Gingrich is — and always has been — pro-pollution. His 527 is bought and paid for by the oil companies, so it’s no surprise he is touting the cruel offshore drilling hoax.
Notwithstanding Andy Revkin’s claim that Gingrich is part of a “move to the pragmatic center on climate and energy” or the We campaign’s Gingrich-Pelosi couch-fest on climate, Gingrich is pushing hard for standard conservative screw-the-climate solutions (see Eco-Gingrich says, “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay More.”).
Now the Alaska Wilderness League has looked at the money funding his 527, “American Solutions for Winning the Future” in a report titled, “Follow the Money.” I know that you’ll be shocked to learn
The major donor list for Gingrich’s 527 reads like a “who’s who” of Big Oil’s backers. Robert Johnson IV, of the Johnson Company, Inc. and assistant chief attorney for the Exxon Mobil Production Company, contributed $50,000, while Dan W. Evins, an oil jobber for Shell who started the Cracker Barrel chain of restaurants, contributed $100,000.
None of this should be the least bit surprising to the media or anyone else, except of course those who have ignored Gingrich’s entire history and naively believed his new claim to be an environmentalist.
typically particularly lame about Ginigrich’s efforts is that the poll his 527 did to justify his drilling hoax plan doesn’t even trust the American people with honest choices. The front page of his website blares:
New Research on Energy Security
81% of Americans Support Greater Use of Domestic Energy Resources. MORE>>
Here was the question posed:
Recently, the price for a barrel of oil hit an all-time high. Some people have suggested that, to combat the rising cost of energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, the United States should use more of its own domestic energy reserves, including the oil and coal it already has here in the United States. Do you support or oppose this idea?
Sound familiar? (See Note to media: Please ignore biased Rasmussen polling on offshore oil drilling) But it gets even
Which of the following plans of action do you MOST support to lower energy prices for U.S. consumers?
Using U.S. domestic energy sources, such as clean coal and oil, even if it means drilling off our coasts and in Alaska, and offering tax credits for American businesses that develop new energy solutions.
Not using U.S. domestic energy sources, such as clean coal and oil off our coasts and in Alaska, and instead using legal systems available to sue OPEC, the cartel of foreign oil-producing countries which provide most of the world’s oil, to increase supply.
Who ever would have guessed the first option beat the second by 69% to 18%? I suppose the only good thing that came out of this is that oil company executives and other conservatives were fleeced into funding the world’s stupidest poll.
So, traditional media, can we agree once and for all that Gingrich is not an environmentalist, but rather a typical conservative who has no interest in solving the global warming problem, but who follows the Luntz strategy of talking up technology while doing everything in his power to oppose serious action and, in fact, to increase emissions? This time, I will say “I told you so.”
- Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history. Don’t buy it or his new book.
- Slate and the Post are suckered by anti-environmentalist Newt Gingrich
- OPEC joins Bush, Gingrich, and Lomborg in climate technology strategy
- NYT’s Andy Revkin and E. O. Wilson get suckered by Newt Gingrich’s phony techno-optimism
- My 1996 warnings and predictions: “MidEast Oil Forever?” — Part I: Drifting Toward Disaster