Posted by
BLOGASSAULT on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:17:34 AM
Newt Gingrich has a new book out called 'A Contract With The Earth'.
Here is what Newt says about his new book:
Over the last 36 years, I have watched the pro-regulation, pro-litigation, pro-taxation and pro-centralized-government advocates become the definers of environmentalism.
The left would have us believe that to be an environmentalist you have to believe in catastrophic threats, dramatic increases in government power and economically draconian solutions. Such a big-government bureaucracy, trial-lawyer-litigation and excessive-regulation "environmentalism" does a poor job of protecting the environment while it erodes individual freedom, destroys jobs and weakens our country.
The time has come to propose a fundamentally different approach to a healthy environment and a healthy economy.
The time has come for the development of a mainstream environmentalism as an alternative to big bureaucracy and big litigation environmentalism. You could call it "green conservatism," but it's really the mainstream environmental approach that has worked so well in the United States. President Theodore Roosevelt epitomized this approach when he said, "The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method."
Looks like I have my next book to read.
Gingrich was on Sean Hannity the other day and explained that what his book focuses on is the ability of the private sector to solve the problems of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. What I have been saying all along.
I have finished both Fred Singer's book and Bjorn Lomborg's book. Fred believes that global warming can be explained in other ways, most naturally, while Lomberg claims that that is not what is important. Bjorn contends that the way we are approaching the problem is all wrong. The money we are going to waste on projects like Kyoto, could be better spent on solving world hunger and malaria. Both agree that warmer weather will more than likely turn out better for humanity than what is being portrayed by the global warming fanatics, like Al Gore.
Both go on to point out that more deaths occur world-wide in colder weather than in warmer weather. Plants and crops do better in warmer weather. Looking back at history, when the weather had been warmer, more human advancement occurred. Disease spreads faster, and becomes more deadly when the temperature is colder. And both agree that the sea-level rise envisioned by the radicals is preposterous.
All-in-all they both make very good arguments for pushing aside the hysterics and thinking about global warming in a more scientifically responsible manner.
.