Democrat Admits Cap and Trade Intentionally Increases Energy Prices

Democrats are now so bold that they just utter their Socialist agenda without hiding it. Before they would create some program with an alternative agenda, but now they just tell us what they are going to do. It is arrogant and tyrannical. There is a bright side. At least, they are being more honest.

For example, the Democrats presented the “Spendulous” Bill as a stimulus when in actuality it did not stimulate anything. It was political pay offs to Liberal cronies, like unions and ACORN.

Now, a Congressman has just spelled out what Cap and Trade is really for, to drive up energy prices and force Americans to choose green energy. We knew that! But, it is nice to see that they are being honest about it now.

One problem. The green technology to replace our current energy, coal and natural gas, is not viable yet. Wind, solar, and geo-thermal is neither as efficient nor cost effective enough yet. In many areas, it is not even available and may not be able to be available.

So, the government is intentionally driving the price of energy up to compel us to other energy alternatives that do not work and may not exist. This is typical of government, no clue about unintended consequences. It is obvious Liberals cannot see past the end of their noses.

This is not going to drive Americans to alternative energy. It is going to drive the cost of energy, such as natural gas, coal, electricity, gasoline, heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, etc. This is going to drive the cost of everything up. Not only will we have to pay exorbitant taxes, but this policies is going to cause inflation, since energy prices directly affects products and services.

Now, the wealthy and a few others will be able to handle this excessive taxation and costly changes; however this directly negatively affects the poor, working class, minorities, and others who voted for Democrats.

I will say it again. Is the “change” you voted for?

Here is the story from CNSNews.com:


(CNSNews.com) - Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday.

Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.

Some Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com at the Capitol agreed that electricity prices would go up, and they dismissed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as little more than a large tax on energy producers, the cost of which is passed onto consumers.

With cap and trade, the amount of carbon an energy company can emit is capped. If it exceeds that limit, the company can purchase credits (“trade”) that would go towards investment in green or alternative energy firms.

“I think the government should serve as an impetus to do so, because as I said at the outset, not doing anything -- the catastrophic results that can come from that – are what drives this issue,” Larson told CNSNews.com when asked if boosting electricity prices through government policy to drive consumers to green energy was a good idea.

“We ought to do it in a way that both enhances our economy and our economic opportunity and also preserves the universe and the earth,” said Larson.

At a press conference Tuesday, Obama told reporters that a good cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions should be designed to “protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices.”

"I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere,” Obama said.

"The way it's structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through," he added.

But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back on Jan. 17, 2008, then-candidate Obama said his plan for cap and trade would tax every unit of carbon emitted, which would in turn create an expanded market for new technologies.

“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,” said Obama.

“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.”

Eventually, these taxes would ruin the U.S. coal industry, added Obama. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” said Obama. “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.”

Republicans said that Obama’s plan to cap and trade carbon emissions would result in a massive tax hike on the companies and American consumers who have to pay for energy to heat and light their homes, and drive their cars, and to run myriad aspects of their daily lives.

“Of course” Obama’s plan will drive up energy costs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com. “The president’s proposal is unacceptable, because it’s just being used as a source of revenue.”

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com: “Of course the cost is going to rise. When people think of cap and trade, they are going to think of a giant tax increase.”

Larson also said he is concerned about “what happens down the food chain.”

“My concern specifically is what happens down the food chain, so to speak, to the consumer who ultimately bears the cost,” he said. “I think that no matter what we do, I have to be in favor of a carbon-tax approach, because I think that it just levels with people right from the outset. But I believe completely in passing the savings back down the stream to have an impact on the consumer.”