(FORTUNE Magazine) – Politics is storytelling, and Democrats are the bards of environmentalism. They've convinced lots of people that Bush would replace the Washington Monument with an oil derrick for the sake of big business. This perception is a serious problem, because the most ecologically sensitive citizens tend to be the swing voters who decide elections (read: middle-income women and suburbanites with children). Bush's electoral--and legislative--prospects turn on whether he can concoct a compelling rebuttal. Northeastern Republicans, whose votes are pivotal, have been pressuring the Administration to get greener.

Bush won't have an easy time with the makeover. Bill Clinton left land mines--lowering the limits for arsenic in drinking water and banning road-building on millions of acres of wilderness--that the new President has had to handle. These standards are tougher than Clinton was willing to set during his term, yet Bush is virtually guaranteed to be marked an eco-infidel if he tampers with them. And he has stepped right into several of these traps. He came to town without a plan to curtail pollution and compounded the situation by reversing a campaign pledge to trim carbon dioxide emissions. Clever critics then turned such alleged enviro-pillaging into a broader tale of corporate sycophancy. Bush the Conciliator was transformed into Bush the Barbarian.

First impressions about Presidents last, especially when they fit a set of facts voters are used to hearing. Bush is a former oilman; his Administration is layered with other ex-oilmen--Vice President Dick Cheney and Commerce Secretary Don Evans, to name just two. The President may have erred in rejecting curbs on carbon dioxide emissions and by pressing to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He also shouldn't have taken arsenic-in-drinking-water standards so lightly or shunned the Kyoto global-warming treaty so blithely. (For another view on Kyoto, see "Kyoto is Bush-Whacked; That's Okay.") What's more, Bush is about to face a severe energy gap that will cause shortages in California and higher prices everywhere. He can't fix those without calling for more drilling and looser rules, which will rile environmental groups.

So, short of hugging trees, what can Bush do? White House aides say his forthcoming energy proposal will surprise many by embracing conservation. It will also encourage the use of environmentally friendly technologies, such as "clean" coal, and will back off his most notorious anti-environmental notions, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and, maybe, off Florida.

Bush also will argue that he's been unfairly attacked. He says that the critics have overlooked much of his record. He backed the removal of pollutants from diesel fuel, required companies to report how much lead they release into the air, made it harder to build on fragile wetlands, and supported a treaty that banned a dozen harmful chemicals. He also wants to increase funding for clean air and water and to better maintain the national parks. Even on arsenic, Bush has delayed--not blocked--tighter standards.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush I made similar early missteps on the environment, but when they saw the fierce, bipartisan reaction, they changed their stories. George Bush II is in the process of changing his, and his top political strategist, Karl Rove, says, "It's premature to think the American people have formed a conclusive opinion about this." Bush will likely write a happier ending to this environmental narrative than his critics have in mind.