It is possible that Newt’s book, A Contract With The Earth, is getting some coverage in the Clinton and Obama camps.  In an online story by Ashley Holstrom of the Duke Chronicle, there are some interesting quotations from Dan Utech (Clinton adviser) and Jason Grumet (Obama adviser) that echo the Speaker’s sentiment.  From the article, entitled “Campaign advisers talk energy, environment”:

"They added that the energy problems facing the United States are also issues for the world at large. Keeping jobs in the U.S. and working with other countries in a respectable manner to improve environmental standards is crucial, they said."

"We have to work with them and not suggest that low-carbon living comes at the cost of healthcare, education, etc.," Grumet said.

Talking about the differences between protecting the environment and protecting jobs is difficult in today’s world.  If a person takes the side of smaller, less intrusive government and less burdensome regulation, they run the risk of being portrayed as being “against clean water” or “ani-environment”.  Supporters of the environment are sometimes labeled as “whackos” when they place the protection of the environment ahead of other priorities, such as jobs and people.   Thus, any discussion of the environment has been gridlocked for years now, and as Grumet is quoted as saying:

[When it comes to global changes], “We need a president who’s going to shake the Etch a Sketch pretty hard”

While conservatives may disagree with some of the arguments made by environmentalists (or the candidates they support), and by these two men, one of which may advise the next president, there are issues where we agree, and agreements are a great place to start a conversation.  From the above quotes, it is clear that we agree on three fundamental issues:

1.        The energy problems we face are real, and require solutions that can be sold to the world.

2.        We cannot bankrupt our system of governance to be more environmentally conscious.

3.        What we are doing right now is not working, and must be changed dramatically.

It is not necessary to begin the conversation in 100% agreement (and surely we are far apart on some issues), but the conversation must begin, lest it be dominated by the booming voice of one party, or the grumbling silence of the other.  We can find innovative solutions that will bring us cleaner water and air.  We can improve the quality of our lives through incentivising technological solutions that mean better, higher paying jobs, and more exports for America.  We can work together to build a 21^st century economy based in part upon common sense conservation and restoration.   Who would disagree with those principles? 

Or we can continue to call each other names and leave the next generation to discuss how we failed to capitalize on our fundamental agreements, leaving yet another 20^th century problem to our children because we were so comfortable disagreeing with each other. 

What do you think?

Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.

I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of "Just yell no!"

I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad.

Thank you for reading and visiting Newt.org

Newt

Newt is conducting an online e-chat with Slate magazine this morning. The topic is the Environment and Newt's book A Contract With The Earth. You can participate in the chat here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703486.html

The transcript of the chat is available there as well.

And you can catch up with all of Newt's points on the environment at ContractWithTheEarth.com

© Callista Gingrich, Gingrich Productions

Newt recently filmed a commercial with current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The ad focuses on how we can come together to find solutions for problems caused by climate change.

For Newt's explanation of why he filmed this ad for the Alliance for Climate Protection, founded by Al Gore, please see the audio file on the left or visit ContractWithTheEarth.com. Click play on the Audio box to the right.

After listening to his explanation, let us know your thoughts below so we can share them with Newt.

You can view the ad below:

Terry Maple, the co-author with Newt of A Contract with the Earth, alerts us to this important article in the journal Nature about the Kyoto treaty.  The authors conclude:

It will take courage for a policy community that has invested much in boosting Kyoto to radically rethink climate policy and adopt a bottom-up 'social learning' approach . . . continued policy failure 'spun' as a story of success could lead to public withdrawal of trust and consent for action, whatever form it takes.

Read More

The BBC has a useful primer on biofuels, including their environmental advantages and challenges.  While the positive impact of biofuels on air quality and advantages from a geopolitical perspective are often touted, it's interesting to see it has some worried about the impact on biodiversity. 

Also, just in time for Halloween, it seems as if some have found a way for us to stay green even after we shuffle off our mortal coil.  Green funerals. 

In the NY Times yesterday, David Cay Johnston describes a trend in states to re-regulate the power industry:

“More than a decade after the drive began to convert electricity from a regulated industry into a competitive one, many states are rolling back their initiatives or returning money to individuals and businesses.

The main reason behind the effort to return to a more regulated market is price. Recent Energy Department data shows that the cost of power in states that embraced competition has risen faster than in states that had retained traditional rate regulation.”

Can inefficient bureaucracies manage our power any better than they already manage other things?  The list of bureaucracies' failures is lengthy indeed- our schools, our health care, etc.

Townhall columnist Thomas Sowell brings up a applicable point about government pricing controls in his piece on health care:

"Few people show the slightest interest in what has actually happened in countries with government-controlled medical care.

...

It is amazing how many people seem uninterested in such things as why so many doctors in Britain are from Third World countries with lower medical standards -- or why people from Canada come to the United States for medical treatment that they could get cheaper at home.

Government price controls on pharmaceutical drugs are more of the same illusion of something for nothing."

Without a market system, how can people know the true price and quality of the power that they are buying?

Read the full article by Sowell here.

The Globalist (a title that, no doubt, provides a clue as to where it is coming from) has an interesting article about how America's sense of exceptionalism is preventing us from leading the planet to do something about climate change.

It's an interesting read but in many ways typical of the notion that environmentalism must involve pain and that any climate change action must inherently involve multilateralism.

It's just another example of the need for a new, science-based, entrepreneurial approach to the environment to compete with the Left's complete control of the terms of debate on this issue.