Newt Gingrich = Al Gore?

The Washington Post reports that the big knock-down drag-out global climate change debate between Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich turned into a mutual lovefest.

Kerry had planned to denounce Gingrich as "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers" but Gingrich preempted him by admitting the man-made climate change is real and that "we should address it very actively."

The greening of Newt (an undeclared Republican presidential hopeful) is just more evidence that climate change will be one of the big issues during the 2008 campaign. Every politician will have to declare that something must be done about climate change and soon. But will they actually come out and advocate policies like raising the price of gasoline to $6 per gallon and boosting electricity rates by 25 percent? Perhaps most interestingly, how will the Democrats satisfy both their union and environmentalist wings? Greens want to cut the CO2 emissions that fuel heavily unionized industries such as automaking and coal mining.

Whole WaPo article here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I always thought politicians were whores. Nothing surprising here...

  • ||

    It's likely been said here before, but it's unfare to denegrate whores by associating them with politicians that way. Whores, after all, provide a useful service.

  • ||

    What's the point of asking whether politicians are going to phrase their policy proposals in a manner that highlights their costs rather than their purpose and benefits?

  • ||

    What's the point of asking whether politicians are going to phrase their policy proposals in a manner that highlights their costs rather than their purpose and benefits?

    The point is to kill black babies and turn America into a fascist theocracy, joe. Duh!

  • ||

    Because, joe, if you have skillful political opposition, they'll be sure to portray the costs in the most damaging light, and if you've never mentioned costs, their portrayal carries the day. Much like a top-flight salesperson removes objections to the sale before they arise, a top flight politician anticipates his opposition's rhetoric before it is uttered, and defuses it ahead of time. The percentage of top flight politicians, however, is even lower than the percentage of top flight salespersons. It really is an exceedingly rare skill, certainly not one that either Kerrey or Gingrich has.

  • David Ross||

    So, upper middle class Democrats get to buy indulgences - er, offsets - and will even kick in some cash to help out those po' fo'ks who vote Democrats.

    Every one else has to pay a poll tax - ahem, carbon usage fee.

    Say what you like about Jim Crow, at least they were honest enough about it to say "fuck you, we're bigots" rather than "we do it because we CARE!"

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    One of the big issues ? I doubt it. More the sort of issue about which every candidate will have to issue some sort of perfunctory statement decrying global warming and promising responsible action. Nothing more than that, though.

    Oh, and aside from those who have already declared, isn't every living Republican at this point "an undeclared Republican presidential hopeful"?

    Disclaimer: I was once at a party with Newt Gingrich many years ago. So, come to think of it, was Mr. Bailey. None of us discussed global warming, however, even though it was very hot that night.

  • ||

    I'll note agin, probably in a tiresomely repetitive way, that those of us who prefer consumption taxes to the current tax code, have an opportunity here. If those most alarmed by human caused global warming truly believe their own rhetoric, they should be willing to transfer the tax burden to emitted CO2, via a Constitutional Amendment which explicitly overturns the current income and payroll tax system, thus preventing an emitted CO2 tax from simply being added to the current tax code. If nothing else, we'd find out quickly if these folks actually believe the stakes are as high as they claim, which could have some entertainment value, if nothing else.

  • ||

    Anybody else notice the atrocious CNN headline for this story?

    "Gingrich vs. Kerry: Shoot-out at the climate change corral."

  • ||

    Raise electricity prices 25%? I wish. Some people in Illinois have had their prices raised 150% because the state "deregulated" the power market.

  • ||

    I would have expected Kerry and Gingrich to be on the same sheet.

    Don't recall Gingrich working with "free-market environmentalists" during his Speaker days. And don't recall that he got involved with global warming issues. He may have attacked EPA for being overly bureaucratic and wanted more "incentives" rather than command-and-control, but I would have put him squarely in the "smart government can improve the environment" rhetorical rather than action camp.

    I'd like to note also that Gingrich has had a long-time friendship/collaboration with conservationist Dr. Terry Maple, the head of the Atlanta Zoo, and supported the Sierra Club. He and Maple have a new environmental book coming out -- A Contract with the Earth-- in November.

  • ||

    Loundry,

    "The point is to kill black babies and turn America into a fascist theocracy, joe. Duh!" That's funny, I didn't realize this thread was about DDT and Muslims.

    David Ross,

    I'm pretty sure that no one is proposing to make the carbon tax portion of electrical bills voluntary for rich people. You seem to have scrambled two or more talking points.

  • ||

    So the terrorists want us to go back to the 5th centery and the socialists, I mean Greens, will surely get us there.

  • ||

    Will Allen:

    What the heck makes you think environmentalists want to replace as opposed to augment the income tax with a carbon tax?

  • ||

    So what do Libertarians suggest doing about global warming? Aside from what I've seen so far, which is to put your heads under pillows and deny it's happening at all.

    Look. It's April. I'm in Chicago and I have SNOW falling outside right now. This is NOT NORMAL. And yes, this sort of further-extremes-in-temperature-fluctuations IS considered part of global warming, so don't try to use it as "proof" that global warming isn't happening, ok?

    I get the feeling that most libertarians aren't going to admit the existence of global warming until Houston is under wateer.

  • ||

    I'd like nothing to be done so that I won't have to drive so far to go fishing. And Bill Gray said weather extremes weren't caused by AGW just the other day.

  • BM||

    I love how the global warming mongers have framed the discussion such that no matter what kind of weather there is outside thier window, it is proof of global warming.

  • ||

    So what do Libertarians suggest doing about global warming?

    Redirect our investments to take advantage of it?

  • ||

    Oh, and grumpy. Get it right. Nearly everyone agrees that we are in a warming trend right now (and hardly the first one the planet has experienced).

    What some of us are skeptical about is that mankind is (a) causing or (b) can stop through government action, said warming trend.

  • BM||

    Snow in Chicago? Global Warming (GW)
    Too cold? GW
    Too hot? GW
    Raining? GW
    Arid? GW
    It sure is foggy 'round these parts. GW
    Got some pollen? GW
    No honeybees? GW
    Too many spiders? GW
    Hey, what about that cute little polar bear in Germany? GW

  • ||

    Did the WaPo already forget that before he became party whip in '89, Gingrich was consistently highly rated by environmental causes? He wasn't just the greenest Republican (akin to being the tallest midget), he was a genuine ecology advocate. Upon attaining a leadership position, he abandoned those principles and began tossing back the party kool-aid.

  • ||

    http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950303/03030010.htm:

    Gingrich, speaker of the House of Representatives, belonged to the national nonprofit [Sierra Club] of more than a half-million members from 1984 to 1990 and was endorsed by it in 1988. Till Gingrich became minority whip in 1989, the League of Conservation Voters generally rated his environmental support at a moderately favorable 50 percent to 60 percent, compared with a highly unfavorable zero to 10 percent from then on.



    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n43_v11/ai_17626420:

    In the 1970s he taught environmental studies and called a popular local manufacturer a polluter; until 1990 he was a member of the Sierra Club. In 1991, he suggested that his political party "develop a strategy to become the recycling party." In February of this year, he told an audience at the National Environmental Policy Institute that he is "very much in favor of the environment."



  • ||

    I get the feeling that most libertarians aren't going to admit the existence of global warming until Houston is under wateer.



    You pretty much have to result to "Al Gore on a bender" sea-level rise scenarios for Houston to get inundated.

    What gets me is that I'm a GW-accepter, but GW evangelists aren't generally worth listening to. The latest IPCC reports come out, and the evangelists are all "in your FACE man, read the truth!" ...but once people start going, "OK, I buy it," the evangelists rush to say, "Uh, yeah, but that's actually not the truth, it's full of absurdly conservative scenarios because of the Man, and the truth's really much, much worse!"

  • ||

    Typo - that should start with, "You pretty much have to resort to"

  • ||

    In February of this year, he told an audience at the National Environmental Policy Institute that he is "very much in favor of the environment."

    Classic Newt.

  • ||

    Simple question: what's wrong with global warming? Seems like a good thing to me. Or to put it another way: wouldn't it be much more worrisome if temperatures were falling?

  • Friends of GW||

    One of the interesting features of GW is those who are trying to tack their own pet issues onto the wave, as well as the SomewhatSoviet way they're doing things. Details at my link.

    Meanwhile, JimGillespie has more on how libertarians should approach this issue here.

  • ||

    Oh, Eric, I have my doubts, which is why I'd only enter into discussion of the topic in the context of a Constitutional Amendment which explicitly did away with payroll and income taxes, and supplanting them with consumption taxes focused on emitted CO2. Absent a Prohibition-style disaster, getting an Amendment repealed is pretty damned unlikely. Anyways, once the global warming alarmists state their unwillingness to reduce carbon consumption through this avenue, it would be at least more obvious that they didn't believe their own rhetoric.

  • ||

    "Chicago's heaviest April snowstorm: 10.7 inches on April 1-2, 1970. In 117 Aprils (1886-2002), Chicago has experienced seven storms that delivered 5.0 inches or more of snow"

    "Chicago's late-April snow: Although rare, late-April snow does occur in Chicago. At this time in 1910, intermittent snow over a 5-day period brought 6.4 inches of snow to the city. Chicago's daily snowfall totals April 22-26, 1910: 0.1", 2.1", 0.9", 2.5", 0.8"."

  • ||

    That's funny, I didn't realize this thread was about DDT and Muslims.

    It isn't about those things.

    This thread, like all threads, is about how the evil NeoCon Pig Bush wants to turn the United States into a fascist theocracy. I thought you would know that by now. Aren't you aware that there's an illegal war going on?

  • ||

    Umbriel: you're right. My apologies to all the hardworking whores out there, never again shall I demean them by comparing them to a politician.

  • ||

    The greening of Newt (an undeclared Republican presidential hopeful) is just more evidence that climate change will be one of the big issues during the 2008 campaign. Every politician will have to declare that something must be done about climate change and soon.

    Indeed. Let the rent-seeking begin, the validity of human-generated climate change (man is omnipotent, all of a sudden) notwithstanding.

  • SIV||

    The Dems ought to run with this
    kind of like the draft that comes up every election -say the REPUBLICANS want a draconian tax on gas and electricity to stick it to the "working families"
    Hell maybe Newt can deliver the South to the Democrat Party

  • ||

    I'll note agin, probably in a tiresomely repetitive way, that those of us who prefer consumption taxes to the current tax code, have an opportunity here.

    You sadly underestimate your greatest foe: the IRS.


    Hey Grump, get real. Snow in April isn't that uncommon in Chicago. If that's all it takes to get your panties wadded up....then you aren't living up to your namesake.

  • ||

    "I get the feeling that most libertarians aren't going to admit the existence of global warming until Houston is under wateer."

    Sounds grumpy to me, but not realistic, Grumpy Ralist.

  • ||

    "Chicago's heaviest April snowstorm: 10.7 inches on April 1-2, 1970. In 117 Aprils (1886-2002), Chicago has experienced seven storms that delivered 5.0 inches or more of snow"

    I remember a heavy snow in Tulsa in April in the late 60's, so this is nothing new.

  • ||

    grumpy realist,

    There is no libertarian answer. Libertarian ideology is adamantly opposed to any and all government regulation of big business or the economy. In this way of viewing the world, a factory owners' right to pollute as much as he wants comes before, say, a little girl's right to breathe. Since introducing a regulation or gov't intervention would tantamount to the worst sin in libertarian theology, the fact is there is no libertarian answer.

    There's only two responses. The first would be to accept global warming (and not blindly believe all the best scientists in the world and all the science journals are involved in a massive conspiracy), and either admit it's a problem the free market can't solve, or else simply state that we shouldn't do anything even if it means lots of people will die. Some people might actually believe this, I read somewhere someone saying we shouldn't worry about "future generations" and should use up as much as we can now. The second is to just pretend it isn't happening, and to disparage scientists and engage in conspiracy theories. Since obviously the first response isn't popular, libertarian publicans tend to do the latter.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement