• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

During a long but little-reported interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, candidate Barack Obama explained how his “cap and trade” energy policy would affect consumers if he became president:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket….Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was . . . they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Unfortunately, this is one of the campaign promises that Obama plans to keep.

The Waxman–Markey “cap and trade” energy bill being pushed by Obama and congressional Democrats will increase energy costs for a family of four by $436.00 the first year it takes effect (2012), and will increase to $1,241.00 by 2035, according to estimates by the Heritage Foundation. In addition, this disastrous legislation will also increase energy costs for every business, factory and farm operation, which will, naturally, be passed on to the consumer. The indirect cost for a family of four is estimated to average $2,979.00 annually from 2012-2035.

Simply stated, a government mandated “cap” on carbon emissions becomes a crushing economic millstone about the neck of an already struggling economy. Not only will costs of electricity increase, but so will the costs of natural gas and gasoline. $4-per-gallon at the pump will seem to be a bargain once this policy is implemented.

Not only is there no constitutional authority for Congress to regulate carbon emissions, but the premise of “global warming” and “climate change” upon which such environmental theories are based does not have the support of a scientific consensus. In fact, in March 2009 Dr. Alan Carlin, employed by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, issued a 98-page report that was quite skeptical “global warming.” Carlin’s report stated: “My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate [carbon dioxide]. There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid 20th century. They’re not going up, and if anything they’re going down.”

Carlin’s report was suppressed by EPA director Al McGartland, who explained to Carlin, “the administration has decided to move forward . . . and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

Dr. Carlin’s report flew in the face of the recommendation in favor of carbon regulation that the White House wanted so it was quashed, and Dr. Carlin was advised by McGartland not to have direct communication with anyone outside the EPA. Rep. Joe Barton, senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the “EPA report that has been suppressed . . . raises grave doubts about the [environmental] endangerment findings [and] if you don’t have an endangerment finding, you don’t need this [Waxman-Markey] bill.”

Not only do scientists disagree on “global warming,” but there is little hard evidence that carbon emissions cause changes to the global climate. But it appears that Obama and his liberal administration are not really interested in what the Constitution or the scientific community have to say when it interferes with their radical agenda.

Whatever Obama’s agenda is, it certainly is not to promote and stimulate America’s business and industry sectors. For example, in the same interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama said:

“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.”

And when some in Congress suggested levying tariffs on goods from countries like China and India who do not impose such restrictive costs and regulations on their industries, Obama said that he will oppose such protectionist measures.

The end result is that once again American companies faced with the increasing costs of doing business in this country will be forced to move to South America, China, or India, taking thousands of jobs with them. Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, recently predicted that if Obama’s cap-and-trade program passes Congress, “You’re going to find signs on manufacturing doors . . . that say ‘Moved — Gone to China.’” Obama’s response was simply to say that remaking the nation’s energy system would “create jobs,” and that “We are going to see, I think, an enormous amount of economic activity.” Another empty promise!

With the national unemployment rate growing (up to 9.5 percent in June), we simply do not need a “tax-and-bankrupt” energy policy out of Washington, D.C. Our economy cannot take another “plan” from the federal government that will grow nothing but more government. With all the talk about carbon emissions, I believe the real danger to our country is the hot air coming out of the White House and the Congress.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.