NPR has a story entitled Gingrich Touts Conservative Take on Conservation. I'm not the biggest fan of Newt Gingrich's personal life (not that he's staying awake at nights worrying about my opinion), but I admire the way that he seeks conservative solutions for the problems that liberals identify. Indeed, one must admit that liberals point out some real problems, such as pollution and the costliness of health care and higher education, but their proposed solutions often involve higher taxes, more government spending, and inefficient bureaucracy. Newt looks to tax credits, competition, and the free market as more effective answers.
According to Gingrich, the environmental movement has turned many conservatives off from caring about the environment. He states that, starting in the 1980's, "the leading environmental groups on the left — particularly the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters — began to equate the environment with litigation, regulation, taxation, [and] bureaucracy[,] and you were either for their solution or you were against the environment." For Gingrich, the result of liberal "solutions" was harm to the economy. As an alternative, Gingrich proposes (in NPR's words) a "science-and-technology-based, entrepreneurial, free-market approach that incentivizes the development of new systems and new technologies that can lead you to a better environment."
I identify with what Gingrich is saying. I personally want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, but I cringe when liberals appeal to environmental problems as a justification for socialism. My mom and grandma owned a health food store, whose previous owner was a John Bircher. I want to reconcile environmentalism with small government conservatism (or, better yet, libertarianism).
I have two points to make, both of which are variations of the same point. I have not read Gingrich's book, but what I saw in the NPR story is really not original. First of all, Al Gore frequently said that the environment and the economy do not have to conflict, and he promoted incentives for environmental-friendly technology (see Al Gore on the Environment). His difference from Gingrich is probably that he wants that in addition to taxes, government spending, litigation, and regulation.
Second, Newt is not the first to propose a green conservatism, though I hope that his message popularizes the idea, since old stereotypes and ideas die hard. I remember reading an article in a book called The Environmental Crisis, which was part of the Opposing Viewpoints series. The article said that privatization is a way to address environmental problems, since people will take care of property that they own and allow others to use (e.g., for fishing, hunting, recreation, etc.). I remember P.J. O' Rourke saying the same thing on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, as he proposed that the government sell land to the Sierra Club so they can take care of it. The Republican Congresswoman on the show seemed open to his idea. I'm not an expert on the environment, but I think the concept has some merit. After all, what private interest owns the water that companies like to pollute? I'll bet that the answer is "none."
Newt said some things that I would like to check out. He referred to Lou Cannon's book, Governor Reagan, which has a chapter on Reagan's pro-environmental policies as Governor of California. Gingrich was portraying Reagan as someone who sought private solutions to environmental problems. On some level, he may be right, but I vaguely remember that Reagan also used government regulation. That is something I'll have to check, since I am fortunate to own the book (which I got from Amazon for a cheap price).
Another thing that I'd like to do is see how libertarians address environmental issues. When I was in college, my local Congressional debate included the Republican, the Democratic, and the Libertarian candidates, respectively, and the Libertarian said that government is actually a cause of pollution. I'd like to see that elaborated.
So I'll be writing some posts on this in the future, maybe not tomorrow or the next day, but soon. Stay tuned!