Newt Gingrich started out as an environmentalist (and a former member of the Sierra Club), but later turned away from it.
Even after he left congress, he still had some sympathy for environmental issues, as he wrote the book “Contract with Earth” (with an EO Wilson forward).
Newt can be surprisingly high openness—a person oriented towards novelty can be pro-drilling (accel), pro-geoengineering, and pro-environment (which can be decel), and maybe not reconcile the two together in the most consistent way. He has been critical of both parties on climate change/environment issues (just as Mitt Romney has been, who scores low on the LCV but who really does care about addressing climate change, just not in the “punitive” way that the Democrats want to see it addressed). Free-market environmentalists who do care have different approaches that might on the surface be seen as riskier (just as making use of more energy gives you more resources to address the problem faster even while pumping more entropy into the system).
But his high openness (for a Republican) seems to have also made him more stochastic, or inconsistent.
The book generated a storm of media attention in late 2007 and early 2008 as the U.S. presidential campaign began to heat up. Gingrich in particular made numerous media appearances arguing that the Republican Party was losing popular support because their response to environmental policy was simply, as he put it, “NO!” Maple toured the country as Gingrich’s stand-in, most notably before the Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP, www.repamerica.org) during their annual meeting (at which John McCain was endorsed as the most “green” of the Republican presidential candidates). In 2008 Gingrich published another book that advocated oil drilling, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, and many pundits called his environmental commitment into question. However, this book’s fifth chapter provided an argument for environmental protection. Like many aspects of Gingrich’s career, his interest in environmental issues has generated controversy.
Ronald Reagan was surprisingly pro-environment as governor of California (Gavin Newsom even spoke about it when he visited China), but later was seen as anti-environmental by environmental groups as president (esp due to his choices of Secretary of the Interior and https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/supreme-court-epa-neil-gorsuch-chevron/index.html ) and his generally pro-industry choices. George H.W. Bush was surprisingly pro-environment in his first 2 years (ozone, acid rain..), but was advised to no longer be pro-environment b/c it would not sit well with his base..
the LCV seems to take the view that all drilling/resource extraction (or industry) is bad. But it still is done somewhere, and if not done in America, it’s just outsourced elsewhere (eg https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/), where it is done with lower standards that cause more local destruction to the environment/pollution (albeit not the kind that Americans feel).
Now that CA appears likely to pass SB-1047, it seems more probable that Republican states will go against it (simply because they, esp Desantis [who valorizes not being CA], want to “own the libs”—esp as @BasedBeffJezos notices).
I once saw a graph showing which counties in the US believed that climate change came from humans… It strongly corresponded with partisan affiliation, though somewhat less in WA and CA—the two states where more than 50% in many red counties believed that it did… Source here:
===
IFP (which has some writers who seem more right-wing than left-wing) has a lot to say on the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulation. NEPA has done a lot to slow down all forms of infrastructural development, and made projects of ALL kinds move much more slowly. But IFP also recognizes the positive externalities of reduced pollution levels.
==
If you actually listen to congressional hearings, you can tell that many Republican Senators from mountain west states do have a sense of biophilia (the mountain west is way more beautiful than that of, say, Oklahoma), even if they favor increased drilling/ranching [eg you can see it in Dan Sullivan, you can see it in Cynthia Lummis, you can see it in Montana congressmen]. There are just vast disagreements over how to do it, and sadly it has turned to polarization of LCV scores with democrats all scoring 90-100% and republicans all scoring 0-18%
Update: looks like enough Republican senators from Montana and Idaho (and outdoorsmen supporters) were enough to kill public lands sales. LCV/Sierra Club scorecards are not-the-best gauges of who really cares and who doesn’t.
It seems like there is a subset of “manosphere” right-leaning figures (eg see meateater magazine) who really care about the values and landscape of the original frontier west—which represent what the US was like BEFORE the era of big government encroachment/constant gatekeeping (and the enlargement of the population). Wilderness is a place to test self-reliance/risk management/competence/ability to survive without all these “modern nuisances”. There is some gatekeeping involved with protecting wilderness, but once you protect those areas, people can be given opportunities to show how “pure” they are against the modern bureaucratic contamination of “big government”. The ethos of old American West still exists in the great public lands, and it looks like many Republicans still care about preserving this! (without appearing lame like tree-huggers). Even if it means some level of ranching, hunting, fishing, mining, and some level of delisting endangered species (all which are still nowhere as bad/irreversible as habitat loss from suburban sprawl). The wide open cattle ranches in the west (only responsible for a small minority of all meat production) can be regenerative and still involve less intensive land use than feeding more soybeans/corn to factory-farmed cattle. West Virginia is one of the most heavily mined states in the US, and yet one of the most “wild”/forested (over a timescale of decades, ecosystems recover from many forms of mining, and sometimes the mines have a mini-Chenobyl-effect of driving out human development).
[and wild game eats way less shitty food than most farmed animals]. Even a limited amount of trapping animals for their fur can help displace some excess use of plastics for clothing. Hunting/trapping seasons in the US [in the modern era] seem to be sustainable and have never led to any species becoming extinct, and give strong incentives for people to keep “wild lands” away from development
Dorian Abbot once wrote a substack essay about how “conservatives should be more about conservation” [though I’m not sure if he really was conservative].
Thomas Massie is a great example of solar-powered Republican self-reliance, although he has fallen out of favor with some of MAGA. There still seems to be enough MAGA-ish conservationists who were able to convince the administration to spare the public lands!
[if you take some some historical perspective, even Ted Stevens voted for Jimmy Carter’s Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), though he later railed against some of the broken promises that democrats have later made. Alaska, in particular, has such low human development that it can more easily recover from mining-induced habitat fragmentation than many other states can, so this leads some level of sympathy towards Lisa Murkowski’s support of making better use of Alaska’s natural resources (and she is the opposite of climate denialist, her latest book is way more interesting than most books politicians write, b/c it comes with a unique level of history and care for one of the most neglected states).
==
Maybe they still won’t vote the right way (and maybe they won’t care as much as Jeff Merkley or Cory Booker), but there was a recent congressional hearing on microplastics where Dan Sullivan and Lummis (R-WY) both had very reasonable responses to a microplastics hearing.
[and maybe a small degree of increased logging can help replace plastics with wood]
[there really does seem to be something special with Montana Republicans, starting from Ryan Zinke. It might not be a total coincidence that they also re-instated “right to try” laws].
and maybe all these tariffs against Brazil and third-world countries can also help slow deforestation down in these countries!!! I haven’t seen any indication that JD Vance actually cares about the environment, but he did make a point that it may be “environmentally better” to resource manufacturing to countries with better environmental standards like the US (though Republicans may still work to reduce those standards...)
http://aiimpacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Why-Did-Environmentalism-Become-Partisan-1.pdf
Newt Gingrich started out as an environmentalist (and a former member of the Sierra Club), but later turned away from it.
Even after he left congress, he still had some sympathy for environmental issues, as he wrote the book “Contract with Earth” (with an EO Wilson forward).
Newt can be surprisingly high openness—a person oriented towards novelty can be pro-drilling (accel), pro-geoengineering, and pro-environment (which can be decel), and maybe not reconcile the two together in the most consistent way. He has been critical of both parties on climate change/environment issues (just as Mitt Romney has been, who scores low on the LCV but who really does care about addressing climate change, just not in the “punitive” way that the Democrats want to see it addressed). Free-market environmentalists who do care have different approaches that might on the surface be seen as riskier (just as making use of more energy gives you more resources to address the problem faster even while pumping more entropy into the system).
But his high openness (for a Republican) seems to have also made him more stochastic, or inconsistent.
https://archive.ph/LsZeh
Ronald Reagan was surprisingly pro-environment as governor of California (Gavin Newsom even spoke about it when he visited China), but later was seen as anti-environmental by environmental groups as president (esp due to his choices of Secretary of the Interior and https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/supreme-court-epa-neil-gorsuch-chevron/index.html ) and his generally pro-industry choices. George H.W. Bush was surprisingly pro-environment in his first 2 years (ozone, acid rain..), but was advised to no longer be pro-environment b/c it would not sit well with his base..
worth reading: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/blog/2021/10/13/when-democrats-and-republicans-united-to-repair-the-earth/
===
the LCV seems to take the view that all drilling/resource extraction (or industry) is bad. But it still is done somewhere, and if not done in America, it’s just outsourced elsewhere (eg https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/), where it is done with lower standards that cause more local destruction to the environment/pollution (albeit not the kind that Americans feel).
See https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/qa-the-debate-over-the-45x-tax-credit-and-critical-minerals-mining/
====
Now that CA appears likely to pass SB-1047, it seems more probable that Republican states will go against it (simply because they, esp Desantis [who valorizes not being CA], want to “own the libs”—esp as @BasedBeffJezos notices).
====
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2024/06/26/what-curtis-victory-in-utah-means-for-climate-00165123 is a possible source of hope when a new Trump presidency may potentially gut much of the EPA and many other environmental regulations… Republican voices for the environment have especially high leverage during a time when Trump focuses much of his platform as the negation of the “other side” (just as he wants to revoke Biden’s EV mandates and Biden’s executive order on AI).
https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2024-01-18/column-meet-john-curtis-the-utah-republican-who-cares-about-climate-change-boiling-point
===
I once saw a graph showing which counties in the US believed that climate change came from humans… It strongly corresponded with partisan affiliation, though somewhat less in WA and CA—the two states where more than 50% in many red counties believed that it did… Source here:
===
IFP (which has some writers who seem more right-wing than left-wing) has a lot to say on the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulation. NEPA has done a lot to slow down all forms of infrastructural development, and made projects of ALL kinds move much more slowly. But IFP also recognizes the positive externalities of reduced pollution levels.
==
If you actually listen to congressional hearings, you can tell that many Republican Senators from mountain west states do have a sense of biophilia (the mountain west is way more beautiful than that of, say, Oklahoma), even if they favor increased drilling/ranching [eg you can see it in Dan Sullivan, you can see it in Cynthia Lummis, you can see it in Montana congressmen]. There are just vast disagreements over how to do it, and sadly it has turned to polarization of LCV scores with democrats all scoring 90-100% and republicans all scoring 0-18%
Update: looks like enough Republican senators from Montana and Idaho (and outdoorsmen supporters) were enough to kill public lands sales. LCV/Sierra Club scorecards are not-the-best gauges of who really cares and who doesn’t.
It seems like there is a subset of “manosphere” right-leaning figures (eg see meateater magazine) who really care about the values and landscape of the original frontier west—which represent what the US was like BEFORE the era of big government encroachment/constant gatekeeping (and the enlargement of the population). Wilderness is a place to test self-reliance/risk management/competence/ability to survive without all these “modern nuisances”. There is some gatekeeping involved with protecting wilderness, but once you protect those areas, people can be given opportunities to show how “pure” they are against the modern bureaucratic contamination of “big government”. The ethos of old American West still exists in the great public lands, and it looks like many Republicans still care about preserving this! (without appearing lame like tree-huggers). Even if it means some level of ranching, hunting, fishing, mining, and some level of delisting endangered species (all which are still nowhere as bad/irreversible as habitat loss from suburban sprawl). The wide open cattle ranches in the west (only responsible for a small minority of all meat production) can be regenerative and still involve less intensive land use than feeding more soybeans/corn to factory-farmed cattle. West Virginia is one of the most heavily mined states in the US, and yet one of the most “wild”/forested (over a timescale of decades, ecosystems recover from many forms of mining, and sometimes the mines have a mini-Chenobyl-effect of driving out human development).
[and wild game eats way less shitty food than most farmed animals]. Even a limited amount of trapping animals for their fur can help displace some excess use of plastics for clothing. Hunting/trapping seasons in the US [in the modern era] seem to be sustainable and have never led to any species becoming extinct, and give strong incentives for people to keep “wild lands” away from development
Look up Benji Backer now, he helped create the “American Conservation Coalition”
Dorian Abbot once wrote a substack essay about how “conservatives should be more about conservation” [though I’m not sure if he really was conservative].
Thomas Massie is a great example of solar-powered Republican self-reliance, although he has fallen out of favor with some of MAGA. There still seems to be enough MAGA-ish conservationists who were able to convince the administration to spare the public lands!
[if you take some some historical perspective, even Ted Stevens voted for Jimmy Carter’s Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), though he later railed against some of the broken promises that democrats have later made. Alaska, in particular, has such low human development that it can more easily recover from mining-induced habitat fragmentation than many other states can, so this leads some level of sympathy towards Lisa Murkowski’s support of making better use of Alaska’s natural resources (and she is the opposite of climate denialist, her latest book is way more interesting than most books politicians write, b/c it comes with a unique level of history and care for one of the most neglected states).
==
Maybe they still won’t vote the right way (and maybe they won’t care as much as Jeff Merkley or Cory Booker), but there was a recent congressional hearing on microplastics where Dan Sullivan and Lummis (R-WY) both had very reasonable responses to a microplastics hearing.
[and maybe a small degree of increased logging can help replace plastics with wood]
[there really does seem to be something special with Montana Republicans, starting from Ryan Zinke. It might not be a total coincidence that they also re-instated “right to try” laws].
and maybe all these tariffs against Brazil and third-world countries can also help slow deforestation down in these countries!!! I haven’t seen any indication that JD Vance actually cares about the environment, but he did make a point that it may be “environmentally better” to resource manufacturing to countries with better environmental standards like the US (though Republicans may still work to reduce those standards...)
https://chatgpt.com/share/688fda57-e720-800c-afc6-5f7df5781395