It's no secret that environmentalists want high energy prices because this reduces consumption. Just look at the way driving patterns altered last summer when gasoline hovered between $4 and $5 per gallon.
To put it another way, environmentalists believe it is acceptable to hurt the poor with high energy prices if it results in a "greener" planet. This is why environmentalists like cap and trade, which would decimate the American economy and bring our country to its knees.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain have talked about energy policies which include some form of cap and trade, but Obama has admitted his policies would make energy prices "skyrocket."
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.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.
There are, of course, people who are all right with people having to choose between gas for their cars and food. They will argue that people should live next to their jobs and/or make the sacrifice. They'll blame Ronald Reagan and talk about how selfish we are, all the time they are jetting here and there leaving a ginormous carbon footprint for the good of mankind.
I'm all for looking for alternatives to foreign oil, but crashing the economy "for the good of the planet" is a non-starter. U.S. citizens want cleaner air and water, but not if it means living like a third world country.
|