Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:43 am
   14 Nov 2007

   I knew it sounded too good to be trueI knew it sounded too good to be true...
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich
   Just remember, as Lakoff comments:
   
   They use Orwellian where they are weakest.

   Permalink

2. 

   Tim Hurst Posted 9:36 am
   14 Nov 2007

   I'm sure some of you have heard Newt's......1994 'Contract with America' for the 104th Congress jokingly referred to as the 'Contract on America.' Without having read the book (I've yet to decide if I will), I can only guess that this book may similarly be referred to as 'The Contract on the Earth'!!
   
   Timothy B. Hurst
   
   ecopolitology.blogspot.com

   Permalink

3. 

   Brudaimonia Posted 12:24 pm
   14 Nov 2007

   Democrats need to get greener or they will loseRepublicans may only seem to be getting greener while continuing to let the Earth burn, but in Washington, deceptive appearances are still gold.  Their Potemkin village of environmentalism is now a small town.  Newt's book is just one recent example.
   Democrats will jeopardize future chances of a majority in Congress if they don't respond to this greenwashing by getting greener in reality.  This means they need to remind a few anti-environmental committee chairs that it's not about them, it's about the future of the party. Much more importantly, it's about the future of the Earth.

   Permalink

4. 

   A Siegel Posted 1:09 pm
   14 Nov 2007

   Excellent discussion ...I refer to it as Contract on the Earth.  From my discussion of Andy Revkin's bad book reviews at the NYTimes (http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/no-wonder-peo ...):
   Newt Gingrich's Contract on the World is also filled with misleading truthiness. He decries the partisan nature of Washington, DC, yet cannot find a phrase to indicate that he might have had anything to do with that, in any way.  He decries the failure to use science in decisionmaking without mentioning his role in the dismantling of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the small group that provided non-partisan scientific advice to Congress.  Many of his thoughts and concepts are worth discussing but they are wrapped in a disingenuous way of discussing the world. A truthiness that obscures truth and fosters his arguments for an inevitably inadequate response to the challenges we face.
   
   Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

   Permalink

5. 

   hugopottisch Posted 2:53 am
   15 Nov 2007

   we need both sides to work together in this...I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this:
   And the enviro-left blows a gasket. It seems to me that if environmentalists actually care about the planet, they should be engaging in dialogue with those who want to do the same thing, even if they differ on policy. Here you have an impeccably credentialed conservative puling the GOP to a more eco-friendly position. And they can't hurl enough vitriol in his direction."
   
   
   Even E O Wilson has written the foreword and his does differ from Gingrich on oh so many political issues (religion for example and its implications).
   I believe that Republicans were right to block ethanol initiatives as ethanol is not sustainable and faces the same environmental constraints as growing feed for livestock. Greenpeace agrees with Gingrich and NOT with Joseph Romm on this?!!!
   That nuclear is not a solution most environmentalists agree. But then the author should criticize all the Democrats who are promoting it too..?? What is wrong with Joseph Romm? Hillary - Obama (who I support) - etc?
   If we has tackled livestock agriculture the way that Matthew Scully has suggested years ago - we would not have such a challenge that goes far beyond climate change! Scully was the Republican speech writer of George W Bush and has shown more environmental awareness years ago than even the Grist?
   The environment is too important to make a team sport out of it as Mr Joseph Room attempts. Please read E O Wilson's letter to a priest (Wilson himself is a humanists and as such an atheist). That is the way to do it if you really cared about nature?

   Permalink

6. 

   trock Posted 5:05 am
   15 Nov 2007

   gingrich says global warming is a problemThere are some things more important than just being able to criticize Gingrich for having a book that fails in it's prescription for dealing with global warming with bad technology and science; at least he came this far.  He may not have any good ideas on how to solve it, he may have had a history of doing everything against solutions, but if he agrees now that it is a problem, that's a start.  Maybe that is the only way to reach out to the conservative side.  Will something else work better?
   There is a saying about not chasing the perfect instead of the good.  This might be about settling for the bad instead of the worse.  Try to get conservatives to at least read this book that global warming is true.   Then work on them for methods that will actually work.

   Permalink

7. 

   stevenearlsalmony Posted 6:21 am
   15 Nov 2007

   A "primrose path" proposal from GingrichWhat we are getting in this book from Newt Gingrich, sad to say, is more of the same things we have been hearing from the talking heads in the mass media for more than 30 years.
   Over that period of time population biologists, ecologists and environmentalists have been trying to alert our political leaders to the potentially pernicious effects of global warming. In the face of these many entreaties, the managers of the global economy and their bought-and-paid-for politicians and minions media have resolutely assured us that we have nothing to worry about and, consequently, there is nothing for us to except continue to expand the global economy. Growing the global economy would resolve our problems. All would be well, they said adamantly and relentlessly.
   Now the same people who have been saying that we have nothing to worry about and, therefore, nothing to do because global warming is a hoax are now grudingly acknowledging that, yes indeed, we do have a BIG problem. Global warming is real. Global warming is not junk science. But guess what they are saying now. Here is what I am hearing: the challenges posed by global warming are now too big to address and, as a result, there is nothing for us to do except the obvious: accelerate economic globalization. Nothing else will do.  All will be well.
   As we proceed down this primrose path, we are told most assuredly to faithfully expect a "technolgical fix" for whatever ails us and for any and every disaster that could befall humanity later in Century XXI as the global economy expands beyond the point it can be sustained by the limited resources and frangible ecosystem services of Earth.
   So merrily, merrily we go, down the primrose path. Not to worry, Mr. Gingrich tells us. All will be well.
   We have been hearing from talking heads about this primrose path for most of my lifetime.
   Unforunately, for Newt and the rest of us, WHATSOEVER IS IS, IS IT NOT?

   Permalink

8. 

   hugopottisch Posted 7:13 am
   15 Nov 2007

   Trock and StevenI agree with both of you.
   I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed with Al Gore - who claims to be a true environmentalists - that he does not have his science in order. For example how many hundred pages can your write and how many thousand speeches and tips can you give for cutting pollution without ever mentioning livestock as being worse than all the car, planes and trucks combined?
   But in the end he has done good work to wake up the left and I hope that Gingrich does the same for the right. As Trock argued:
   Try to get conservatives to at least read this book that global warming is true. Then work on them for methods that will actually work.
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:11 pm
   15 Nov 2007

   finding our way to a good future for our kidsDear Hugo Pottisch,
   Thanks for your kind comments.  Al Gore is far from perfect, as you suggest.  Thankfully, he have in him one of our bravest and most honorable leaders, one who deserves our support and respect, I believe.
   It appears to me that most leaders in these days are not as courageous or honest as Al Gore. As examples, we know hundreds of leaders, often serving on multiple corporate executive committees and  boards of directors in interlocking organizations who exert extraordinary influence upon politicians and minions in the mass media through their billion dollar bank accounts. They oversee the growth of the world's national economies, pay little in taxes and direct the course of economic globalization. At least to me, these leaders appear to be leading humankind in a direction that could inadvertently result in us unintentionally subordinating the sacred of this world to the profane............ with potentially intolerable consequences for the future of life on Earth.
   At its current scale and anticipated rate of growth, the continuous expansion of the world economy we see today could be approaching a point in human history when unbridled production, unchecked per human consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers could overwhelm the limited natural resources and frangible ecosystem services of Earth, upon which life itself depends for its very existence.
   Is it not the circumstances of unrestrained, human-forced "overgrowth" activities worldwide that need to change? Perhaps leaders are now called upon to lead by reasonably and sensibly limiting the global growth of human numbers, per capita consumption and endlessly expanding production capabitities so that we find a balanced relationship with nature and, consequently, give this marvelous planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit the time it requires for self-renewal. In our time, people are dissipating resources much faster than Earth  can restore them for human benefit.
   On the other hand, we could choose to stay the current "business as usual" course by maximally increasing production and recklessly dissipating limited resources, thereby causing economic globalization to continuously grow to the point of its unsustainability. As we proceed along this path toward an unsustainable global economy, we will see how distinctly human over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities lead us to commandeer remaining original wildlife habitats, extirpate biodiversity, degrade fragile ecosystems and, very shortly, engulf the planet.
   Perhaps now is the time to openly discuss one topic: the maintenance of the integrity of Earth's ecosphere, its biodiversity and its natural resources. Let us speak with intellectual honesty and courage about good scientific data indicating that the current scale and rate of growth of seemingly endless economic expansion could become a patently unsustainable enterprise in this century.
   Until now, such discussions as this one could not be introduced, much less maintained, in the mass media. Now, thankfully, more and more people are following Al Gore's lead and speaking out loudly and clearly for good science, humanity and the preservation of the Earth, and being heard despite the deafening silence that has surrounded us until now.
   This is only a guess, but one day soon the word ECOLOGY will be spoken in mainstream, public discourse as freely, forcefully and often as the word ECONOMY. One day I believe many leaders among us will substitute the word ECOLOGY for the word ECONOMY in the following sentence.
   DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT HARMS THE WORLD'S_____ .
   Sincerely,
   Steve
   Steven Earl Salmony
   
   AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
   
   http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
   
   

   Permalink