Estimates are that the Waxman-Markey bill will raise electricity prices by an astounding 90 percent. It will raise gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will raise the average American family's energy bill by $1,500 each year.
And, far from creating jobs, experts predict that the global warming bill will destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average each year, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs.
All in all, the bill is expected to reduce our gross domestic production (GDP) by $9.6 trillion. And for what?

We have a new video on Green Conservatism we'd like your feedback on:

News from “The Crypt,” an energy blog at politico.com, at first lends hope that Congress is ready to act on energy, finally.  But don’t get excited yet. 

In the Senate, a “gang of 20” Senators, Republicans and Democrats has formed to push forward on the offshore drilling moratorium, but the plan does not include revenue sharing for the states.  What seems at first to be a positive development is apparently just another political football in an election year, designed and worded so that voters will think something is happening when nothing is. 

To be clear:  What state in its right mind would allow offshore drilling without revenue sharing?!? 

On Thursday afternoon, the leaders of a bipartisan Senate energy coalition known as the "Gang of 10" announced that their numbers had grown to 20, with Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) all signing on to a bill that would encourage state-by-state decisions on offshore drilling and authorize billions in conservation and alternative energy.

Republican leaders have balked at the $84 billion price tag, but the bill would be paid for by rolling back certain oil subsidies and tax loopholes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated a willingness to let this bipartisan package be debated in the Senate. With at 10 Republicans already publicly supporting the Senate "Gang of 20," if Democrats get behind the bill they'll achieve a filibuster-proof margin.

"America’s growing energy crisis demands immediate action," said Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), in a joint statement. "Our group of 20 is taking an approach that goes beyond the polarizing partisanship that has poisoned Washington. America’s energy security is not a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. It is an issue that affects all of us.” 

Unfortunately for some congressional Republicans, partisanship worked very well over the summer as they engaged in a successful and highly publicized energy protest during the August recess.

But as the September session of Congress has opened, Democrats have relented on drilling and crafted wily plans in both chambers in an attempt to force through a package that will be tough to resist for moderate Republicans in tight re-election races.

Whatever happened to voting for a bill because it was actually good for America?  What is it about election years that lend significance to legislation?  Americans have endured a woefully insignificant energy policy for several decades, to be sure.  Wouldn’t it be inspiring if the Congress, the next Congress, were as anxious to pass this bill next January as the current crop of power grabbers are, just days before the November election?

Polling on energy continues to be in stark contrast to Democratic leadership in Congress, with a several polls indicating a desire among American voters to Drill Now.  Poll after poll show the resonance, according to a round-up of polls from pollingreport.com:

“Would you favor allowing increased drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. Coast, or do you think the costs and risks are too great?” – 64% Favor, 28% oppose, 8% unsure

“Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household?” – 75% Yes, 25% No

It is clear that Americans want to Drill Now, and that the price of energy is hitting them in the pocketbook, but who do they blame?  In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, some blame oil companies, some blame foreign oil producers, financial speculators, and the war in Iraq, but an equally large number (83%) believe federal laws are to blame:

Federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas:
Major Agreement 51% - Minor Agreement 32% - Not a Cause 17%

The Democrats in Congress [are to blame]:  Major – 31% - Minor 43%, Not a Cause 26%

“If the federal government allowed increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters, do you think that would reduce the price of gasoline in the next year?” – 51% Yes, 49% No

Recent polling proves again and again that Drill Now reflects the will of the majority in America, perhaps giving us an insight into why Speaker Pelosi recently conceded that she might not be opposed to an open vote on the issue, despite Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and others being “unalterably opposed to drilling.”  Americans favor drilling over energy conservation 69% - 30%, while opposition to nuclear power plants has fallen 10% in the last few months. 

They also favor developing new energy sources over environmental protections (these are not mutually exclusive) 60% to 34%, are split over drilling and conservation at 47% - 45% respectively, and 81% believe that “the Bush Administration” has not done enough to control rising oil and gas prices.

Yes, there are polls that give equal blame to oil companies and other influences that do not support Drill Now, but these do not explain away the fundamental desire for change that exists simultaneously in American hearts and minds.  Most people do not follow issues like this as closely as we do, but still manage to get it right when asked.

Today's news cycle is full of negative stories, pessimistic polls, economic naysayers, and all kinds of doom and gloom that make it difficult to get past page A-3, or the first commercial break on your favorite cable news channel.  However, one story lends hope that people are listening to the winds of change, and that somewhere, someone has realized that we cannot overcome our problems by ignoring them; the critical first step towards Real Change.

That someone is General Motors.  In a story about the revolutionary Volt plug-in car, found at theatlantic.com, Jonathan Rauch delivers a few tantalizing quotes about the future of GM and how things are changing at America's number one car company.  The story itself is a must-read, but here are some of the more interesting quotes, with emphasis added here and there by Newt.org to prove a point:  America must change if it is to win the economic battles of the 21st Century.

Do bold things to win:

"I think the whole company has now learned the lesson that when you set out and do bold things, you win, and when you're cautious and let someone else do the bold things, you lose." The crowd applauded warmly. A voice called out, "You're absolutely right, Bob!"

Lutz said, "It may be years before we make a dime on this product. Years! And the board said, ‘Don't even talk about profitability. General Motors needs this car.'"

GM has something to prove:

The people at GM understand very well the reasons they're not supposed to do what they're doing. They offer a variety of retorts. Batteries will improve and get cheaper. Gas prices will rise. They have two decades' worth of experience with electric drive. They have smart algorithms to test the battery. Strict new fuel-economy standards will vindicate the business case. But, at bottom, what they say is that the challenge is part of the point. They have something to prove.

GM on taking risk:

"Risk is my friend," he [Jon Lauckner, VP of global program management at GM] once told me. "I like risk. You either go big or go home."

Real Change in the development cycle:

The pencil pushers had done none of the marketing and cost studies that typically precede a product launch, but no matter. Normally, Bob Lutz says, "you basically define the whole future of the car on paper before you give the go-ahead to start spending some serious engineering and design money on it. And in this case it was completely backwards. We saw that we had a smash hit that hugely resonated with the public, and we just decided: let's go to work. No business case, but let's get this thing into production-ready form, and we'll worry about the cost and investment and the profitability later."

American innovation at its best:

Moreover, improvements were being incorporated as fast as they could be conceived; the battery would be on its second generation in January, its third in June. "It's incredible," Turner said. "The design they've come up with for thermal changed 10 times before they delivered the first battery." And all of this was before the arrival of a competing battery that might be as good or even better, designed jointly by the Massachusetts-based company A123 Systems and the German company Continental A.G. "We're inventing and creating on the critical path," Turner said. He was using the industry jargon for the countdown to production, when time is money and delays can cost millions. "I've got guys trying to release things before they're actually invented."

There is no next week:

Here, as in the battery lab, work was proceeding rapidly. The design, though still evolving, was already 98 percent there, Bob Boniface, the Volt's design director, told me. "We've taken more than half a year out of the schedule," he said. Ordinarily, if you had a problem with a taillight, you might schedule a meeting for the next week. "With this, there is no next week."

Woudn't you like to see an attitude like this in Congress?

All in all, good signs from the company that has been linked with the fate of the American economy.  They have recognized their limitations and are taking steps to bypass the corporate machine that would normally chew up projects like this.  America has faced many great challenges before but has always risen to the challenge, and this time is no different.  Watching a company like General Motors shake off the bureaucracy of over 100 years in the automobile industry to make an effort like this is exciting.  Don't you want to drive one?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City will spend $2.3 billion to cut greenhouse gas emissions from municipal buildings and operations by 30 percent in 30 years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday.

The city aims to cut 1.68 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents a year from 2006 levels by 2017, with measures ranging from improved heating and cooling systems to fixing methane leaks at water treatment plants and using that gas to run electric generation equipment.

"The program will partly be funded with 10 percent of the city's energy budget -- about $100 million in the current fiscal year." ... "New York City has already committed $900 million for the program and it spent $80 million in its previous budget. The mayor also hopes to tap federal and state dollars, private foundations and so-called energy performance contracts." ... "Improved heating, cooling and ventilation systems in city buildings will be used to accomplish 57 percent of the total reductions, Bloomberg said in a statement."

In a Time.com story, The Gulf's Growing ‘Dead Zone' , we see a growing environmental concern that both deserves our attention and presents a great opportunity for science to innovate a solution that could change the way we farm and fertilize.  Here's the problem:

When the spring rains come, fertilizer from Midwestern farms drains into the Mississippi river system and down to Louisiana, where the agricultural sewage pours into the Gulf of Mexico. Just as fertilizer speeds the growth of plants on land, the chemicals enhance the rapid development of algae in the water. When the algae die and decompose, the process sucks all the oxygen out of the surrounding waters, leading to a hypoxic event - better known as a "dead zone."

Imagine if science found a way to recover fertilizers from the Mississippi before they made their way into the gulf, or render them inert before runoff could take them into the river in the first place?  What if we were able to harvest the resulting algae bloom and turn it into an alternative fuel before it had a chance to do damage, solving two problems with one incredible, synergistic solution?  What if we do nothing at all? 

Are drastic reductions in our ability to produce food the "only" solution?  Are we limited to merely complaining about our woes, rather than planting the seed of vision in the minds of our great thinkers, inventors, and doers?

Any solution imaginable is possible if our bureaucracy reverses course and starts incentivizing the American spirit to amaze the rest of the world, and this is only a single topic.  There are thousands of needed solutions that government could incentivize, rationalize, or otherwise encourage if those in charge would simply lead us to a better future.

We can rival any other nation on Earth with our creativity, but only if the shackles of failed government policy are removed to allow the American spirit a chance to work that good old magic one more time. 

As the price of oil rises to ever higher marks, our eyes are opened to the how, and why, we are "addicted" to it.  Little, if anything, is not affected by the price of oil, and those who are hurt the worst are those who can withstand the least by a market that is reacting to a perceived shortage of oil.  In wealthy nations, it is the consumer who feels the pinch, slowing the economy.  In the poorer nations, rising food prices are of great concern.

Politicians are addicted to oil too.  When the price was low, protecting the environment from the "dirty" oil industry was the mantra to lure voters to the cause, and to limit exploration and refinement.  Now that prices and profits are on the rise (as Newt says, "an artificial creation of stupid government policies"), politicians worldwide are jumping on the bandwagon to put the blame on oil companies and investors.  German politicians are proposing a "ban on oil trading by speculators," an ominous sign for the free market.  From  a London telegraph.co.uk  story, "Germany in call for ban on oil speculation"

German leaders are to propose a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators, blaming the latest spike in crude prices on manipulation by hedge funds.

It is the most drastic proposal to date amid escalating calls from Europe, the US and Asia for controls on market forces, underscoring the profound shift in the political climate since the credit crunch began. India has already suspended futures trading of five commodities.

Uwe Beckmeyer, transport chief for Germany's Social Democrats, said his party would call for joint measures by the G8 powers to prohibit leveraged trading on energy contracts. "It's an extreme step but it has to be done," he told the Berlin media.

Mr Beckmeyer said the last 25pc rise in the price of oil to $135 a barrel had nothing to do with underlying supply and demand. "It's pure speculation," he said.

Compare that approach to Newt's current call to action:  Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.  The answer is to innovate, explore and drill in an environmentally responsible manner, and produce our way into tomorrow.  No matter how good the intention, it is impossible to regulate ourselves into prosperity.

What do you think?

If necessity is the mother of invention, then demand is the father of supply. With rising fuel prices threatening to stifle the booming economic growth in South America, Brazil answered the challenge by investing in technology and processes that turn sugar into fuel. A McClatchy story by Jack Chang, Brazil's sugar cane mills race to keep up with ethanol boom, details their success.

Just a decade ago, the giant Moema ethanol and sugar mill in this corner of southeastern Brazil covered less than half of its current 173,000 acres. It produced mainly sugar.

That was before world petroleum prices skyrocketed and millions of Brazilians turned to cheaper sugar cane-based ethanol to fuel their vehicles. Now, fuels made from sugar cane have become Brazil's second most-used energy source, only behind fossil fuels.

That boom has transformed Moema into one of Brazil's biggest sugar-cane mills and turned much of Sao Paulo state, where Moema is located, into the world capital of sugar cane ethanol.

More than 5,000 workers now help Moema churn out about 880,000 tons of sugar and 185 million gallons of ethanol every year, working day and night, rain or shine. Nationwide, sugar-cane mills produced nearly 6 billion gallons of ethanol last year, with output projected to jump by 160 percent through 2016.

"Things have completely changed here since this all started," said Roberto Santos, who supervises mechanized sugar cane cutting at Moema. "We've become much more efficient and quicker, and we're producing more. We're a different mill now."

Some 320 mills all over this nation of 185 million people are locked in the same race to keep up with rising domestic ethanol demand. Another 150 mills are scheduled to come on line over the next decade, mostly in the country's southeast.
Read More

America should look to the success of Brazil and other nations who are putting proven principles of business and technology to work. As Newt says, there are a lot of things we can do to increase alternative sources of fuel and energy now, but we have to act now to get America on the right track. The cost of doing the wrong thing may be larger than the cost of doing nothing. The question is: are we doing both?

Login and tell us what you think.

Environmental impact studies are not simply an American phenomenon.  In this story from the Daily Times in Islamabad, Pakistan, we see similar frustrations to those experienced by American contractors.  Some excerpts:

Capital Development Authority (CDA) plans the start of construction work on Zero Point interchange early next month without carrying out the mandatory Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study of the Rs 2.273 billion project...

In the EIA study, environmentalists focus on a project's design, construction, and operation. They first examine the project's design and then the chances of air and dust pollution, adverse impact on surrounding natural environment and traffic problems during course of work. They also examine environment-friendliness of the project after its completion...

In the light of the study, environmentalists provide the department concerned with Environmental Management Plan (EMP) suggesting measures for environment conservation before, during and after the project's completion...

It is learnt that the Zero Point interchange's construction was proposed in 1997 but work couldn't take off in the last 11 years due to the CDA's mismanagement. Such delay caused the project to escalate from Rs 400 million in 1997 to Rs 2.273 billion in 2008...

Their solution to the problem? 

An official said that the CDA had no plans to comply with the Pak-EPA instructions and the selected construction firm was set to begin work on the interchange by June 15.

Probably not the best way to handle the situation, but without more government studies, it would be difficult to tell for sure. 

In an article by Jason Mick, posted on dailytech.com entitled Algae May Solve Ethanol vs. Gas Dilemma, one possible solution to the debate over the best way to make ethanol is well laid out:

Gas costs are soaring, but adopting cheaper ethanol is sending food costs into the stratosphere as well.  What is the answer to this troubling predicament?  Some say the solution is old -- very old.  There is growing hope that one of the planet's most ancient organisms, algae, can be used to produce economically viable biofuel without the negative societal impact of ethanol.

Algae (grown in bags or glass tubes) would be an obvious favorite to challenge food-based ethanol, especially given the research money available as the price of gas rises, making alternative fuels an attractive investment.  It's fast growing, and only requires sunlight and water for nutrients.  It doesn't need to be fertilized, plowed, or weeded (ironically).  And best of all, it is a very renewable resource that has a byproduct of water.  But there are some concerns:

While algae is more energy rich than other biofuel alternatives such as wood chips, grasses, or agricultural waste, the biggest obstacle is that growing it is not cheap.  Tennant from PetroAlgae states, "Anybody can grow algae if cost is no object. Lots of algae companies have done a great job, but the system doesn't look like a massively scalable system."

As with all new technologies there are a few hurdles, but there are generally parallel leaps in process and design that come along to remedy those concerns as an industry matures, much like the revolution that saw corn farmers in the Midwest feeding neighboring states in the 1800’s use technology to create a worldwide market today.

Technical difficulties exist as well too.  During the GreenFuel's Arizona Power pilot program it experienced the surprising problem of growing too much algae, making it too expensive to harvest.  Water recycling has been another key issue.  Weaver of Bionavitas says another important problem is bioreactors (typically bags or tubes) limiting light and thus hindering photosynthesis

So algae probably won’t be a solution in the immediate future, but it is a step in the right direction.  Innovative solutions to seemingly impossible problems have, more often than naught, begun life in America.  Freedom, capitalism, and an entrepreneurial spirit unrivaled in the rest of the world allow Americans the opportunity to create the most wonderfully useful inventions imaginable.  Given capital investment, an open market, a genuine need, and a little time, almost every problem we face can be solved, especially if the government stays out of the way.

On the bright side:  Once they perfect the process to the point of commercial viability, they just might have people who will come along in the spring and collect all that green stuff that’s growing in your swimming pool.  Talk about innovation!

What do you think?  Will we ever get a truly solid handle on our oil dependence, or will we continue to power our economic engine with a 19^th century solution?

It is possible that Newt’s book, A Contract With The Earth, is getting some coverage in the Clinton and Obama camps.  In an online story by Ashley Holstrom of the Duke Chronicle, there are some interesting quotations from Dan Utech (Clinton adviser) and Jason Grumet (Obama adviser) that echo the Speaker’s sentiment.  From the article, entitled “Campaign advisers talk energy, environment”:

"They added that the energy problems facing the United States are also issues for the world at large. Keeping jobs in the U.S. and working with other countries in a respectable manner to improve environmental standards is crucial, they said."

"We have to work with them and not suggest that low-carbon living comes at the cost of healthcare, education, etc.," Grumet said.

Talking about the differences between protecting the environment and protecting jobs is difficult in today’s world.  If a person takes the side of smaller, less intrusive government and less burdensome regulation, they run the risk of being portrayed as being “against clean water” or “ani-environment”.  Supporters of the environment are sometimes labeled as “whackos” when they place the protection of the environment ahead of other priorities, such as jobs and people.   Thus, any discussion of the environment has been gridlocked for years now, and as Grumet is quoted as saying:

[When it comes to global changes], “We need a president who’s going to shake the Etch a Sketch pretty hard”

While conservatives may disagree with some of the arguments made by environmentalists (or the candidates they support), and by these two men, one of which may advise the next president, there are issues where we agree, and agreements are a great place to start a conversation.  From the above quotes, it is clear that we agree on three fundamental issues:

1.        The energy problems we face are real, and require solutions that can be sold to the world.

2.        We cannot bankrupt our system of governance to be more environmentally conscious.

3.        What we are doing right now is not working, and must be changed dramatically.

It is not necessary to begin the conversation in 100% agreement (and surely we are far apart on some issues), but the conversation must begin, lest it be dominated by the booming voice of one party, or the grumbling silence of the other.  We can find innovative solutions that will bring us cleaner water and air.  We can improve the quality of our lives through incentivising technological solutions that mean better, higher paying jobs, and more exports for America.  We can work together to build a 21^st century economy based in part upon common sense conservation and restoration.   Who would disagree with those principles? 

Or we can continue to call each other names and leave the next generation to discuss how we failed to capitalize on our fundamental agreements, leaving yet another 20^th century problem to our children because we were so comfortable disagreeing with each other. 

What do you think?

Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.

I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of "Just yell no!"

I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. 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. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad.

Thank you for reading and visiting Newt.org

Newt

Newt is conducting an online e-chat with Slate magazine this morning. The topic is the Environment and Newt's book A Contract With The Earth. You can participate in the chat here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703486.html

The transcript of the chat is available there as well.

And you can catch up with all of Newt's points on the environment at ContractWithTheEarth.com

© Callista Gingrich, Gingrich Productions

Newt recently filmed a commercial with current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The ad focuses on how we can come together to find solutions for problems caused by climate change.

For Newt's explanation of why he filmed this ad for the Alliance for Climate Protection, founded by Al Gore, please see the audio file on the left or visit ContractWithTheEarth.com. Click play on the Audio box to the right.

After listening to his explanation, let us know your thoughts below so we can share them with Newt.

You can view the ad below:

Terry Maple, the co-author with Newt of A Contract with the Earth, alerts us to this important article in the journal Nature about the Kyoto treaty.  The authors conclude:

It will take courage for a policy community that has invested much in boosting Kyoto to radically rethink climate policy and adopt a bottom-up 'social learning' approach . . . continued policy failure 'spun' as a story of success could lead to public withdrawal of trust and consent for action, whatever form it takes.

Read More

The BBC has a useful primer on biofuels, including their environmental advantages and challenges.  While the positive impact of biofuels on air quality and advantages from a geopolitical perspective are often touted, it's interesting to see it has some worried about the impact on biodiversity. 

Also, just in time for Halloween, it seems as if some have found a way for us to stay green even after we shuffle off our mortal coil.  Green funerals. 

In the NY Times yesterday, David Cay Johnston describes a trend in states to re-regulate the power industry:

“More than a decade after the drive began to convert electricity from a regulated industry into a competitive one, many states are rolling back their initiatives or returning money to individuals and businesses.

The main reason behind the effort to return to a more regulated market is price. Recent Energy Department data shows that the cost of power in states that embraced competition has risen faster than in states that had retained traditional rate regulation.”

Can inefficient bureaucracies manage our power any better than they already manage other things?  The list of bureaucracies' failures is lengthy indeed- our schools, our health care, etc.

Townhall columnist Thomas Sowell brings up a applicable point about government pricing controls in his piece on health care:

"Few people show the slightest interest in what has actually happened in countries with government-controlled medical care.

...

It is amazing how many people seem uninterested in such things as why so many doctors in Britain are from Third World countries with lower medical standards -- or why people from Canada come to the United States for medical treatment that they could get cheaper at home.

Government price controls on pharmaceutical drugs are more of the same illusion of something for nothing."

Without a market system, how can people know the true price and quality of the power that they are buying?

Read the full article by Sowell here.

The Globalist (a title that, no doubt, provides a clue as to where it is coming from) has an interesting article about how America's sense of exceptionalism is preventing us from leading the planet to do something about climate change.

It's an interesting read but in many ways typical of the notion that environmentalism must involve pain and that any climate change action must inherently involve multilateralism.

It's just another example of the need for a new, science-based, entrepreneurial approach to the environment to compete with the Left's complete control of the terms of debate on this issue.