In my experience, environmentalists are … uh, how to put this delicately … not very politically pragmatic. So, here’s a thought experiment.

Imagine that, for whatever reason, the Republicans’ current effort to drill in the Arctic Refuge was defeated, and the Refuge was taken off the table.

Now imagine, further, that Bush and the Republicans approached the major environmental organizations and their backers in Congress and offered a deal. They said, for instance, “if you let us get drills into ANWR, we’ll sign onto Kyoto.”

Would you do it?

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

What would you take in exchange for drilling in the Refuge? Click “read more” and vote in the poll.(Disclaimer: Of course this isn’t realistic. The Republicans are not inclined to compromise, because they hold all the levers of power. But there’s every reason to believe that power will move closer to parity eventually. At some point, there are likely going to be deals to be made. It’s time enviros gave up the notion that their every goal is an absolute moral imperative and started thinking about their relative worth, what’s important and what isn’t, what can be compromised on and what can’t. This is just a prod to get that sort of thinking started.)

Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.