Obama implied an 8 trillion dollar cost for his energy agenda and the use of "force" in its implementation . . in January of 2008 . . . and we missed his warning.

March 27, 2012

The Environment Protection Agency released a draft rule Tuesday that puts new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from any future coal-fired power plants. The technology required to meet the new limits on carbon dioxide is currently so expensive that the rule effectively would put an end to the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. . . . . .  The limit would basically outlaw construction of conventional plants that are fueled by coal . . . . EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, says her proposal is a commonsense way to tackle the very real threat of climate change.  (Source: NPR reporting)

Editor's notes:  first thoughts include the fact that Barack Hussein knew his plan in this regard, well before election day, 2008.  In fact,  he knew that force would be the "legislative" call of the day.  He was not only fully aware of the 8 trillion dollar cost,  but,  because of its projected unpopularity,  he knew that his agenda would only be established through force.  In my text reproduction,  the highlighted comments offer evidence of the following points: 

1.  He fully understood in January of 2008,  that force would be the key legislative/regulatory strategy [#1 and 2].  We now know,  four years later,  that "mobilizing the citizenry" [#3] was never part of Obama's "do or die" Washington strategy.  

 2.  He was fully aware that his cap and trade,  whether implemented as legislation or via EPA regulations,  would "skyrocket" the cost of home heating fuels to the consumer ([cf. #4 and 5]. 

3. He implies a cost that surely did not come [solely] from his opponents, a cost of 8 trillion over the span of a ten year period  all on the backs of the middle class [cf. # 6;  anytime you are talking about "trillions," you are talking about 10 years or more]. 

4.  In his last statement presented below [#7],  he makes is clear that if the voice of  persuasion   will not work,  then you draw from an LBJ tactic and cram it down their throats.                     

Text taken from the video/audio above including my highlights: 

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington [#1] . 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 [#2]? That requires mobilizing a citizenry [#3]. 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 [#4]. 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 [#5].   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 [#6]. 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 [#7].