Are you one of those people thinking there may be a positive “strategery” in enduring four years of President Barack Obama? It will be such a disaster that it will inevitably lead to a Carter-to-Reagan renaissance, right? Think again. We don’t have the luxury. If you aren’t listening to what Obama and the Democrats are saying about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” it may be time for you to wake up.

My blood ran cold while reading the recently released “Climate Change Legislation Design White Paper” prepared by the Democratically controlled U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Ostensibly a discussion of the appropriate role of each level of government in addressing climate change, the paper leaves no doubt that the Democrats are committed to “a mandatory, economy-wide climate change program” that mandates “the efficient use of government and societal resources.” We’re not just talking curly fluorescent light bulbs here folks.

This troubling paper finds that, “State, Tribal, and local programs could significantly improve the efficiency of societal resources used to achieve the necessary greenhouse gas reductions.” In other words, all of us advocates for protection of “societal resources” (group-think for “private property”) should get our best grip because more government “help” is on the way.

One regulatory idea that excites the Democratic staff is that, “Transportation emissions are highly correlated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a parameter that state and local governments are particularly well-positioned to affect.” Suggesting that mandatory reduction of per-capita VMT would be an excellent experiment for local government. Holy Cow!

Thankfully, Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX, the ranking member of the Committee, gets it. He has been a voice of reason, even taking Speaker Pelosi to task for spending taxpayer dollars to buy so-called carbon credits from the Chicago Climate Exchange supposedly to offset carbon use at the Capitol. Even the Washington Post eventually revealed the dubious nature of such programs. Barton continues to point out the folly of crafting solutions before we know the cause of climate change.

If you think these ideas are only the exuberance of a handful of liberal Democratic staffers, think again. Respected think tanks have weighed in on this issue. The Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force of Energy and U.S. Foreign Policy, chaired by John Deutch and James R. Schlesinger, reports that energy independence is unachievable without more government intervention. As a result, the Task Force concludes that we must embrace a “substantial federal excise tax on gasoline” to encourage less driving, stricter CAFE standards, and cap gasoline consumption adopting a system of tradable vouchers which would “redistribute income among consumers.” That sounds like rationing, or worse.

The report also notes that mandated shifts to mass transit could reduce oil dependence. In my minds eye, I am seeing the first video out of North Korea with masses of North Koreans walking in sub-freezing temperatures on sidewalks along roadways with no automobiles!

At any rate, the report only acknowledges in passing that current higher energy prices are “…unleashing remarkable forces for innovation in this country. Entrepreneurs are seeking new ideas for products and services, such as batteries, fuel cells and biofuels. Private equity capital is seeking opportunities to invest in new energy technologies….” Good God, is it “remarkable” to these folks that the free market that has made America the greatest economy on earth is actually capable of dealing with this issue if simply allowed to work?

The Brookings Institution has joined in with “The Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival” heralding that we must “radically change” how we use and conserve energy, stating that, “Avoiding destruction of the planet through the emission of greenhouse gases is one of the most complex challenges … we have ever created for ourselves. Our very survival is at stake.”

Even though some conservatives may groan, McCain’s support for a reasonable “cap and trade” solution to limiting CO² emissions is based on a free market approach. As McCain puts it, “The debate is between the carbon tax and cap and trade.”

Obama’s support of a scheme that requires all industrial CO² emitters to purchase a permit to do so, in essence a carbon tax, signals his support for a more all-encompassing foray into centralized energy control. The key issue is energy control. Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a well respected anthropogenic global warming skeptic, wisely observes that, say what you may about global warming consensus, “The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world—to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power.” 

So, to those (Bill Cunningham and Ann Coulter included) who think a little “dance with the devil” is not all bad, the prospect of very bad climate change “solutions” over the next four years should bring them back to reality.