This is eco-Gingrich’s new energy strategy for America. Seriously. So much for Andy Revkin’s claim that Gingrich is part of a “move to the pragmatic center on climate and energy.”

Okay, the slogan is slightly different (see here). But I changed it so it would be factually accurate. After all, the Administration’s own Energy Information Administration explained in 2004 how ineffectual this strategy is. In a 2004 Congressional-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR“:

It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oilprices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel [in 2025].

Don’t spend it all in one place, American public! [Note to Gingrich: There are 42 gallons in a barrel.] EIA continues:

Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount.

Curses, foiled again!

But how is drilling for more oil — and exploiting shale oil and opposing the Warner-Lieberman climate Bil, both of which are part of Gingrich’s video message — and releasing more greenhouse gases part of “”entrepreneurial environmentalism,” or a call to conservatives to “embrace their inner Teddy Roosevelt”? You’ll have to ask Andy Revkin, E. O. Wilson, and the rest of the people suckered by Newt’s spin (see below). Read more

Price does matter. So does public perception of likely future prices. As it becomes increasingly clear that high gasoline prices are not a fluke, Americans are adjusting their driving habits.

March 2008 saw “the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history” of total vehicle miles traveled (aka VMT) according to the Federal Highway Administration’s monthly report on “Traffic Volume Trends.” [Note to FHWA -- you have mis-labeled the report here as a second February 2008 report.]

In March 2008, Americans drove 246 billion milles, compared to 257 billion in March 2007. Indeed, the March 2008 figure is lower than the March 2004 figure. To see just how remarkable that is, look at the annual vehicle-distance traveled data (in billions of miles) since 1983 (this is a moving 12-month total):

Read more

The White House put Stephen Johnson in charge of the EPA in 2005, and he has given the U.S. an anti-regulation, anti-science, anti-law approach to the health of our nation and planet. The White House and its fixer at the EPA are increasingly being sued by the states and challenged by Congress for failure to follow the law.

Last week saw Johnson called before Representative Henry Waxman’s committee and grilled on his refusal to follow the Clean Air Act and probed the White House’s role in the decision. CSPAN coverage of an entertaining snippet of the hearing is available at youtube, where Johnson refuses to answer, Waxman pushes back, Representative Darrell Issa objects to Waxman’s question, and Waxman threatens to have Issa physically removed if he does not cease. Waxman’s commitee has amassed extensive documentation of the White House’s involvement in the EPA’s denial of California’s waiver request that would have allowed it to regulation greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

Two days after Waxman’s hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer’s Committee on Environment and Public Works approved S. 2555, “The Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles Act of 2008,” which would override the EPA’s rejection of California’s waiver request: Read more

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) will talk about the climate legislation he will be introducing to the House of Representatives today. Markey is Chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and will be speaking at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, introduced by CAPAF CEO John Podesta.

I received a pre-brief on the legislation last night, and while it is not perfect, it is a much better bill than Boxer-Lieberman-Warner.

In particular, it has the single most important item new climate legislation should have — an emissions standard that stops traditional coal plants from being built [see "Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 4: The most urgent climate policy (and it isn't a CO2 price)"].

Starting in 2009, I believe, no coal plant can be built that cannot capture and sequester 85% of its carbon dioxide emissions (a grace period of a few years is allowed for plants built after that time to actually find a place to sequestered the carbon). I will post more on this bill as it is put on line.

More details on the briefing below:

Read more