Throttling the EPA is one of the things I look for in any new political platform. The EPA is absolutely out of control.

At first glance it appears that other countries may produce gasoline cheaper than we can here in the U.S., but I think we can see that price advantage disappear once the last of the refineries are shut down in the U.S.

Here's Newt's position:
Congressman Gingrich has opposed EPA regulation of carbon emissions and has called for the EPA to be abolished. His 2012 energy plan consists of the following 6 points:

Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, offshore and on land.
End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.
Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development.
Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser pays laws to force the losers in an environmental lawsuit to pay all legal costs for the other side.
Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.
Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives and work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.
Here's Mitt's:
In July 2011, while speaking in Derry, New Hampshire, Romney stated that he mostly supports the Environmental Protection Agency's mission, but he does not think it should regulate carbon emissions. Romney said "We have made a saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions" and "I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies"
Of the two, Gingrich more closely meets reflects my thinking. On the other hand, merely changing the name of the agency wouldn't do it for me.