[McGINNIS] The midterm election and energy. What's the fallout from the vote, from climate change to greenhouse gas regulation and the EPA?

We keep using more of it and more of it comes from outside our borders. It's oil. We know it affects the economy, but what's the impact on national security?

[GEN. PAUL EATON, MAJOR GENERAL, ARMY (RETIRED)] Men and women of the United States, young men and women in uniform, at risk because of oil.

[McGINNIS] A look at oil's stranglehold on the U.S. -- and one veteran fighting a new battle to stop it.

[CHRIS MILLER] I just don't understand how we can be giving money to people who are basically getting guys like me and my friends killed.

[McGINNIS] And from beer to chips, how snack food companies are going green.

[ENERGY SECRETARY STEVEN CHU] So we need plants like this to lead the way and to show and to bring people here and say, "You're thinking of building a new plant -- do it this way."

[McGINNIS] Changes that won't save calories but will save energy. This is "energyNOW!" Hello, I'm Susan McGinnis. Welcome to "energyNOW!" -- a weekly look at America's energy challenges and what we're doing about them.

When Republicans swept in to control the House this past week, Democrats' dreams of climate legislation were swept out. And while voters in California stuck with their green agenda, much of the nation seemingly said goodbye to climate policy when they said goodbye to Democrats. After the "shellacking," as President Obama described Tuesday's Republican sweep, he indicated he at least believes one area for cooperation between the two parties is energy.

[OBAMA] I don't think there's anybody in America who thinks that we've got an energy policy that works the way it needs to, that thinks that we shouldn't be working on energy independence, and that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about, whether it's natural gas or energy efficiency, or how we can build electric cars in this country. How do we move forward on that agenda?

[McGINNIS] Energy issues mobilized voters in California, who sent a three-pronged clean energy message, defeating Prop 23, which would have effectively killed the state's landmark global warming law; reelecting Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who backed climate legislation; and choosing former governor and clean energy proponent, Democrat Jerry Brown. But, across much of the country, it appeared to many, Democrats who supported climate legislation were shown the door.

[JOE MANCHIN] Get the federal government off of our backs.

[McGINNIS] One Democrat who got a Senate seat -- Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia, after loudly proclaiming he would take dead aim at the president's climate agenda. But despite the political sea change caused by the elections, President Obama says he's not giving up on climate legislation.

[OBAMA] Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat. It was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

[McGINNIS] And joining me now for theMIX, to analyze the election and its impact on energy and the environment, Andy Karsner, CEO of Manifest Energy. Also, a former assistant energy secretary in George W. Bush's administration. Tyson Slocum is policy director of Public Citizen. Also an "energyNOW!" contributor. And from Seattle, David Roberts, senior staff writer for Grist. Welcome to everybody. I want to get your take on this, because a lot of people are connecting this Republican tsunami with voting out the incumbents who voted for climate legislation, now being widely called cap-and-trade. David, how much do you think it was that and how much do you think it was simply those who have a "D" after their name?

[ROBERTS] Well, I've seen, now, one poll and three statistical analyses that all come to the same basic conclusion, which is that the cap-and-trade vote was not a particularly significant indicator last night. There were much larger seismic forces at work. I don't think that cap-and-trade was all that significant one way or the other.

[McGINNIS] Andy, do you think voters cared about energy, or cared about that issue in this campaign?

[KARSNER] No, I think they cared about the economy, they cared about jobs, but I think that there was a categorical direction of all things the status quo in Washington, and I think they view cap-and-trade, much like health care, as a substantial distraction from the things that concern them most and that they voted on.

[McGINNIS] Did they think about energy, though, do you think, any voters, this time around? All of the ads really targeted incumbents about cap-and-trade.

[SLOCUM] Right. We definitely saw a lot of attack ads, some by these independent shadow groups that were running ads on that, but I agree that really the bigger picture was the economy and a perception out there that there's a lot of economic hardship and that the administration, the Democrats, didn't do enough of a good job to get unemployment down. I would not say that the 2010 election was a rejection of action on climate change. I would say that Democrats just did a terrible job of marketing some of their accomplishments, and I think there are opportunities in the next Congress for positive movement on some energy issues.

[McGINNIS] There's a lot of talk about that, that energy is one of the few, rare issues that can be areas of cooperation among the two parties. I want to listen to a sound bite from President Obama this past week in his press conference about cooperation.

[OBAMA] We've got, I think, broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country. Are we doing everything we can to develop those? There's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don't fall behind other countries. Are there things that we can do to encourage that? There's already been bipartisan interest on those issues.

[McGINNIS] So, this as an area of cooperation. Natural gas, actually, was mentioned in that speech twice, which was pretty rare, and that's being written about widely. Would you agree that this is an area of cooperation?

[KARSNER] I do, I just don't know what Washington's role in it is. I saw that several members on the Hill on the Democratic side said, "Natural gas is sort of developing by itself," so I get a bit concerned when you say there's something to do about it because I think the primary thing the government needs to do right now is get out of its own way. And if it wants to ensure that natural gas keeps scaling and giving us a clean, reliable resource that can give us domestic security and alleviate some of the emissions problems, I think the main thing to do is not get overly excited about how to wrap arms around it and love it to death.

[McGINNIS] David, do you think we'll be hearing more about natural gas from the federal level?

[ROBERTS] I think Andy's right that natural gas is going to be a big winner in the coming decade, almost regardless of what Washington does. So it's somewhat convenient for politicians now to be embracing it.

[McGINNIS] The president mentioned EVs, he mentioned efficiency. What about, Tyson, say, nuclear, clean coal?

[SLOCUM] I actually see continued strong bipartisan support for putting federal incentives and reducing some regulatory hurdles for coal and nuclear. I also see a lot of opportunity on energy efficiency issues. We've had some excellent work in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on energy efficiency, and I think a Speaker Boehner and a Fred Upton are going to be very cooperative on getting some sort of fairly sweeping energy efficiency measures.

[McGINNIS] What about federal action on climate or energy legislation? It failed with a fully Democratic Congress. Is it impossible now?

[KARSNER] Yes, I think the real question is less about what the policy is than execution and performance and implementations of the policy you have. We had 12 years in this country with no energy policy at all, and then in '05 and '07, we had sequel energy policy bills with a bipartisan coalition that Obama was for. You remember McCain calling him out, saying, "That one voted with President George W. Bush." That was a fragile coalition of people who prioritized national energy security alliances over local and parochial concerns. So this doesn't break purely on political lines. It usually breaks along geographical interest across the country, and now the president has got to stitch back together that coalition that he was part of to actually get something done. And I agree that Speaker Boehner and the others also have this in their interest, but we're going to shift from an emphasis on climate change to a re-emphasis of energy security as the major priority.

[McGINNIS] How about the EPA stepping in to take action? If nothing's done legislatively, we have the president also saying in that press conference, EPA is under court order saying that greenhouse gases are a pollutant, they fall under their jurisdiction. David, what happens as far as the EPA now? Can it become a target? What can the GOP do?

[ROBERTS] Well, one thing they can do is just talk about it a lot and make it the center of attention. They can call hearings. They can call Lisa Jackson down to testify every few weeks. And this is going to be a really sticky issue because President Obama has spent the last year basically talking down the EPA, saying the EPA is an inefficient way to go about this, it's a cudgel to try to get legislation, and now here he is stuck with it, and I think if the Senate passes some sort of resolution trying to take away EPA authority or passes a rider on some sort of an omnibus bill, defunding EPA, it's going to put Obama in a situation where he's having to defend an agency that he's been talking down, in, potentially, an election year, in 2012, so I think it's shaping up to be a real mess for Obama.

[McGINNIS] I want to move on to California's Prop 23, because it was one big message that voters there sent on clean energy. Do you think that the votes in California that were for cleaner energy signal a national direction for clean energy, or do you think California now stands out as a state that needs to come to its senses about all this? Who will be the leader in the future?

[SLOCUM] It's accurate to say that California voters are not like South Carolina voters, so you can't necessarily attribute everything that goes on in California to nationally. But I think the campaign, I think environmentalists can learn a lot about the campaign. What they gave voters was a very clear, stark choice, between the interests of a handful of out-of-state oil companies or protecting the planet and creating high-tech, clean energy jobs. And that kind of clear, stark decision is what voters really responded to. And I think that, combined with continued EPA authority, with now the state authority in California, New Mexico is making moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, you're going to have more and more pressure on Washington to do something.

[KARSNER] I think Obama all but buried it and made very clear what was obvious, cap-and-trade as a legislative proposal at the federal level is dead, so there's no extrapolation from Sacramento to Washington, no extrapolation from Sacramento to any of the other sweep of new governors that are crossing the country and have no intention of having anything like that. That's not to say it wasn't a bad idea to reaffirm the idea of price signals, but that particular means, the legislative mechanisms in California, have yet to prove themselves effective. They're unlikely to prove themselves effective. California actually has no tangible hard, heavy industry, between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, et cetera. So they're importing coal from other states that have different -- So if the atmosphere could talk, it wouldn't say, "Bless you, California, too bad about Utah," it would just say, "These are the overall emissions." So we've got to get out of this fantasy that one state's doing it right and the others aren't. So California's done some self-imposed costs with a long-term bet, and we'll see what it plays.

[McGINNIS] Okay, we'll have to leave it there. Andy Karsner, Tyson Slocum, and David Roberts, thank you for offering your insight this week. We appreciate it.

Now let's get you plugged in to the top energy news. More problems for BP. This time it's with its pipeline system in Alaska. Documents obtained by the journalism group Pro Publica show at least 148 BP pipelines carrying oil, natural gas and waste on Alaska's North Slope are sagging, like this one, or severely corroded. Many are within a few thousandths of an inch of bursting. BP workers say fire and gas warning systems are unreliable and holding tanks are on the verge of collapse. BP says it's reducing pressure in those pipelines until repairs are made.

The battle over whether the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases is heating up. The agency wants power plants, factories, and other large sources to report their emissions beginning January 2nd. Nineteen states, New York City, and a coalition of green groups are all asking a federal appeals court to let the EPA go ahead. On the other side, the National Association of Manufacturers and the state of Texas. They are suing to block the regulations from taking effect.

And as we discussed in theMIX, voters said no loud and clear to incumbents who supported so-called cap-and-trade legislation. But another state has joined a regional plan to cut carbon emissions. New Mexico regulators agreed to join six states and four Canadian provinces in the Western Climate Initiative. This is a mandatory program that prices carbon and establishes a market for it. The state's newly elected governor, though, Susana Martinez, says she opposes the Western Climate Initiative.

Coming up next on "energyNOW!" America's addiction to oil.

[GEN. PAUL EATON] We have a demand for energy that we have to satisfy. We just have to satisfy it. Countries go to war for energy. They go to war for oil.

[McGINNIS] What dependence means for national security. And, you may consider them junk food, but they may just be helping the environment. Sustainable snacks -- and beer, too.

[BREAK]

[ANNOUNCER] In 1977, in Johannesburg, South Africa, an 8-year-old boy picked up the game of golf from his father. By the age of 9, he was already outplaying him. The odds of this gentle lad winning the Junior World Golf Championships at the age of 14 -- 1 in 16 million. The odds of that same boy then making it to the U.S. and European pro-golf tours -- 1 in 7 million. The odds of the Big Easy winning the Open Championship once and the U.S. Open Championship twice -- 1 in 780 million. The odds of this professional golfer having a child diagnosed with autism -- 1 in 110. Ernie Els encourages you to learn the signs of autism at autismspeaks.org. Early diagnosis can make a lifetime of difference.

[END BREAK]

[McGINNIS] We hear it over and over again, "America is addicted to foreign oil." It's often accompanied by, "from countries that don't like us very much." Many believe, as long as the U.S. remains hooked, it's a threat to our national security as well as our economy. In this "energyNOW!" Spotlight, we look at America's oil habit and what's being done to kick it.

[RICHARD NIXON] Americans will not have to rely on any source of energy beyond our own.

[GERALD FORD] Our growing dependence upon foreign sources has been adding to our vulnerability.

[JIMMY CARTER] Dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence.

[GEORGE W. BUSH] America is addicted to oil.

[GEORGE H.W. BUSH] Reduce dependence on foreign oil.

[BARACK OBAMA] Reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[McGINNIS] Throughout history, presidents have warned of the dangers of dependence on foreign oil, often directly linked to war.

[EATON] Energy sources were part of Japan's adventure during World War II, and actually part of Germany's adventure in World War II.

[McGINNIS] Retired Army Major General Paul Eaton says he has seen oil's connection to war first-hand.

[EATON] We certainly went to Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991 because Saddam attacked Kuwait, put our oil supply line in jeopardy.

[McGINNIS] Fifteen years later, former army sergeant Chris Miller made the same connection when he served in Iraq.

[MILLER] If it wasn't for oil, we wouldn't have been involved in the Middle East and gone to war in Iraq. Every time we go to the gas pump, we're indirectly contributing to our own soldiers' being hurt.

[McGINNIS] That's why today, he's fighting a new battle.

[TROOPS] Oh! Stay down! Stay down!

[MILLER] That's the type of IED that earned me a Purple Heart in Iraq six years ago.

[McGINNIS] Miller works for Operation Free, a coalition of veterans and national security organizations working to get America off foreign oil, but it's a tough habit to break. The U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world, with more than half the petroleum used imported.

[JAMES WOOLSEY] We borrow a billion dollars a day to import oil, at today's prices -- a little more than a billion dollars a day.

[McGINNIS] National security expert James Woolsey says much of that money goes to dictatorships or autocratic kingdoms.

[WOOLSEY] The world -- including Europe, Japan, Australia -- the world of consumers of oil is at the mercy of the world of producers under the current system.

[McGINNIS] While a third of imports come from Canada and Mexico, nearly as much comes from three other nations -- Venezuela, whose leader has threatened to cut off exports; Nigeria, where an insurgency targets Western oil interests; and Saudi Arabia, which has a relationship with the U.S., one that General Eaton calls a "marriage of convenience."

[EATON] Countries don't have friends; they have interests. Saudi Arabia has interests, and we have interests that may run in parallel with the Saudis. It's not a perfect marriage, but it's a marriage that meets their intent and meets our intent.

[McGINNIS] Our money goes in; their oil comes out?

[EATON] That's pretty much basically it.

[McGINNIS] But the American Petroleum Institute's John Felmy disputes that U.S. dependence on foreign oil poses a threat.

Do you think the country's in imminent danger?

[JOHN FELMY, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE] The first thing to understand is that we only get a small share of oil from the Middle East, which is what everyone cites as being a danger. The two largest suppliers are Saudi Arabia, which has been a longtime ally for 60 years, and Iraq. Of course, we're already there in Iraq. So these arguments simply don't hold water.

[McGINNIS] Still, those who worry about America's growing oil dependence say continuing on our current path could have serious consequences, including more conflict with other nations over scarce resources, the pursuit of more environmentally dangerous sources, and worst case, a faster road to extinction of species. Despite the dire possibilities, a note of optimism comes from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Yergin.

[YERGIN] Our oil demand is on somewhat of a decline. We'll see a bump when we come out of the economic downturn, but particularly as our automobiles become more efficient, that really has a very big impact on our demand, and that's what's going to unfold.

[McGINNIS] Meanwhile, back in Illinois, Miller continues his fight for energy independence and says the solutions are laid out before us.

[MILLER] We can switch to nuclear, we can switch to solar, we can switch to wind energy. We can even go to clean coal technology. We have all this. All we have to do is to sit down and say, okay, this needs to happen. If you don't believe in climate change or you don't believe in whatever, the point is, think about the soldiers.

[McGINNIS] Miller has aspirations for a seat in Congress one day, where he says he will soldier on for energy independence.

Still ahead on "energyNOW!", as climate change devastates the earth in 2020, are you the one who can save us? Well, now, you can find out.

And, can your next "cold one" help cool the earth? We take you to Wisconsin's first sustainable brewery.

[BREAK]

[MAN] My mama always said, "Life is like a box of chocolate. You never know what you're gonna get."

[WOMAN] Lions, tigers, bears... Oh, my!

[MAN] I could have been a contenda!

[TEXT] They are not famous Hollywood actors.

[Man speaking native language]

[TEXT] But they help save the many seriously ill and undernourished children in their surrounding villages.

Help health workers save children at GoodGoes.org. Save the Children. Support, learn, give, advocate, join. GoodGoes.org.

[END BREAK]

[McGINNIS] Controlling climate change from your computer. That's what's in thehotZONE this week. It's an apocalyptic future -- Seas rise, deserts grow, and desperate humans and animals roam the earth. It's the climate-changed world, but now you can save it from devastation. In the new computer game "Fate of the World" just released in test version, players come up with strategies to bring mankind back from the brink of destruction brought on by our failure to tackle climate change while we could. The maker, Red Redemption, says Fate of the World is based on current climate science.

When you reach for that bag of chips for the big game this weekend, will you be thinking about your carbon footprint? Unlikely, right? But you can lower your carbon emissions with the snacks you choose. "energyNOW!"'s Lee Patrick Sullivan headed to the Midwest to meet with some people taking charge of the energy they use through sustainable snacks.

[SULLIVAN] My quest to find sustainable snacks starts in the Buckeye State. They make tortilla chips in this place. It's the Shearer's chip factory outside Canton, Ohio. And they're the world's only Leed Platinum certified snack food plant. I had to see how they did this, so Plant Manager Ken Brower gave me the tour.

We started where they cook the corn. The sun coming through the windows nearly eliminated the need for overhead lighting. Sensors on the ceiling controlled compact fluorescent bulbs. A sunny day, the lights are off. Overcast, like today, a few lights come on. And the water used to cook the corn is preheated by capturing energy from the plant's one-of-a-kind infrared oven.

[KEN BROWER] We use it to heat the corn-cook water. We use it to heat the water that we use for sanitation, when we clean our equipment after the process is done, and we also use it for building heat.

[SULLIVAN] This place saves energy in nearly every corner of the building. See the way those chips are vibrating into the bags? That uses 50% less energy than shaking. Rainwater is captured here for use in the plant's restrooms. Ken Brower is obsessed with saving energy. During our tour, he noticed some steam coming out of the fryer.

[BROWER] There's heat coming out of the fryer that doesn't need to be coming that way. It should either be contained in the fryer or going up the stack where I can actually recover a bit of that heat. So that is a waste point at this point.

[SULLIVAN] So this whole process has changed the way that you look at manufacturing.

[BROWER] Absolutely.

[SULLIVAN] In total, this plant uses nearly 1/3 less energy than other plants of its size. But what exactly do numbers like that mean when it comes to manufacturing across the entire country? You'd have to have a Nobel Prize in physics to figure that one out, and I don't have one, but this gentleman does. Mr. Secretary, what does a plant like this mean to energy-efficient manufacturing practices across the country?

[STEVEN CHU] It means, if you take the right steps and think about what you're doing, and make investments, those investments will pay off, perhaps, and the energy-efficiency investments could pay off in six years. And so we need plants like this to lead the way and to show and to bring people here and say, "You're thinking of building a new plant, do it this way."

[SULLIVAN] If every food manufacturing plant in the U.S. did do it this way, each year it would save enough energy to light, cool and heat every home in Florida. Secretary Chu said the owners took all of these efficiency steps and didn't take one dime of government incentives. Me, on the other hand, I was looking for a handout. What? It's one of the benefits of the job -- free samples. I'm getting thirsty.

And that brings us to Wisconsin. And what goes better with a bag of salty chips than a cold glass of beer? That brings us to the Central Waters Brewing Company here in Amherst, Wisconsin, but, come to think of it, I can't drink any of it because I'm on the clock. I'm going to need some help.

Who wants to partake in some sustainable libations? Who wants free beer? All right, let's go.

This is your neighbor Kelly, and he wants to learn about sustainable brewing.

[PAUL GRAHAM] Kelly, nice to meet you.

[SULLIVAN] Paul Graham, the brewery's owner, explained to me and my newfound friend Kelly Taylor how his company has become Wisconsin's first sustainable brewery. Every beer starts out by using local ingredients when possible to cut down on his carbon footprint.

Did either one of you ever think that you could drink a beer and save the Earth?

[TAYLOR] I did not.

[GRAHAM] I always hoped.

[SULLIVAN] But what keeps this place hopping is the row of 24 solar water heaters out back. Next to them -- six photovoltaic panels run the pumps.

When you think of Wisconsin, you think of the Packers, cheese, beer, and snow. You don't think of sunshine, but yet that sun is just blaring right now, isn't it?

[GRAHAM] It is -- today's a good money day for us. A good money-saving day, I should say.

[SULLIVAN] This is where the brewery gets the bulk of its energy savings. The panels preheat the water used in the brewing process and this place uses a lot of water. 1,500 gallons a day, to be precise. And all that water needs to be 165 degrees. The solar water heaters produce H20 at 135 degrees. Then natural gas takes it the rest of the way. And that water is also used to heat the building through pipes in the floor, also known as radiant heating.

[TAYLOR] I'm very interested now in radiant floor heating. Also the solar panels.

[SULLIVAN] Now that he has the solar panels, that heating bill now is zero, correct?

[GRAHAM] Exactly. Doesn't cost a dime to heat 15,000 square feet.

[TAYLOR] That's amazing.

[SULLIVAN] But my newfound friend didn't forget why I brought him to Central Waters. ```

[TAYLOR] The tour has been great, Paul, I appreciate it, but didn't somebody say something about a free beer?

[GRAHAM] Here you are, sir.

[SULLIVAN] I'm a man of my word.

[TAYLOR] Thank you very much.

[SULLIVAN] Does it taste sustainable?

[TAYLOR] I can't taste the sustainable, but it tastes great.

[SULLIVAN] The solar water heating system will save Paul Graham nearly $1.5 million over the next three decades. But he insists that's not why he made his brewery more efficient.

[GRAHAM] We do this because it's right. And simply because it's right.

[SULLIVAN] And back in Ohio, Ken Brower is looking for new ways to save energy at Shearer's other chip factories.

[BROWER] It's part of our culture now in this company and we're expanding that to some of our other plants as well.

[SULLIVAN] Now, not all sustainable efforts go as planned. Remember the folks over at Sun Chips? They came out with the world's first 100% biodegradable snack bag. The problem was, the thing was so loud, the company was flooded with complaints. So many complaints that they ended up taking the bag off the shelves. The folks over at Frito-Lay, which owns Sun Chips, say they haven't given up on a biodegradable bag. Expect a new one, and quieter one, on store shelves soon. In Massillon, Ohio, Lee Patrick Sullivan... "energyNOW!"

[McGINNIS] And Kettle Chips' green efforts are growing beyond its factory walls. The cooking oil from those sustainable chips is now used to make biodiesel and power company cars.

And that's it for this week's "energyNOW!" You can check us out online at energyNOW.com for extras from our stories, blogs from our contributors, and you can watch more of our MIX panelists, as they continue to debate about the election from our greenroom. If you have story ideas, questions or comments, e-mail us at feedback@energynow.com. And you can find us on Twitter and Facebook at energyNOWnews. We'll see you next week.

[END SHOW]