|
Newt Gingrich on Environment
Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House
|
Replace EPA with new Environmental Solutions Agency
I don't think the EPA bureaucrats, who are dedicated to a Washington centered, top down, bureaucratic control by litigation and regulation, are going learn a new dance, a new approach, and a new model. This is double true because Obama wants to use EPA t
control carbon, so he can control all of the non-health economy. Now a new Environmental Solutions Agency, I believe, would do a better job of both protecting the environment and the economy. The principles are straightforward, localism when possible.
I believe that incentives, innovators, and entrepreneurs will solve environmental problems, and improve the environment better than the bureaucrats, regulators and litigators.
The new Environmental Solutions Agency should see communities, states, and
industries as partners, not adversaries in solving problems when one approaches. The Environmental Solutions Agency should look for new science, new technologies, and new approaches to get more energy, more jobs, and a better environment simultaneously.
Source: Speech at 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference
Feb 11, 2011
Katrina's collapse of New Orleans was avoidable
As much as any one things, it was the government's failure to respond to the catastrophe of Katrina that made me determined to launch American Solutions and to insist on a bipartisan national movement to get America back on track.
Here are the unspoken--and apparently unspeakable--facts about the disaster in New Orleans.- The collapse of New Orleans was unavoidable.
- The collapse of the relief effort among the very poor was unavoidable.
-
The lack of national, state, and local leadership and decisive intervention was avoidable.
- The Army Corps of Engineers failed to do its job and ensure that the levees would work when put to the test by a large-scale hurricane, which was a
clearly foreseeable situation.
- The politicians in Washington clearly had other things they wanted to spend money on and preferred to run the risk of a city-crippling catastrophe.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p. 44-45
Dec 18, 2007
Boston's Big Dig was a classic pork barrel project
Compare success stories in saving time and money with one of the most disastrous public infrastructure projects in modern America" Boston's Big Dig.The Big Dig highway project was the most expansive such project in U.S history.
The initial price tag was $2.6 billion (in 1982 dollars), and it was supposed to be completed in seven years. From the start, it was plagued by leaks, falling debris, delays, and other problems linked to faulty construction. On July 10,
2006, a woman was killed by falling concrete in a connector tunnel. In 2008, the "Boston Globe" reported that the Big Dig's total cost would hit an astounding $22 billion and will not be paid off until 2038.
That sounds disastrous--and it is. The Big
Dig was a classic pork barrel project, with weak oversight, no incentives for achievement, and no innovation in management. But that's the way government programs usually work. That's why we need real change for a smarter, more efficient government.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.185-186
Dec 18, 2007
Reject apocalyptic warnings; they only lead to higher taxes
In addition to favoring science and innovation over red tape and litigation, we must reject an approach to the environment that relies on apocalyptic warnings.In every instance the danger was apocalyptic, science and technology were major threats, and
the free market was hazardous. Big government, big regulation, centralized bureaucratic controls, and higher taxes were the solution.
Former Vice President Al Gore wrote in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance", "We have tilted so far toward individual
rights and so far away from any sense of obligation that it is now difficult to muster an adequate defense of any rights vested in the community at large or the nation--much less rights properly vested in all humankind or in posterity."
The danger her
is that private property rights & individual liberty could be taken away in favor of some collectivist & non-democratic elite's interpretation of what is needed. The level of power that this would give to international bureaucrats is almost beyond belief
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p.197-198
Dec 18, 2007
Greatest enviro dangers are poverty & command bureaucracy
The greatest dangers to biodiversity on the planet today are poor people cutting down tropical forests for money and killing endangered species for meat. Wealthy people can afford to protect the forests and protect endangered species.
The greatest areas of pollution and toxic wastes on the planet today are the byproducts of the Soviet Empire and a centralized command bureaucracy that was willing to kill the environment to reach production quotas.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org, “Issues”
Sep 1, 2007
Combine healthy environment and a healthy economy
It is possible to have a healthy environment & a healthy economy. It is possible to build incentives for a cleaner future. It is possible to have biodiversity & wealthy human beings on the same planet. And it is possible to have free markets, scientific
and technological advances, and an even more positive environmental outcome. There is every reason to be optimistic that if we develop smart environmental and biodiversity policies our children & grandchildren will experience an even more pleasant world.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org
Dec 1, 2006
Early 1980s: co-sponsored Endangered Species Act
In the early 1980s, Gingrich took some positions that separated him from most of the right wing. He voted for the Alaska Lands Act. He cosponsored the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act. Most of his early supporters from the environmental
movement long ago gave up on him, but among Republicans, he remains a bona fide conservationist. Newt argues that he has been true to his original beliefs, while the "greens" have moved in a radical direction, toward the taking of private property withou
adequate compensation. Gingrich made plain in a recent interview: "We're going to try to write [an Endangered Species Act] that's economically rational and that protects species. The problem now is that the environmental movement is dominated by
lawyers and bureaucrats, and it's a front for anti-free-enterprisers who use protecting species as a device to stop development. The question is, do you spend $300 million to protect one species or do you spend that money to protect 30 species?"
Source: Newt!, by Dick Williams, p.102
Jun 1, 1995
Regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act.
Gingrich co-sponsored regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to publish a proposed list of at least 15 contaminants that may occur in public water systems and that are not currently subject to EPA regulation. Provides for proposed lists of at least 12 additional contaminants every four years. (Current law requires EPA to regulate 25 contaminants every three years.) Bases the determination to regulate a contaminant on findings that:
- the contaminant is known to occur in public water systems;
- the contaminant occurs in concentrations which may have adverse health effects; and
- regulation of the contaminant presents an opportunity to reduce health risks.
Source: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (H.R.3392) 93-H3392 on Oct 27, 1993
Page last updated: May 28, 2011