Phil: Thanks for reporting on this. However, Gingrich has never been much of a conservative on the environment, usually preferring the heavy hand of government in that policy area.
As for this notion of an “incentivized market,” markets are already incentivized—it’s called “profit.” What Gingrich really means is that he knows more than all of the vast amount of knowledge already in a market. Thus, if markets don’t favor various technologies like say ethanol (which has been “incentivized” with tax credits, subsidies and mandates for the better part of two decades), then markets are wrong and Gingrich will wield the levers of policy to show them the proper way.
As for Kerry’s notion that global warming regulation would work just like the regulation on sulfur dioxide emissions, it’s bunk. When Congress instituted those regulations in the 1990s, the technology, such as smokestack scrubbers and low-sulfur coal, was already upon us. There is no similar technology out there for carbon dioxide.
And there probably won’t be for a while, no matter how much Gingrich incentivizes things.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?