Too Little, Too Late
In his new book on environmentalism, Newt Gingrich unsuccessfully attempts something of a political makeover.
By Kay Steiger
January 15, 2008
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich speaks at the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Dino Vournas)Newt Gingrich isn’t exactly known for compromise and moderation. The former Republican speaker of the House, whom Time magazine dubbed “King of the Hill” in 1995, is best known for his “Contract with America” and for ushering in an era of hyper partisanship during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Now, more than a decade later, Gingrich is attempting something of a political makeover. In A Contract with the Earth, a book he recently co-authored with conservationist Terry L. Maple, Gingrich argues that the environmental movement has become too polarized, and that, at least when it comes to climate change, both the left and the right need to meet the rest of the country in the center. What we need to move forward, the authors say, is a consensus.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that we don’t need to build a consensus about the environmental movement. One already exists, and the left is already on board. An October poll showed that more than 70 percent of Americans believe global warming and greenhouse gases are detrimental to the environment, and 53 percent believe there are too few government regulations to protect our Earth. The left embraces these views: For example, when progressives took control of Congress in 2006, they created a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Campus Progress’ own left-of-center think tank, the Center for American Progress, has published a proposal for the creation of a low-carbon economy. The newest wave of progressive environmentalism is focusing on "environmental justice," a movement which works to connect environmental concerns with other systemic societal problems like racism, poverty, and health care. Even progressive magazines like Ms., Mother Jones, The Nation, and Utne are printed on environmentally friendly recycled paper.
Conservatives, meanwhile, have done little to aid the environmental movement. In fact, when conservatives were in control of Congress, they attempted to pass bills that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling and provided subsidies and tax cuts to the oil industry. Furthermore, some conservatives are still trying to perpetuate the debate over whether global warming is even happening, even though nearly all reputable scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
The introduction of A Contract with the Earth is written by Edward O. Wilson, a scientist who dares to tread where few other mainstream scientists have. In a work called Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, he takes the nature side of the nature-versus-nurture debate, pointing out that race and gender roles tend to be the product of evolution and not cultural norms. For this work, Wilson was painted by his Harvard colleagues Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin as a reactionary eugenicist in public statements from their group, Science for the People, according to an essay by Tom Wolfe. Protesters even picketed Wilson’s sociobiology class. Later on, he published a book called The Creation, which argues that belief in God is the result of evolution. Interesting that Gingrich, a former ally of Christian conservatives, would choose an evolutionist to open his book. Wilson, however, uses language that mixes biology and economics, calling water, trees, farmland, and oil “natural capital." Gingrich obviously likes the synthesis of economic and environmental terms; he mimics Wilson’s terminology when he writes that a "catastrophic loss of biodiversity would be a severe blow to the natural economy.”
Gingrich and Maple seem to think that they must prove to the reader that even though nature is not a business, it still is a good thing. So when describing the dangers of global warming, they explain that as "an ecosystem degrades, the ‘services’ it provides for humanity, such as fresh water and fertile soil, also decline.” “Beyond their economic value," they write, "forests also provide opportunities to experience the psychological effect of pristine nature.” The book ends up sounding more like a business seminar on how to make money out of the environmental movement than it does a realistic call for change. Their faith in business is paramount.
Not only do Gingrich and Maple embrace economic terms to describe the world around them, they also argue that only through entrepreneurship will we be able to overcome the challenges presented by climate change. Gingrich dedicates all but two chapters of the book to highlighting businesses that have taken minor steps to become more environmentally friendly. As a result, much of the book reads like a rather dull annual report giving various shout-outs to corporations that are "embracing conservation." For example, Gingrich points out that “Wal-Mart now only sells fish it has bought from sources that practice sustainable harvesting methods, as certified by the Marine Stewardship Council." But while corporations certainly can make changes that will make a big difference, Wal-Mart should hardly be considered a model of environmentalism. We seem to always congratulate companies for making minor changes, when the reality is that their business models are destroying the environment in the first place. BP, for example, has gotten a lot of credit lately for exploring new forms of energy production, but, ultimately, BP is still an oil company.
Gingrich and Maple also dedicate much of the book to blaming the media for broadcasting doom-and-gloom environmental predictions. In a chapter called “Missed Opportunities,” Gingrich and Maple finger “political polarization” as a force working against climate change solutions, and explain that “newspaper headlines often scream the worst-case scenario.” The authors’ position is that the “media are positioned and primed to run with a horror story and they are unprepared to prevent hyperbole from running ahead of the science.” Sure, the media are an easy target—the left has also expressed dissatisfaction with media coverage on global warming. The real problem is that the media often balance out real scientists with global warming skeptics who lack sound scientific backgrounds. MSNBC, for instance, recently labeled a global warming skeptic as a “top meteorologist.” While Gingrich and Maple argue that “the need for media objectivity will be critical in the days, months, and years ahead as we debate the critical path and prioritize best practices to achieve a healthy environment,” shouldn’t we recognize that it was media "objectivity" that got us here in the first place? Thanks to cable news reporting that there is a “debate” over whether global warming is happening, policy is years behind where it should be.
Gingrich’s book leaves out the fact that he was once in the most powerful position in Congress. When he had the opportunity to show leadership on environmental legislation, he didn’t. His record on environmental legislation earned him a rating of 29 percent from the League of Conservation voters. The House average at the time was 50 percent.
Gingrich and Maple also leave unaddressed a handful of obvious counterpoints to their arguments. When they examine environmental problems in third-world countries, for example, they say that “overpopulation is a problem we can handle most effectively by targeting foreign aid and encouragement for emerging democracies with a stable rule of law and growing economies. Poverty and population explosions are highly correlated.” But they never follow this up with the logical conclusion: The most effective way to combat overpopulation is expansion of access to contraceptives. Under Gingrich’s leadership, Congress promoted restrictions on foreign aid to any family-planning organizations that lobby for abortion rights overseas. Later, President Bush solidified funding of abstinence only education overseas. I doubt Gingrich would endorse foreign aid for contraception today.
Gingrich points out that innovation can help get us out of this mess—but the left has that position, too. He touts former Democratic President Bill Clinton’s recent initiative: “One model for the ‘new philanthropy’ is the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) that aims to accelerate active philanthropy, especially when it is confronted with the global emergencies such as the Asian tsunami or Hurricane Katrina.” But we shouldn’t have to choose between innovation and regulation. We will need both to really make a difference on global warming.
In the end, there isn’t much of a problem with Gingrich and Maple’s call for more innovation. That is, after all, what the left has wanted for years—regulations and subsidies simply have favored pollution-heavy industries like oil and coal to make green innovation competitive. There isn’t a problem with conservatives coming to the call on the environment, per se. After all, the environment shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The book concludes, “With the presidency and control of Congress at stake, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans have much to fight about in the months ahead, but the urgency of the environment leaves room for common ground, cooperation, and compromise.” But in the end, that compromise will need to come from the right.
Kay Steiger is an Associate Editor at Campus Progress.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
It shouldn’t surprise you that Gringrich allies himself with an evolutionist like E.O.Wilson. Whatever his political shortcomings, Gingrich is a friend of science and even became friendly with Steve Gould, in large part because of their mutual interest in dinosaurs.
— Frederic Golden - Jan 15, 07:09 PM - #Kay really misses the point of Sociobiology by Wilson and the point of Newt’s book. Let’s stick with Newt here. He is trying to bring more people into the environmental discussion. If you’re pro environment, for goodness sake, give the guy a pat on the back. Or just be a Newt basher…I know, it’s fun – just like the conservatives like to bash Hillary. Problem is, bashing is not going to help us solve our environmental problems. Back to E.O.Wilson – reread his books, and please quote him correctly. Wilson has never said the things you claim. Indeed, I don’t know a scientist who disagrees with what Wilson suggested in Sociobiology – it is as close to “proven” as anything can be in the open-minded world of science.
— John Leston - Jan 15, 07:52 PM - #“Furthermore, some conservatives are still trying to perpetuate the debate over whether global warming is even happening, even though nearly all reputable scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
— Kevin - Feb 22, 05:03 AM - #“ All the “reputable” scientest also agreed, “knew”, the Earth was flat until someone proved them wrong. Remember Galileo? All his inquisitors “knew” also. There’s no proof at all that humans are largely responsible for global warming.