Newt Gingrich fielded questions on ethanol policy at a town hall meeting with voters at Level 10 Apparel's warehouse in Hiawatha, Iowa on December 19, 2011. Here's what the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker had to say:
Newt Gingrich: If the subsidy expires, it will not have a dramatic impact,
as long as we keep the renewable fuel standard and as long as we’re moving
towards flex fuels cars and flex fuel stations, which are the keys we need.
Because the truth is when you get to a certain price in oil,
the production of ethanol and the production of corn have improved so much in
the last 25 years that we are actually very competitive with oil, as long as –
it has to be carried.
I mean the problem we have – this is what some our friends
don’t understand about the development of biofuels.
Big oil would like to have nothing to do with it because Big
Oil would like to sell nothing but oil. Okay?
I am for every America source of energy, because I think it
is a national security issue, and if you watched last week when the Iranians
were practicing closing the Straights of Hormuth, and you say to yourself, “How
big would the industrial depression be if the Persian Gulf was cut off?”
We should be pretty deeply committed to getting to American
sufficiency in energy and ethanol’s a part of that.
Voter: To that point, what happens under a Gingrich administration when oil’s
back down to $40 a barrel? Then what happens?
Newt Gingrich: Well first of all, I think it’s not likely to have oil
back down to $40 a barrel.
And second, as long as we have a renewable fuel standard it
won’t matter, because you’ll have E 10 or E 15 ethanol.
I favor strongly going to E 15. There’s no technical reason
the cars can’t use E 15 and that makes a big difference.
But in the long run we ought to do what the Brazilians have
done. The Brazilians are going to a flex fuel car where every single car in
Brazil can use any form of fuel you want and the result is that the Brazilians
don’t rely on the Middle East for anything. Zero.
Okay, that ought to be our strategic goal.
Video of Newt Gingrich's ethanol remarks in Hiawatha, Iowa:
Newt Gingrich traced his support for ethanol back to the 1980's during his November 4, 2011 speech at the Iowa Republican Party Ronald Reagan Dinner in Des Moines:
In addition, it’s great to be back with Senator Grassley.
He and I worked together back in 1984 on a project called
gasohol.
For those of you who are younger, that’s what happened a
long time ago before it became ethanol.
We also worked together when I was Speaker to save it in the
late 1990’s.
I have a very simple principle on why I’m for ethanol.
I believe if my choice is for money to go to Iran or go to
Iowa, I pick Iowa.
If my choice is for money to go to Saudi Arabia or South
Dakota, I pick South Dakota.
It’s not very complicated.
The former House Speaker and 2012 Republican presidential candidate also shared words of praise for the energy plan floated by one of his top competitors, Texas Governor Rick Perry.
“I agree with most of his energy policy, which I think is
exactly in the right general direction,” Gingrich said.
Newt Gingrich launched into a lengthy defense of the ethanol
industry at the October 22, 2011 Iowa Faith and Freedom Conference Presidential
Forum in Des Moines, Iowa. While generally viewed as a platform for the GOP presidential
candidates to express their views on conservative social values, the event
was sponsored by the Iowa Energy Forum, an arm of the American Petroleum Institute backed America's Energy Forum.
Like all of the candidates who attended the event, Gingrich
was asked to answer two questions about energy policy.
Question #1: What is your comprehensive plan to shape your
future administration’s energy policy, and please include how this approach
differs from the current administration.
Newt Gingrich: You know, I’ve heard you ask that several
times tonight. And my first thought when you say, “Tell us how it would differ
from the current administration,” is, “You’ve got to be kidding.
This is the most anti-American energy industry
administration in history. It is just unbelievable. So start with that.
Okay, this a President who goes to Brazil and says to
Brazilians, “I’m really glad you’re drilling offshore. And I’d like us to be
your best customer,” which I thought was a sign that he had it exactly
backwards. The job of the American president is not to be a purchasing agent
for foreign countries. It is to be a salesman for the United States of America.
A friend of mine said, “The only way to develop Alaska is to
sell it to the Alaskans, and then Obama will think it is terrific.”
If you go to Newt.org and the 21st Century
Contract with America, we outline an energy plan. It’s pretty straightforward.
Look, Michele Bachmann had it right. We have more energy than any other
country. When you take all over our energy – 20 percent of your electricity
here comes from wind, which makes it second only to Denmark as a producer of
wind.
I have always been a supporter of ethanol. I even supported
ethanol when it was called gasohol in 1984. And I did it for a practical
reason. If my choice is for the next dollar to go to Iran or to go to Iowa, I
pick Iowa. If the next dollar is to go to Saudi Arabia or to South Dakota, I
pick South Dakota. And if you look at the growing efficiencies of corn
production and the growing efficiencies of ethanol production, it has been a
25-year success story of greater and greater productivity, which has kept money
here at home, enriched rural communities, created a much better environment for
the United States. And the fact is we need to develop more and better science
in biofuels, not cut them off.
And I just want to say one thing about – I don’t want to
pick a fight with any of my friends who are running, but I get a little weary
of people who represent oil, which has consistently attacked subsidies for its
entire history, explaining that they’re really not sure about these subsidies.
Notice its always “these subsidies” – it’s never the ones down there.
I noticed when Senator Coburn introduced a bill, which was
anti-ethanol, he didn’t include subsidies for gas and oil, because as an
Oklahoman that would’ve been suicidal.
So I just think that we ought to have a fair playing field.
I would extend and make permanent any kind of credit for things like wind or
solar so there is a capital investment ratio – I mean rational. I would also
continue to develop flex fuel vehicles, which is really – the next stage of
ethanol isn’t a subsidy for ethanol. It’s getting to flex fuel tanks and
getting to flex fuel vehicles so that everybody in American can make a consumer
choice. Because the truth is when oil reaches a certain price ethanol is
cheaper, not more expensive. But you have to have vehicles that can use it and
gas stations that have it. So there are steps that we can take there.
But I’m also for oil and gas. I mean, it is crazy for us to
have an area in the Chuckci Sea. This is not ANWR. The Chuckci Sea off Alaska
has as much oil and gas as the Gulf of Mexico. And our current litigation
policies allow all sorts of left wing environmental groups to stop - Shell oil
gave up $3 billion and quit.
So I would go through every single stage and I have a very
simple model. Keep the $500 billion a year in energy that goes overseas here at
home. It’s better for the economy. It’s better for Americans jobs. It’s better
for national security and it makes it much easier for us to then deal with
dictators overseas the way we should deal with them, without any concern for
economic reprisal.
Question #2: If you could reverse one energy policy decision
from the last three years, what would it be and what would you do differently?
Newt Gingrich: Actually, I think the biggest ones were
personnel. If you were going to have a Department of Energy, which I wouldn’t,
but if you were going to have one you ought to have Secretary who is
pro-American energy. We don’t.
The current Secretary is anti-American energy. He favors
some fantasy that made perfect sense at Berkeley in a classroom and makes no
sense in the real world.
By the way, I would also have a Secretary of Interior who
favored American solutions, as opposed to the current Secretary, who has done
everything he could to stop any production, anywhere in the country.
Video of Newt Gingrich's comments on energy at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition (starts at 12:10):
