Gingrich Calls EPA “A Job Killing Regulatory Engine Of Higher Energy Prices”

Fri, 2011-04-22 04:45Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

Gingrich Calls EPA “A Job Killing Regulatory Engine Of Higher Energy Prices”

In a meeting with Tea Party activists, former Republican Speaker of the House and potential 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was nothing more than “a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices.” Gingrich was discussing with the group the best way to go about lowering gas and heating oil prices for American consumers, both of which he blamed squarely on President Obama. He also pitched the idea that the United States needed to lift bans on unconventional oil extraction, ignoring the potential consequences of that particular fuel source.

This is not the first time that Gingrich has seized an opportunity to go after the EPA. Back in January, he told the Associated Press that, if president, he would completely abolish the agency. In its place, he would create a new organization that works with businesses to help draft “friendly” environmental policies. Gingrich went on to describe how he views the EPA: “What you have is a very expensive bureaucracy that across the board makes it harder to solve problems, slows down the development of new innovations.”

Gingrich has long fought against environmental protections, claiming that their only purpose is to hinder economic growth. In 2007, he co-authored the little-noticed “Contract With The Earth.” In that document, he declares that it is the God-given duty of mankind to help protect the environment. But rather than attacking the continued abuse of fossil fuels, as Salon points out, he claimed that the biggest hurdle facing meaningful environmental action are things like health and safety standards, taxes, and legislation.

While he’s not shy about paying lip service to our environmental challenges, he’s also working against every environmental protection instituted in the last few decades. His organization American Solutions launched the conservative “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign back in 2008 when gas prices were spiking, in an effort to open up more areas of the country to oil drilling (even though supply and demand were never the problem, prices spiked due to Wall Street speculators). He has also declared that the Kyoto Protocol was bad for America and bad for the environment.

Gingrich is currently in 3rd place among potential Republican presidential candidates, according to the latest polls. And while he does his best to give the impression that he is concerned about our environment, the facts clearly refute his words.

Comments

There is an analysis which indicates gas prices (like food prices) are being driven up by speculative investments in commodities. When such speculation ‘makes money’ (and it does), the only conclusion is that the people who eventually buy the product pay for this in higher prices.

However, attacking free market speculation as a source of higher prices seems to be off the radar except for a few analysts: here is one link:
http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/5625101362/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/economics-markets/20100/march-2011/rising-gasoline_prices.html

but there are not many others on line.

Apart from a reference to the Kyoto Protocol, there is no hint that a world exists outside the US.

“Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less”?
Did all the economists have the day off when this was thought up? If Drill Here, Drill No happened, what would be the result? Diffidently not Pay Less!

There could be an improvement in the US Current Account if meaningful amounts of oil was actually found. The likelihood of this is low. The last 150 years have all been about looking in the most likely place oil and gas would be found. This is all about looking in the least likely places and at places it was impossible to get at thirty years ago.

Even if oil was found, would people pay less, No! Why, because the increased demand for oil in far away kingdoms like China & India means increased oil demand is far outstripping plateauing oil supply. Currently the year of highest oil production is 2005, when production peaked at its annual peak of 73.781 mbpd (million barrels per day).

Food for thought from Gregor McDonald.
The Myth Of Peak Oil Demand And The Example Of Loma Prieta. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-myth-of-peak-oil-demand-2010-12

[x]

On Tuesday, the White House released a report estimating that delaying action on climate change could cause $150 billion a year in damage to the U.S. economy.

“These costs are not one-time, but are rather incurred year after year because of the permanent damage caused by increased climate change resulting from the delay,” the...

read more