged in a process like this, but we are. We’ve learned so much in the last two election cycles. Conservation issues — especially those related to birds — don’t garner much attention, at least at the national level. So we are trying to figure out how the heck we can make conservation issues more prominent in the political conversation. For us, part of the bottom line is how to get more conservationists involved in elections.
How do you get to work?
I work from a home office, but when I did go to an office I rode my bike or took public transportation. When I traveled out of town, I often took trains and buses — which often made me the butt of jokes among work associates.
What long and winding road led you to your current position?
In second grade I had a teacher that asked the basic question, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” I said I wanted to be a duck. She laughed and said, “You can’t be a duck. What else do you want to do?” After wiping away the tears, I said, “Well, then I’ll be the president.” From that point on I was interested in politics and elections, and very early on I got involved as a volunteer.
Be the bird.
Most campaigns are so hard up for help that they’ll take anyone who is willing to do anything. I was willing to do anything, and that willingness quickly landed me into paid positions or important volunteer roles. After a while I was able to leverage those roles and contacts into more work.
After a disappointing campaign season in 2000, I went off to fight forest fires in Montana. I heard about a position at the National Audubon Society and was lucky enough to score a job. Finally, I combined my love of the environment with my love of advocacy, education, and grassroots political activity. It was a real love affair. Ultimately I decided that bird watchers — an estimated 80 million of them here in the U.S. — could do more for the environment and for politics, and that led me to decide to start BirdPAC. A fellow Audubon public-policy employee and I synergized our energies, talents, and resources, quit our great jobs, and ran with it.
Where were you born? Where do you live now?
I was born in Indiana and live in Washington, D.C.
What has been the best moment in your professional life to date?
Realizing that I could combine what I cared about and what I was good at and still pay the rent.
What environmental offense has infuriated you the most?
General environmental cowardice, such as calling global warming a hoax and blocking debate. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and every other member of Congress who won’t have an open debate about the issue are cowards. Let’s get it all out there and have a good fight.
Who is your environmental hero?
Theodore Roosevelt.
What’s your environmental vice?
I love driving.
How do you spend your free time (if you have any)?
I spend as much time as I can sailing. I spend a fair amount of time coaching sailing and racing sailboats.
Read any good books lately?
I am reading a biography about each president — in order. I just read an interesting one about George Washington titled His Excellency.
What’s your favorite meal?
Breakfast. Corned beef hash, two eggs over medium, dry wheat toast, and regular old drip coffee.
Which stereotype about environmentalists most fits you?
I’m often unreasonable.
What’s your favorite place?
Chesapeake Bay.
If you could institute by fiat one environmental reform, what would it be?
Open-mindedness. I really think that is a reform. Closed thinking is why we are where we are with environmental issues, and we’re all guilty of it at some point. I really think we all have to open our ears and expand what we think is possible. The long-term solutions to our environmental concerns will require new thinking that we’ve yet to even dream of.
Who was your favorite musical artist when you were 18? How about now?
At 18, I am sure Bob Marley was my answer. Today, I’m into old Hank Williams Sr.
What’s your favorite TV show? Movie?
Marty Stouffer’s Wild America is my favorite show of all time, followed closely by Seinfeld. Buffalo ’66 is my favorite movie — but I am easy to please.
Which actor would play you in the story of your life?
The answer is always Leo, right?
If you could have every InterActivist reader do one thing, what would it be?
Get involved with a campaign — at any level. Make it clear that you are an environmentalist, work like hell, and never give up.
Where would you place the potential impacts of wind power on avian populations in the context of other threats? Do you think there is an opportunity for the avian and wind-power communities to work together? If so, what does that kind of alliance look like to you? – Cameron Brooks, Boulder, Colo.
Kristen Berry, BirdPAC.
Wind turbines are clearly a threat to birds and other species such as bats. Whether they are a bigger threat than house cats, cell towers, city building lights, or reflective windows is something I can’t answer with confidence. I do believe that some of the threat can be mitigated through thoughtful site selection.
Pitting the protection of any species against clean energy sources is something that concerns me. I cringe to see the environmental community argue with itself, and I think there are many opportunities for avian and wind-power communities to work together. In some cases they already have, by changing the shape of turbines, slowing blade speeds, picking appropriate places to locate wind farms, etc.
When it comes to lobbying and politics, what do you think are the most effective tactics to help save an imperiled species and its habitat? – Leigh Robertson, Ridgway, Colo.
I don’t believe in cookie-cutter approaches; I believe there needs to be a specific approach to protecting each individual species, habitat, and ecosystem. Strategically and tactically, I think we can best protect species by protecting and improving the habitats that support them. Politically, we can start demanding with our votes that candidates address the environment and conservation. Use real issues to help decide who is going to best protect the environment, and vote for that person. Forget party affiliation. Ask real and hard questions, vote the environment, and demand accountability.
As a movement we can build broader coalitions with unlikely partners. Think unions and Wal-Mart uniting for universal health care. These coalitions will make the environment harder to ignore and cause activists to develop creative and workable solutions to the most pressing problems.
In BirdPAC’s opinion, who should win the Democratic and Republican nominations for the presidential election of ’08? And of the two, who should (and who will?) win the grand prize? – Chip Weinert, Merlin, Ore.
Hmm. It’s a bit early for an endorsement. With Iraq and other security issues as big as they are, I don’t think we will get much play from the candidates on the sort of conservation issues I’d like to address. Yet I do think energy will play a key part in the 2008 election. I think the candidate who honestly addresses the real issues surrounding our energy needs and develops a Great Society-like program to deliver us to a better future will win — not necessarily because of the program, but because he or she is thinking big, speaking truth to power, and taking appropriate risks.
Why did you decide to start a new organization rather than join forces with an existing, powerful environmental group that works on elections, like the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, or Defenders of Wildlife? – Betsy Carlton, Seattle, Wash.
Simply put, we didn’t think that LCV, NRDC, or Defenders were directly addressing the concerns of the estimated 80 million bird watchers in the U.S. Other birding groups were reluctant to move into the “electioneering” arena, so we went for it.
LCV, NRDC, and Defenders are doing great work — bye bye, Mr. Pombo — but there are plenty of niches out there, and, in our opinion, plenty of contributors who wouldn’t give to LCV but would give to BirdPAC.
I think we have too many focused grassroots organizations. It creates fighting for the same funding, and grassroots organizations have goals that can adversely affect or not take into account the greater cause. Do you think BirdPAC is too focused? How do you think you can have a larger impact? – Spencer Rowe, St. George, Utah
I think the way people organize, activate, and form community is changing, and the environmental movement needs to change. I’d agree conceptually that in order to be most effective we shouldn’t divide our efforts. Yet, unlike a monolithic force, we must continue to engage new people in the cause of conservation. Finding new and creative ways to do that is important to the long-term viability of the movement.
As for BirdPAC’s focus, the answer is yes and no. (Remember I once aspired to be a politician.) I don’t think we are too focused, because I think we are attempting to bring together conservationists through a common thread — birds. There are approximately 80 million admitted bird watchers in the U.S., and 10 million bird hunters (yes, they are conservationists too). So our focus has a broad potential constituency.
Where we are too focused is that we’ve attempted to handicap candidates on birding issues alone. There are a handful of bird-specific bills that move every year, and we need to do a better job of judging candidates on a broader range of issues that impact bird species, access, and activities.
It is obvious we need to reduce per capita consumption of resources to save the planet from destruction. I see Americans who claim to care, but actions speak otherwise — they drive gas guzzlers, eat too much meat, and live in oversized homes with oversized appliances. How do we teach the public that the fate of the environment and the planet is literally in their hands? – Daniel Barker, Lakeland, Fla.
The man to answer that question is Rev. Billy Graham. We should take a page from evangelicals of all stripes. As I understand it, they have four pillars of the evangelical movement: conversion, the belief that lives need to be saved; activism, the expression of belief in action; Biblicism, a high regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
With this they’ve also built broad and disparate coalitions. Subsequently, black Baptists, Dutch Reformers, Mennonites, Pentecostals, Christian Charismatic, and Southern Baptists all show up at the same parties. And at these parties they change minds and votes and develop successful strategies that help them achieve success in their movements.
I see opportunity in this approach. We need to be shameless in our evangelism — that would be infective. We need to commit to converting the gas-guzzlers, be active, have high regard for science, and stress that the planet is in everyone’s hands.
I’m working to develop economic valuation of wetlands where I live, in terms of what they provide — water storage, flood mitigation, water purification, and wildlife habitat. I want to put a dollar figure on these services in contrast to the cost of building dams, dealing with flood damage, building water purification systems, and losing revenue from bird watching, hunting, etc., if wildlife is diminished. I would appreciate your thoughts on how to go about this and how to get the word out once we develop solid information. — Rio de la Vista, Alamosa, Colo.
Keep it up! I would suggest you develop a concise summary of what you want to do, and what your “success day” will look like — a business plan for the idea. Then shop it around to everyone who will listen and half the people that won’t.
Leveraging the resources of other organizations and interested parties will improve your access and distribution. For instance, cities and towns carry the costs of water treatment and are challenged by stormwater runoff systems. By sharing your data or even just your idea with local municipalities, you may gain the support of local elected officials who have access to, and credibility with, other elected officials. Moreover, they may be able to connect you to financial support or be able to help you broadly communicate your findings. Spread your wings by building coalitions of supporters. Feel free to for a more specific response.
