Did you read Newt Gingrich' "A Contract With the Earth?" Do his "carrots" work better than the Dems "sticks"?

Question

Gingrich argues that incentives (carrots) are a better way to go than the Democrats “sticks” approach (legislation and litigation). I believe that a mix of the two is a better way to go.

http://newt.org/AContractwiththeEarth/tabid/220/Default.aspx

Answer 1

actually, I think that both sides ought to stay the h**l out of my life.

Answer 2

I'm with you.  People of good will who understand the need to reduce global warming need to sit down and compromise on an approach.

Sticks and carrots are both useful tools,  Cutting ourselves off from either one would make the job much harder.  We need to choose the right tools for situations.

Answer 3

Just based on having taken my turn in the barrel as management, I have much more confidence in the carrot than the stick.  I agree with Newt that the differences in approach are representative of the differences in the philosophies of the two parties.

Reading stuff like this I wonder if I should stay with the Republicans a little longer, despite their miserable showing the past 8 years

"Green World: Can you explain what you mean by ‘bipartisan environmentalism’ in your book?

  

Newt Gingrich: Terry Maple and I have argued in our book “A Contract with the Earth” that the environment is too important to be left to one party, particularly one that endorses big government as the answer to our problems. We believe that both major parties have to find common ground to break the gridlock that is preventing real change to renew the earth. We advocate civil debate and real intellectual engagement to find entrepreneurial, market-based solutions to challenging environmental problems. "

I want to stand up and cheer when I read this

"Doomsday scenarios create a sense of hopelessness and helplessness. We can’t improve our world by giving up; instead we need to be inspired to action through shared optimism expressed by bold, confident leaders. "

I want to boo when I read this

"How can a local approach to the environment be superior to a federal approach when many regions could simply exploit whatever resources they have at the expense of the environment?"  Are you sure you're not a Democrat Newt?

Again, Yay!

"He pulled no punches, blaming liberals for making environmentalism a big-government idea and conservatives for ignoring the issue completely. Liberals and conservatives should start by agreeing that they value conservation, then figure out how to uphold those values, Gingrich said. "

"I think the tragedy has been that conservatives have been unwilling to spend the time and energy to debate the left on which will produce the better outcome. "

That's a breath of fresh air after so much hot air from those who want to call themselves conservative but want to deny the existence of the problem.  That isn't the conservative way, that's the George Bush/d**k Cheney way.

This is interesting

" Cedar Falls, Iowa: To what extent should the federal government finance research and development for green technologies?

  

Newt Gingrich: Very substantially in three forms.

  

1. Tripling the size of the National Science Foundation.

  

2. Creating significant tax credits for research and development and the development of new replacement technologies.

  

3. Offering very bold prizes that would be tax free for key breakthroughs such as a mass-producable hydrogen car. "

I agree with #1 and #2.  Hydrogen is an embryonic technology Bush used to kill funding for everything that was ready to go in 2000.  Here we have the famous Republican Party solidarity.  I agree it's a fine thing, but it can be very costly in situations like Bush or Nixon.  s***w hydrogen, bring back the programs he killed!  More money for research is a no brainer though.

I love this

"Chicago: Mr. Gingrich, I was wondering what your thoughts were on a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Do you favor either? Why? Thanks!

  

Newt Gingrich: Neither. I prefer incentives to punishments because they work faster and with less distortion of the economy. For instance, I favor tax credits for dramatically reducing carbon emissions. I favor a tax credit for trading in old cars that are the most polluting. I favor a tax credit for nuclear power, solar and wind. "

That's right!  The Gore approach sucks!  It's just issuing a permit to go right on polluting.  The EPA does that now.  It doesn't help the people who have to drink the water or breathe the air.

The denieristi should love this answer

"New York: Mr. Gingrich, do you have a suggestion as to why an absolute neophyte to the anthropogenic global warming concept should discount the recent evidence regarding the Medieval Warm Period? I am a former firm believer in AGW myself, yet I no longer support the theory, as I have not heard a single prominent environmental advocate who can discount the higher temperatures and lower carbon dioxide concentrations of that period.

  

Newt Gingrich: You raise a good point, and as somebody that studies paleontology, I am well aware we have had much higher carbon levels (pre-historic time periods, probably caused by volcanoes) and much higher temperatures in the past. In addition, around 11,000 years ago, the Gulf Stream stopped for 600 years for reasons we don't understand. Europe went into an ice age. Then the Gulf Stream restarted for reasons we don't understand and the ice age disappeared.

  

So a great deal of the "current science" is in fact politics.

  

However, the word "conservative" includes "conservation" as its root. And conservatives should be cautious. Therefore, I am willing to look for methods of lowering carbon that do not destroy the economy or give the government increased power. "

"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. "

edit

Yes Evans, I know.  You're part of the burden.

edit

Jim z, I commiserate, but that seems to be the nature of government, whether Left or Right.

Answer 4

I think the carrot and stick would be a better approach, at least you can munch on the carrot while you are getting the stick.

Answer 5

Both are effective at driving beasts of burden.  I'm no one's beast of burden.  Nice to know how those in office view the taxed, though.  

Note:  The Earth honors no contracts...it's not sentient.  Even if it was, it wouldn't...it's a real Mother.

Answer 6

It depends on how sweet the carrots are and how stubborn the mule is.  A carrot is always the preferred first, second, and third attempt, but some animals are so ignorant and stubborn that you eventually have to result to using a stick.

Answer 7

If your a believer in Converse Ideology, you can relate to what (Newt) purposes. A study by (Prewitt 1982) pg. 6, offers this as a tool for the political arena, especially for redefining science to the public. Real scientist or politicians would never down-play public opinion. The consequences would be harsh, if not a fatal mistake.

I'm not really for sure how much of this is relative, because different ones appeal to a variety of sectors. Seemingly more of an appeasement factor then anything else. I hate to wrap science around politics but this seems to be where the ball is laying.

Answer 8

Sticks, i.e. legislation and litigation, tend to not work very well.  They often end up doing the opposite of what they are intended.  For example, trying to punish the rich through high taxes, a staple of leftist thinking,  generally hurts the poor.  Incentives work better.  It would be better for Newt to stick to his beliefs and not declare the fight against environmental extremism as over.  Compromise always seems to mean conservatives always have to move toward leftists.  Conservatives believe is smaller government to increase freedom and wealth.  Why is it that government always grows and freedom always shrinks?