Letters to the Editor
-
Perhaps a sign of progress
On the one hand, it is good that Mr. Gingrich has written a book that supports protection of the environment, specifically says that biodiversity is important, and admits that climate-change is happening, and humans are largely responsible, and that unregulated free-enterprise isn't a good idea, and that it was a mistake for the right to distance itself from environmental issues.
I see this as a good trend. This needs to be talked about, more than the obligatory "Hey, we ALL care about the environment, right?" that we saw in our presidential debates. This could be a step into bringing conservatives to a place where they will talk about the environment and its problems seriously.
On the other hand, the language he uses is very slippery. He is very careful to try not to actually says "climate-change" or "global-warming", he says "carbon loading in the atmosphere". Also, the 7 trillion per life saved thing re: creosote is a remarkably odd thing to throw out. Is regulating creosote supposed to save lives? Or is it to keep people from getting skin cancer and burning up their respitory tracts? I suspect he's comparing apples to oranges there.
As has been pointed out, he doesn't give credit to the regulatory structure. His safe water to drink bit is a direct result of that regulatory structure.
Standard bit about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I would bet that the internal combustion engine played heavily in their plans. Gotta associate the left with those three no matter what, I guess.
I don't doubt that incentives would be nice. I don't doubt that the free market can be powerful, but I don't think you can say that incentives and free markets will solve these problems. For example, we could use free markets and incentives to get a really fast fire-engine that uses super-special fire-retardant materials to extinguish flames. But we don't do that, we REGULATE the building of houses and buildings to ensure that they don't catch fire easily, and if they do they don't burn quickly.
So I think that it is just common sense to use all the tools you can to tackle the various environmental problems.
The wealth=environmental stewardship is an interesting assertation. REally, the US is both very lucky and very wealthy. And, honestly, it's wealthy people in almost any society who are the rule-makers, so I don't really know what he's getting at, unless he's talking about the damage that sustenance farmers in Africa, India, and China are doing. But, by making them wealthy you might stop the slash 'n burn agriculture (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong), you also usher in new environmental problems.
His MacDonald's analogy is really weird... MacDonald's is demonstrabably not "better", it is "cheaper". And aren't they cheaper 'cause they get their beef from parts of the world where the animals are raised on recently cleared forest?
.