Redstate

I look forward to hearing you as you speak at commencement.

One problem I see initially is your first point.

Green conservatism favors clean air and clean water.

While I'm sure you don't mean it, though who are on the fence and so used to getting beaten up are going to naturally react and suggest the implication hear is that "stand pat" Republicans oppose clean air and clean water.

So I don't have a knee-jerk hostility to conservatives advocating environmentalism.

But what I didn't see in your article was any suggestion of what problem do you believe you are solving- ie tell us, what are the consequences for us if we continue to be "stand-pat republicans"? Will Florida be underwater in 10 years (BS) or will the average temperature rise by 2 degrees over the next 150 years (who cares). Or is the benefit not at all to the environment, but as you allude to we could one day tell Saudi Arabia to go to take a hike (possibly reason enough in my view).

Many of us on the right are so numbed to enviro-hysteria that we dismiss it out of hand, and I at least would welcome hearing from someone with your background what you really believe would be the consequences.

The other thing that would be nice to hear is what you believe we have to achieve with carbon reduction to "solve" your assumed problem, and following that what we would actually have to do- ie the outcome of your carbon tax or whatever- to achieve the desired carbon reduction. For example, would we need to reduce auto emissions 10%, 20%, 30%? Or coal-fueled power generation? Or is it not so much about us cutting back, but to really solve the "problem" we would need to figure out how to clamp down on China/India/etc emissions that are ramping up through the roof while our own emissions, without needing your green conservatism, have been gradually plateauing as we transition to a service based economy?

In short, convince us there are real consequences to this "problem" and convince us that there are specific realistic things we could actually do to avoid the "problem."

...environmental awareness. I would call my family and I "green" if the word hadn't been co-opted by anti-capitalist nuts and government control freaks.

Granted, my reasons for being stingy with my personal use of energy are vastly different than the Gore groupies. I look at energy responsibility and independence as primarily a national security issue, with the environmental benefit being a nice bonus.

I salute you, Mr. Speaker, on presenting conservative solutions to an issue that we should have owned from day one.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

I was very impressed with your debate with Senator Kerry last week and thought it an important step in furthering the national dialogue. Thank you for taking the initiative in moving the debate past whether climate change is happening and onto the subject of what we can do about it. I appreciate your efforts and will continue to follow your developments.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

I have the greatest of respect for the work you have done while in congress. Its without false flattery that I say you are one of a very few speakers that has made a truly positive difference for the country.

Given your history I find it baffling that you are embracing the green movement. I understand your position that you can have green conservatism but that would have nothing to do with the current green movement. Greens are about controls mandates and top down decision making. Their philosophy is of wiser heads telling the rest of us how to live. The green philosophy is fundamentally totalitarianism tied to ecology. It is no different than any other form of totalitarianism we have seen over the years.

I am not saying the professed ideals of the greens are incompatible with conservatism. Conservatives above all else want this nation and its values to persist into the future. We can't very well have that without a livable environment. History however, has shown that the best way to improve the environment is to have economic growth and rising levels of wealth. If you look at the Brady photographs of the civil war, or the pictures of our cities from Bettman archive the contrast is telling. No one anymore, evacuates New York or Washington to avoid Cholera in the summers.

Conservatives have been achieving green Ideals. We do so in small sensible and economic steps all the time. Loggers replant where they cut, not from government mandate but out of economic reality. Automobiles solve public health problems created by horses, their environmental impact is also considerably less. Only wealthy societies can and will set aside land for parks. Central Park was created at about the time New York became the wealthiest city in the world. This is hardly coincidental.

As I said at the beginning I am a great admirer of yours, and its hardly my place to lecture, but government embrace of what is a dehumanizing movement can only bode ill.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Mr. Gingrich, I really want to thank you for this post. Conservatism is in fact deeply compatible with environmental protection, because it eschews waste, needless costs, and embraces profitability -- not just on economic grounds, but also based on a moral sense of being an admirable and respectable citizen.

I have a lot more to say about this post later, but I'd like to tell you that as a Republican with a Republican Conservative father who is also a member of the Board of Health in a town where our most important resource is a beautiful and pristine lake built by the Army Corps of Engineers, there is nothing more paramount to me than being an environmental leader and a responsible businessman -- as a Republican. And that means being a conscientious and proactive citizen in terms of the environment.

Here are a few pictures of the lake that I live adjacent to -- Hamilton Reservoir in Holland, Massachusetts. It's a beautiful place and as a Republican and a businessman I am committed to keeping it that way for people who want to enjoy it as much as I have, as long as it exists.

"Those who plant, preserve."

Your post is much appreciated - but isn't this just conservation, when it all boils down?

Well, I think this might be good politics, but I don't think it's based on sound science or sound moral thinking.

My complaints.

1. Maximum biodiversity.

What is the intellectual basis for this goal? What do you favor when "maximum" biodiversity conflicts with more immediate human needs of economic growth and development?

The main human-centric argument for biodiversity is that we can discover new drugs. But that goal can be accomplished by cataloging and keeping samples of any species at risk.

The left uses biodiversity "threats" as a means to slow or stop almost any new development.

I don't believe there is a strong intellectual basis for maximum biodiversity, esp. compared to other goals with real and immediate human benefits.

We have been able to feed the world using a tiny number of cereal crops. A "Maximum Biodiversity" approach to our crops would have led to mass starvation in the 20th century.

2. Environmental Health.

This is a meaningless concept. Please define how one actually measures this.

If you mean clean air and clean water, then say that. We all support that. Although even there the Greens use paranoia over trace chemicals to convince Americans that their air and water are dirty, when the truth is our air and water have never been cleaner.

The environment is not an organism. It can't live and die. It can't get "sick". You can't "hurt" the Earth. The concept has no meaning.

The environment can be more or less beneficial to human beings -- our growth, our health, our standard of living.

Environmental concerns should be dealt with at a human-centric, humanist level.

....

The Greens want to elevate their new religion to the level of state-sponsored religion. Even though it might be popular, they are wrong and Republicans shouldn't help them.

We should support environmental laws that produce positive benefits to human-beings. These benefits need to be proven through sound science and cost-benefit analysis.

Simply asserting that we have a duty to protect a vague, undefined concept like Environmental Health is dangerous.

...

Again, I think this might be wise politics. The Greens are very popular these days. But as we've seen in the past with Green issues like DDT bans (which led to more malaria deaths in Africa), there can be hugely negative results from acting on the basis of religious or ideological purity, and not on a science-based, economically-sound, human-centric basis.

...

I've been a big fan of Gingrich for years. So I'm very disappointed in reading this. I do prefer his approach to the even worse command and control Democrat approach. But the real problems are the anti-human goals, more so than the means of achieving those goals.

Green Conservatism absolutely must be based on sound scientific principles rather than hype, hysteria, emotion or a socialist agenda. The left shoves so many things down our throat without first validating them scientifically because they are a vehicle for them to gain power. Also there should be an appeal to encouraging morality in America so as to cause people to choose the right thing. After all, who would not want clean air, soil and water for our children and grandchildren? Only a wretch. The liberals do have a point when they consider care for the environment to be a moral issue. The problem is that they have abandoned other aspects of what we might call traditional morality and replaced it with their "new morality". In truth, you can't foster new morality without also embracing traditional morality. In embracing a false notion of separation of church and state, the government works against people believing in God. Until this issue is addressed it will be difficult to see a change in peoples values. A Green Conservatism is just a piece of a much larger puzzle.

Conservatives just don't subscribe to the left's anti-capitalism anti-freedom extremism.

Take global warming, why is it assumed man causes it when the simple answer is the sun is causing it -- As well as the warming of other planets and moons in our solar system. Does that make me want the air to look like it does in China? No way. But I believe in science and facts not emotional irrational appeals to sacrifice for a nothing.

If you really thought that global warming was caused by man, you would be launching a huge International campaign to tackle the MASSIVE problem of agricultural fires set by man world wide. These fires cover countries, in many cases more than one, with huge clouds of particle and gaseous emmisions, dwarfing what is given off by any forest fire. These MASSIVE agricultural fires, visible on MODIS satellite images, would surly draw your attention. Fixing would be simple and not cost 100s of billions of dollars.

I live an the bank of a bay and am concerned as anyone with issues of pollution, water quality and air quality. But I am also an engineer and understand the appropriate use of trade-offs.

I applaud your efforts Newt, lets just keep it real, based on real science and leave the emotions and bunk to the the Goracle and the left.

I mean, maybe there is someone somewhere who values their factory more than having clean water right next door, but its kind of a given.

Secondly, while being a green conservative sounds politicaly charming (sort of like being a compassionate conservative), how does this apply to global warming which you seemed to acknowledge in your discussion the other day with Senator Kerry.

Thirdly, I like that you are engaging in discussions about important issues. It is a different approach and a good one. I don't know that it will help you become president if that is your long term goal, but it is a helpful approach.

Fourthly, if you're looking for suggestions, how about nuclear power plants which will reduce the carbon footprint of blah blah blah.

Fifthly, I think having a "home grown" only strategy is a good national security feature. It would keep us out of some places (like Iraq) and it would prevent those types of countries from joining in if we ever have to fight a real war (like with China).

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

Green Conservatism = replacing all of our non-nuclear power plants with nuclear power plants.

What it does not = is buying into Global Warming garbage. Carbon is a lagging indicator, not a leading instigator of global temperature spikes.

Overall, what I hear when you speak in general, it is with a tenor of reasonableness and therefore will continue to listen. My primary hope is that you end up somewhere on the 2008 ticket in order to help rebuild a strong Republican presence and proliferation of creative, wise problem solving.

With respect to environmental issues, those who are labeled herein as “stand pat” Republicans are a somewhat more variegated group. However, I would envision some slightly different explanation for that mindset. Indeed, they have been conditioned by the political tenor of debate which uses ideology and parochial gain to supplant reasonable discussion and policy. However, in deference, they listen to the environmental debate desperately hoping the posture will change; something which has not occurred. As seen in the global warming debate, it appears to have actually become more politically motivated. That is not only distressing but disappointing, especially in today’s political environment. There is only a finite amount of energy one can devote to the political spectrum. Therefore environmental issues seldom become part of the discussion portfolio; something I would agree is substantially unfortunate. We therefore agree to disagree, remaining resolute in opposing positions and categorical characterizations.

A perfect example is our Presidents efforts to reduce oil dependence and promote alternatives. The response from Democrats is not only disappointing but deliberately superficial and critical. This should indeed be something we can all agree on; the question becomes the cost, compliance and reasonable commencement.

It is also wise to truly use economic leverage on foreign countries that want to participate in our markets to be held to identical standards. We struggle to compete as businesses are constantly challenged with new regulations and a legal environment that can put a company out of business overnight. Many foreign countries selling in this market are faced with far less encumbrances. It is time to demand thoughtful commencement of all the factors which make true free trade possible. If this is done in a reasonable, even handed manner, one can envision reasonable discussion and adoption.

It appears that “Green Conservatism” has in some ways touched on many of these values. I look forward to the discussion as it not only change the debate, work for a common good and protect our future; it will also change the fallacious characterization promoted in political circles that Republicans are anti environment.

In the words of Thoreau, I would say "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." Who better to build that foundation then conservatives?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

See the Academy

Wow, whoever thought we'd all be blogging with a former Speaker of the House and former U.S. Senator, both of whom may one day be presidential candidates? What a great opportunity for us and for them.

Mr. Speaker, I think you're right on the money with your vision for green conservatism. I left the Democratic Party and became a Republican in February after growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way my party was already abusing its governing power, and part of the reason I left was because of Hillary Clinton's outrageous statement that she would take oil company profits and put those profits into alternative energy.

Even then, while still a Democrat, I argued that it would be far better to provide tax incentives for businesses to invest in alternative energy than to punish those who currently do not with heavy taxes and then to redistribute their wealth to alternative energy. I said then and still believe that such a move would only hurt the American economy while enabling the fledgling alternative energy industry to avoid competing in a free market. If the alternative energy industry doesn't learn to compete in a free market and is completely subsidized by big government, then in the long run it won't succeed; but if government helps it take off and encourages it to compete in a free market, we can look for the alternative energy industry to thrive in the future.

I think it would be far better for conservatives to articulate the kind of green conservatism you're talking about rather than simply arguing against the "environmentalism" of the Left. Yes, it's true that the Left's "environmentalism" is really just a disguise for radical socialism, and we do need to point that out to people. But we also need to remind people that we care about the environment too, and that our party has led an authentic environmental movement in the past and is ready to do so again without hurting the American economy. Now as in 1994, we need to articulate our own ideas for America's future and not just argue against our opponents' ideas. And if we're successful and regain our governing power, we need to follow through with these ideas. If the American people give us a mandate like they did in 1994, we need to use it this time even more effectively than we did last time.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

Respectfully, it's a nonstarter for me. I too am baffled as
to what the motives are here.

If the goal is ".. more biodiversity with less pollution
and a safer planet." then you need to be talking to
CHINA and INDIA. We are on the verge of becoming a bit
player in any carbon or biodiversity or pollution drama.
This year CHINA surpasses the United States in carbon
missions.

All I can see from where I'm sitting is you dividing
Republicans into two halves, the "Stand pat" Republicans and
the new Green Republicans. Dividing the Republicans against
themselves does not sound like a winning strategy unless
you can recruit from Left.

If you are looking for well thought out and challenging input to your ideas, you have come to the right place, as evidenced by some of the comments above.

I work in the environmental field as an enforcement officer, so I see first hand the impact that policies developed by bureaucrats in a windowless office have on businesses that have to operate in the real world. Therefore, I appreciate your stress on environmental policies that are based on market pricniples and provide incentives rather than promises of more fines and paperwork for businesses. That said, I have a few criticisms of your principles of green conservatism. I'll take them one by one.

1. Green conservatism favors clean air and clean water. So does Conservatism.

2. Green conservatism favors maximum biodiversity as a positive good. Disagree. All life is a competition for scarce resources. Where "biodiversity" comes into conflict with development for those resources, there are times when it should win out and times when it should not. This statement is too borad.

3. Green conservatism favors minimizing carbon loading in the atmosphere as a positive public value. Why? I and many other conservatives are skeptical of the global warming consensus that says man's activities are responsible for warming the planet. You seem to be buying into the argument advanced by the left with this statement. In so doing, you put your movement in conflict with your #4 below. Show us conservatives sound science proving that carbon is a direct cause for global warming, if that's happening, and then we can begin to talk.

4. Green conservatism is pro-science, pro-technology, and pro-innovation. So is Conservatism.

5. Green conservatism believes that green prosperity and green development are integral to the successful future of the human race. In the sense that we should be good stewards of God's Creation, I agree.

6. Green conservatism believes that economic growth and environmental health are compatible in both the developed and developing world. This does not go far enough. Conservatves, green or not, believe that environmental health flows from economic growth. Wealthier societies tend to be cleaner ones. Tackling environmental health issues in develpoing countries is as much about fostering opportunities for enconomic growth and prosperity as it is about addressing specific pollution problems.

7. Green conservatism believes that we can realize more positive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than is possible from litigation and regulation. How does government shift market behavior? With regulations? If so, then I would disagree with this as well. If there is a market for realizing positive environmental outcomes, it will develop in and of itself. If there isn't, no amount of government regulation can create one.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatism as it is is compatible with improving environmental health. Slapping the label "green" on it only works to justify liberal and leftist charges that conservatives want to pollute and poison people to death in pursuit of the almighty last dollar. Change the focus of your talk from developing a new, modified, Green conservatism to pointing out how Conservatism itself is already green.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

I recently attended a state College Republican conference where a notable member of the Republican party discussed potential '08 presidential candidates. During his speech, and when I spoke with him afterwards, he stated Newt Gingrich made a "huge mistake" by saying global warming was caused by humans to earn points among the moderates, but would kill him in the primaries. His reasoning was that Republicans must present a united front against all messages from the environmentalists, because the environmental movement came about through anti-capitalism motives, and that he would now be used for propaganda by the liberals hurting his ability to gain the support of the GOP.

While I would hope that being a Republican does not mean refusing to listen to information, the more I thought about this analysis, the more I had to recognize this was a serious problem. I study oceanography and feel there are many things occuring in our environment today that may or may not be explained by global warming through our actions directly or through natural phenomena. However, it seems reasonable to say that putting the amount of pollutants into the air that we do today would have an effect on the environment as well as human health. I don't think any of us would want to be breathing air captured from the smokestack of a factory for one minute or not recognize the haze produced over large cities and associated risks of asthma. We should be able to agree that lessening the detrimental effects we have on the environment as well as ourselves is something we should strive for, especially through incentives that would help industry do what needs to be done while prospering.

The statement raised by the speaker I mentioned earlier, however, should not be ignored. I hope you address the sentiment that the war of politics means never recognizing a good point made by the other side. The same logic could be used for every topic of any importance, and this attitude that there can be no compromise would only serve to harm our country, or at best, allow it to continue to stagnate.

blikki1

I'm sorry Newt... I like you, but you're off base here. When I heard that you had a 'debate' with John Kerry in which you endorsed his book on Global Warming and made the statement that it is a consensus that Global Warming is man-made, my jaw dropped. I agree that we should care for the environment. However, the main problem comes in junk science like in the Global Warming debate. Yes we should do what we can to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and I am in favor of coming up with ways to heat buildings and power cars and all of that without using gas. It would be good for the economy and for the environment. However, when you endorse the claims of the left that the earth is warming because of human activity in spite of overwhelming evidence that the earth is going through its normal warming and cooling cycles that have existed since the beginning of time... you are simply giving credibility to the left's argument when they decide to push for more government programs. There is no real scientific evidence that global warming is man made. I have no problem with people researching this further as long as the research is non-biased and there is no incentive for these people to comeup with an affirmative conclusion. The problem I have is the climatologists who stand to make a lot of money if they push this along as if it is a scientific fact by receiving grant money and research money and even jobs by the government. Ultimately the market will push for changes. I would like to see a strong statement by yourself in opposition to Kyoto and any government intervention here. Do we really need to completely kill the U.S. economy based on an unproven and unlikely theory? I would also like for you to bring up to the people on the left who have been upset about jobs leaving the U.S. and going to India and China how much worse it is going to get if the left has their way with regulations. If they have their way, the U.S. will handcuff businesses. What will happen to these businesses? They'll be moving to India and China where they don't have to deal with this stuff.

Dear Mr. Speaker,

After reading your post calling for "Green Conservatism," which I might point out is an oxymoron, I'm reminded of two quotes by William F. Buckley, Jr.

The first is, "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."

And the second is, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."

I simply disagree with your premise. And if I disagree does that mean I want polluted air and dirty water?

Here is my question for you, Mr. Speaker: How do I get enthused about something, that in my gut, I believe to be a hoax? Call me a "denier," part of "The “Stand Pat” Republicans," that "reflexively ignore or deny environmental challenges," or any other pejorative you'd like, but that doesn't make me any more enthusiastic about embracing the manufactured climate crisis called "Global Warming."

Not even if you change its name to "Green Conservatism."

I'm sorry I'm not more help, Mr. Speaker. I just don't find it too appealing abandoning my principles no matter what political gains may come as a result. Especially when I know I'm on the right side of the issue.

The goal isn't to out green the greenies. The goal is to have truth on your side and convince the rest of the people to see things your way.

Seems to me that any post by a former Speaker of the House and potential presidential candidate merits top attention for at least a little while.
Thanks.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

is plausible but I do know that we need to consider his theme carefully.

I live in a rural county in Western Maryland. Strong Republican territory. But we are being killed locally in my county and across the river in Loudoun County, VA, by Dems on the issue of land use, development, and transportation.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling