Newt Gingrich started out as an environmentalist (and a former member of the Sierra Club), but later turned away from it.
Even after he left congress, he still had some sympathy for environmental issues, as he wrote the book “Contract with Earth” (with an EO Wilson forward).
Newt can be surprisingly high openness—a person oriented towards novelty can be pro-drilling (accel), pro-geoengineering, and pro-environment (which can be decel), and maybe not reconcile the two together in the most consistent way. He has been critical of both parties on climate change/environment issues (just as Mitt Romney has been, who scores low on the LCV but who really does care about addressing climate change, just not in the “punitive” way that the Democrats want to see it addressed). Free-market environmentalists who do care have different approaches that might on the surface be seen as riskier (just as making use of more energy gives you more resources to address the problem faster even while pumping more entropy into the system).
But his high openness (for a Republican) seems to have also made him more stochastic, or inconsistent.
The book generated a storm of media attention in late 2007 and early 2008 as the U.S. presidential campaign began to heat up. Gingrich in particular made numerous media appearances arguing that the Republican Party was losing popular support because their response to environmental policy was simply, as he put it, “NO!” Maple toured the country as Gingrich’s stand-in, most notably before the Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP, www.repamerica.org) during their annual meeting (at which John McCain was endorsed as the most “green” of the Republican presidential candidates). In 2008 Gingrich published another book that advocated oil drilling, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, and many pundits called his environmental commitment into question. However, this book’s fifth chapter provided an argument for environmental protection. Like many aspects of Gingrich’s career, his interest in environmental issues has generated controversy.
Ronald Reagan was surprisingly pro-environment as governor of California (Gavin Newsom even spoke about it when he visited China), but later was seen as anti-environmental by environmental groups as president (esp due to his choices of Secretary of the Interior and https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/supreme-court-epa-neil-gorsuch-chevron/index.html ) and his generally pro-industry choices. George H.W. Bush was surprisingly pro-environment in his first 2 years (ozone, acid rain..), but was advised to no longer be pro-environment b/c it would not sit well with his base..
the LCV seems to take the view that all drilling/resource extraction (or industry) is bad. But it still is done somewhere, and if not done in America, it’s just outsourced elsewhere (eg https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/), where it is done with lower standards that cause more local destruction to the environment/pollution (albeit not the kind that Americans feel).
Now that CA appears likely to pass SB-1047, it seems more probable that Republican states will go against it (simply because they, esp Desantis [who valorizes not being CA], want to “own the libs”—esp as @BasedBeffJezos notices).
I once saw a graph showing which counties in the US believed that climate change came from humans… It strongly corresponded with partisan affiliation, though somewhat less in WA and CA—the two states where more than 50% in many red counties believed that it did… Source here:
===
IFP (which has some writers who seem more right-wing than left-wing) has a lot to say on the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulation. NEPA has done a lot to slow down all forms of infrastructural development, and made projects of ALL kinds move much more slowly. But IFP also recognizes the positive externalities of reduced pollution levels.
Do you have a link to this paper? It would be great to read, thanks!
http://aiimpacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Why-Did-Environmentalism-Become-Partisan-1.pdf
Newt Gingrich started out as an environmentalist (and a former member of the Sierra Club), but later turned away from it.
Even after he left congress, he still had some sympathy for environmental issues, as he wrote the book “Contract with Earth” (with an EO Wilson forward).
Newt can be surprisingly high openness—a person oriented towards novelty can be pro-drilling (accel), pro-geoengineering, and pro-environment (which can be decel), and maybe not reconcile the two together in the most consistent way. He has been critical of both parties on climate change/environment issues (just as Mitt Romney has been, who scores low on the LCV but who really does care about addressing climate change, just not in the “punitive” way that the Democrats want to see it addressed). Free-market environmentalists who do care have different approaches that might on the surface be seen as riskier (just as making use of more energy gives you more resources to address the problem faster even while pumping more entropy into the system).
But his high openness (for a Republican) seems to have also made him more stochastic, or inconsistent.
https://archive.ph/LsZeh
Ronald Reagan was surprisingly pro-environment as governor of California (Gavin Newsom even spoke about it when he visited China), but later was seen as anti-environmental by environmental groups as president (esp due to his choices of Secretary of the Interior and https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/supreme-court-epa-neil-gorsuch-chevron/index.html ) and his generally pro-industry choices. George H.W. Bush was surprisingly pro-environment in his first 2 years (ozone, acid rain..), but was advised to no longer be pro-environment b/c it would not sit well with his base..
worth reading: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/blog/2021/10/13/when-democrats-and-republicans-united-to-repair-the-earth/
===
the LCV seems to take the view that all drilling/resource extraction (or industry) is bad. But it still is done somewhere, and if not done in America, it’s just outsourced elsewhere (eg https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/), where it is done with lower standards that cause more local destruction to the environment/pollution (albeit not the kind that Americans feel).
See https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/qa-the-debate-over-the-45x-tax-credit-and-critical-minerals-mining/
====
Now that CA appears likely to pass SB-1047, it seems more probable that Republican states will go against it (simply because they, esp Desantis [who valorizes not being CA], want to “own the libs”—esp as @BasedBeffJezos notices).
====
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2024/06/26/what-curtis-victory-in-utah-means-for-climate-00165123 is a possible source of hope when a new Trump presidency may potentially gut much of the EPA and many other environmental regulations… Republican voices for the environment have especially high leverage during a time when Trump focuses much of his platform as the negation of the “other side” (just as he wants to revoke Biden’s EV mandates and Biden’s executive order on AI).
https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2024-01-18/column-meet-john-curtis-the-utah-republican-who-cares-about-climate-change-boiling-point
===
I once saw a graph showing which counties in the US believed that climate change came from humans… It strongly corresponded with partisan affiliation, though somewhat less in WA and CA—the two states where more than 50% in many red counties believed that it did… Source here:
===
IFP (which has some writers who seem more right-wing than left-wing) has a lot to say on the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulation. NEPA has done a lot to slow down all forms of infrastructural development, and made projects of ALL kinds move much more slowly. But IFP also recognizes the positive externalities of reduced pollution levels.