Obama isn’t cutting taxes for the poor, because they don’t pay any.
Instead, he’s planning to make it so expensive to generate electricity that only the rich can afford to use their appliances whenever they want.
Why? It’s all in the name of Obama’s True Belief in Global Warming. He says it himself — he’ll take coal off the table as an “ideological matter.” Even if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, he’s opposed to pursuing it.
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
“That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
“The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
Yes, we need to develop alternative energy resources — but not in the drastic ways proposed by Obama. A balanced transition using current domestic reserves in oil, coal, shale, and natural gas will need to be considered as America’s energy developers work to build and implement the new technologies. What Obama wants us to do is to go “cold turkey” on our current energy resources — and such a sharp move will further depress our economy.
From my informal conversations, I’d go even further: The wealthy, especially political liberals, also like that high-priced gas translates into less burning of fossil fuels by others and will help accelerate research into alternative energies.
But what these elites don’t seem to realize is that the energy policies they advocate are paralyzing almost everyone else – and that the truly ethical and environmental solution would require embracing positions long considered anathema to traditional liberalism.
The debate in Congress over more refineries and nuclear-power plants; drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts; and developing oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal has been a predictable soap opera: Grasping Republicans supposedly wish to enrich energy companies, while idealistic Democrats want only to protect the environment. But those stances, hatched in the days of $1.50-a-gallon gas, should be revisited in light of different moral considerations.
One is fairness to the poor and middle class. Like it or not, radical environmentalism appeals to an elite not all that worried when gas prices rise or electricity rates go up – since fossil-energy use goes down.
But a paradox is that most environmentalists think of themselves as egalitarians. So, instead of objecting to the view of a derrick from the California hills above the Santa Barbara coast, shouldn’t a liberal estate owner instead console himself that the offshore pumping will help a nearby farm worker or carpenter get to work without going broke?
Sadly, said “egalitarians” really don’t give a damn about the poor and the middle class. They would rather oppress them into to economic slavery in order to achieve their blinding vision of an utopian, “progressive” society.
We have the means and technology to drill and refine oil for a domestic fuel supply (along with developing alternative fuel and transportation resources at the same time) without creating the boogeymen that the radical environmentalists and the so-called “liberals” who worship them dredge up at every turn to silence those who disagree with their crippling agenda.
I think the â€œcarbon footprint policeâ€� are blowing the climate change debate way out of proportion. Their goals arenâ€™t necessarily that of conservation and better stewardship of natural resources, but to promote and spread socialism by telling others how to live their lives â€” which is the ultimate goal of the Watermelon Brigade (green on the outside, red on the inside).
Man-made global warming is nothing but a wretched hive of junk science and hysteria. Period.
I favor ecological solutions based on free-market principles, and not based on government regulation, Chicken-Little fearmongering, or feel-good groupthink. Such positive steps benefit both the environment and the people who live in it.
Let the Watermelon Brigade be damned, and let us as a nation do what is necessary to save our economy. Bring ANWR online, and let the western and gulf states pursue oil exploration and refining. Our fiscal and sovereign future depend upon it.