For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes.

He's got a point, although I think he misunderstands (or mis-states) the causality: environmentalists want to protect the planet, and have historically reached for government regulation and intervention as a tool for doing so, because it seemed like the obvious thing to do.  The conservatives interpret this as: activists want more government, so they use environmental concerns as a lever to support it.  In all fairness, there is probably something to this charge, but it's not the dominant cause, I think.

They are debating in a country controlled by big business, a country committing war crimes for oil, a country described as the Saudi Arabia of coal.  Bush zeroed-out solar research and development (excepting pv) and all we get from our congress is the friendly book club.

Follow the followship... "Ladies and gentleman, this is a moral obligation. It's one in which we can [make] money. That's what those business leaders realize. We need to show the leadership. It's the only way to get China and India to participate, and that's why you have to take this with a global pricing of carbon -- certainly economy wide in the United States to start with -- and we need to offer the leadership."

I'm not feeling the love.

If it makes you all feel better, Rush Limbaugh is flabbergasted by Newt's performance, saying he gets starstruck around the Dems.  I'm anxious to see what Newt says b/c I agree with his insinuation. I'm just not sure that we have enough time for a private sector approach.

The whole argument over what the government's approach to emission reduction should be reminds me of the fact that Hitler diverted money and men to work on wonder weapons that he was sure would save the day for the Fatherland while the once mighty German army was crumbling all around him.