He says things that are clearly bogus to anyone who's in the energy industry, but sound smart to people who aren't.  But it begs the question of whether people who aren't in the industry are really galvanized by a bunch of wonkery around drilling policy.  Is he running for office?  Does he believe his own BS?  Or does he simply want to be recognized as a smart dude by people who aren't smart enough to know better?  What's the motive?  I'm perplexed.

the newt talks about "minimizing the carbon loading of the atmosphere." it's much too early yet to talk about cuts isn't it.

Nice to know that he's ignoring the international research on what's working and most cost-effective to "minimize" carbon; if Newt looked at the UK's own analysis of what policy instruments were more cost-effective, it'd be readily apparent that regulation was far more effective than subsidies.

Let's make this place better.

And vast new deposits of oil and gas.  Ethanol, and even some renewables amd conservation, and BEVs like the Tesla. That's pretty much what Newt wants subsidized?

I would bet he just wants tax breaks, further corporate welfare for the oil, nuclear, and coal industries, that's what he means by incentives.

This green conservatism, does it reward actual generation and savings of GHG-free kwhs?  Nope.  But it opposes cap and trade, permit auctions, or carbon taxes.

The populist line on cap and trade.  How did he coopt that?  Many progressives are calling hedge fund foul on cap and trade.  A "derivative" bubble ready to inflate and burst.

I thought corporatists were all for cap and trade, as it proved in Europe to be a green wash.  Maybe Newt will "compromise" on cap and trade to get his corporate incentives pushed through?  I'm sensing a big energy lobbyist strategery of misdirection here.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin