For a while now, the Democrats have thrown topic after topic into the news cycle, hoping that it will cause conservatives to divide their attention, allowing for one to finally slip through with scattered opposition. I'll give you some examples: Contraception, gay marriage, gun control, immigration, women in the military, sequestration. These are just some of the issues that liberals are bouncing between every other day.
Today they would like you to focus on climate change. Liberal senators today held a news conference to announce legislation that will establish a fee for CO2 emissions to help fund green energy projects … because government-funded green energy projects have been so successful (Solyndra?).
Is a carbon tax really going to go anywhere? Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney told us that his administration had “no intention of proposing a carbon tax.” But technically Obama isn't proposing this idea; Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer are proposing this bill. Also remember that in 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
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 (sic) 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.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.
I don't know about you, but that sounds similar to what Sanders and Boxer are proposing: A system to limit carbon emissions, which would fund clean energy investments. Barack Obama said in his State of the Union that we had to focus on climate change, and at one point he supported the concept of cap-and-trade or CO2 fees to pay for green energy projects. Will he consider bridging the gap during his last term?