I’ve been thinking for a while about how to respond to this interview with Newt Gingrich, but to be honest, Gingrich’s sociopathic dishonesty fills me with such revulsion that I am rendered inarticulate. I guess that makes me a failure as a blogger.
The one thing I’d say is: the move here is to jump from oil shale and coal and other carbon-intensive fuels to “reducing the carbon loading of the atmosphere” via frenzied handwaving at technology. It is, quite literally, hope as a strategy.
Okay, two things. The big innovation here for conservatives is, as Gingrich says flat out, to abandon any rhetorical fealty to laissez faire economics. Not in favor of regulation, mind you—he explicitly renounces regulation or anything mandatory—but in favor of “incentives,” i.e., pork. The right has long been pro-business rather than pro-market; Gingrich’s brilliant breakthrough is just to brazenly embrace that position.
So that’s the fancy new green conservatism: hand out public money to powerful energy corporations and hope for the best. You comfortable betting the future of the planet on that strategy?
GOP Sen. Bond thinks climate policy is just too confusing
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 4:40 am
23 Dec 2008
I would love to know what his goal is
He says things that are clearly bogus to anyone who's in the energy industry, but sound smart to people who aren't. But it begs the question of whether people who aren't in the industry are really galvanized by a bunch of wonkery around drilling policy. Is he running for office? Does he believe his own BS? Or does he simply want to be recognized as a smart dude by people who aren't smart enough to know better? What's the motive? I'm perplexed.
Permalink
hapa Posted 5:01 am
23 Dec 2008
correction
the newt talks about "minimizing the carbon loading of the atmosphere." it's much too early yet to talk about cuts isn't it.
Permalink
EnviroFan Posted 5:16 am
23 Dec 2008
Glad he's paying attention
Nice to know that he's ignoring the international research on what's working and most cost-effective to "minimize" carbon; if Newt looked at the UK's own analysis of what policy instruments were more cost-effective, it'd be readily apparent that regulation was far more effective than subsidies.
Let's make this place better.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:26 am
23 Dec 2008
Going nuclear and clean coal
And vast new deposits of oil and gas. Ethanol, and even some renewables amd conservation, and BEVs like the Tesla. That's pretty much what Newt wants subsidized?
I would bet he just wants tax breaks, further corporate welfare for the oil, nuclear, and coal industries, that's what he means by incentives.
This green conservatism, does it reward actual generation and savings of GHG-free kwhs? Nope. But it opposes cap and trade, permit auctions, or carbon taxes.
The populist line on cap and trade. How did he coopt that? Many progressives are calling hedge fund foul on cap and trade. A "derivative" bubble ready to inflate and burst.
I thought corporatists were all for cap and trade, as it proved in Europe to be a green wash. Maybe Newt will "compromise" on cap and trade to get his corporate incentives pushed through? I'm sensing a big energy lobbyist strategery of misdirection here.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 8:33 am
23 Dec 2008
Somebody send me his book
or better yet, somebody send it to Sean. Let's get a review.
Listening to a talking head blather, especially this one, just is not my cup of tea--as if I have not said that before.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink