There is a video circulating on this site and the internet regarding Newt’s apparent support for Cap and Trade. It shows clips from a Congressional Subcommittee. First, this video makes some valid points and some fraudulant ones. My suspicion was raised by the heavily editing. Second, it uses the selective editing to lead to misleading interpretations.

To understand why one has to know the difference between cap and trade for global warming and the cap and trade used to eliminate acid rain. Yes, Gingrich supported a low cost method of reducing acid rain in 1970 using a trading program. This program initially involved 263 units and at its peak involved 2000 and was successful at eliminating acid rain in the U.S.

What the video does not show is the point Gingrich was making was that if a cap and trade program ONLY involved 2000 units he could (in theory) support it, BUT there is no way a CO2 cap and trade program would only involve this limited number of units so he OPPOSSED IT.

In a PBS interview in 2007, Gingrich did say “If he(Bush) had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said — mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology — I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation. ”

Notice that he includes tax incentives to invest in new technology. Newt spoke of this as part of a “package” So did he support cap and trade by itself or as part of a compromise?


Life Accordion to Trump | RedState

Amelia Hamilton

He also said in that same PBS interview:

“The left has this passion for using whatever issue they can find as an excuse to eliminate capitalism, to eliminate markets, to eliminate personal choice, to demand a lower standard of living. I think that’s all, frankly, irrational”

“When Gore wrote in [his book] Earth in the Balance that the greatest threat of the 20th century was the internal combustion engine, it was an utterly irrational comment. I mean, no serious student of the 20th century could look at Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the Holocaust and then say, “But boy, that automobile, that was really the big threat.”

“Now, if you can’t explain something the scale of the Gulf Stream, don’t come and tell me that you have a computer model that says that in 2073, there will be .705 change [in temperature]. It’s just not true.”

“A lot of what you see currently is science as collective anthropology: signatures on things by people who have degrees in science, but they don’t have degrees in climatology.”

“The whole idea of a U.N. panel of 2,000 scientists is anti-science. I mean, it’s politics; it’s not science.”

PBS Interviewer: In the early Clinton administration, their idea was a BTU [British thermal unit] tax, with the idea that you would raise revenue and you would reduce carbon. What did you think about that?

Newt: “I think if you’re in the left, the answer’s always a tax; the answer’s always bigger government; the answer’s always more regulation; the answer’s always more litigation. Just tell me what the question is.”

Newt did say “My conclusion is that you do not have to agree with the most hysterical interpretations to agree that, as a matter of prudence, we should minimize carbon loading of the atmosphere” but do these quotes sound like someone who does not understand the left and how they are trying to use global warming as a tool of their left-wing agendas?