Instead of Crowing, Obama Eats Crow

The only thing burning is tax dollars.

Finally some good news regarding “global warming” comes out of Washington:

President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

It seems the world will be spared, for a short time, more lofty, and useless, rhetoric from Obama regarding “global warming.”  Were Cap and Trade not dying a slow death (in the bed next to Obamakare) in the Senate we’d have probably heard more lies regarding why we should make Americans pay at least $1,600.00 per year in taxes.  Too bad we are already getting some of it now:

“The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized,” Obama warned in a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“But I think it’s important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we’ll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we’re engaged in.”

 Interesting words from the president.  Notice he has decided the debate is over and anybody who disagrees with him is acting based on ideological grounds.  I suppose Al Gore is not acting on ideological grounds?

What Obama can’t bring up is that he main goal in passing Cap and Trade is to tap into the pocketbooks of American taxpayers so he can fund Obamakare.  Indeed, the two bills’ fates are tied together for without the money from Cap and Trade Obamakare will be unaffordable.  It’s not like the money from Cap and Trade will go into some sort of a green lockbox to be used to fund butterfly preserves.

“Alternative” energy schemes are just that… schemes.  So much of the cost of building “alternative” energy infrastructure comes from the U.S. taxpayer.  Buying a hybrid, a clean diesel car, installing solar panels on one’s home… all eligable for a tax credit.  If these technologies were so great why subsidize them?  Let the market work things out.  When VCRs came out they were very expensive… did the government subsidize them?  Adoption of new technology brought the costs down once the consumer determined which technology was the best (remember Beta, anybody?).

And let’s not forget about how “Big Union” is using Greenmail (like blackmail but for environmental projects) to force contractors to use Big Union to build solar plants.  In fact, a massive solar plant was planned for Kalifornia’s desert until Big Union and environmentalists killed the project:

As California moves to license dozens of huge solar power plants to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.

I’m glad Obama won’t dare show his face in Copenhagen but unfortunately we’ll have to suffer through his Nobel Peace Prize speech.

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.