Environmentalism seeks to suspend the rule of "supply and demand." Why? Because it cares more for saving the planet than for the disaster this cause for the working poor.

Update (am 3/28):  Just an observation as editor of this blog - when I post a video of Obama talking,  the pageview count is very low.  When the articles of the day are receiving a nominal 200 count,  this video got an 8 count.  I suspect that two factors or in play, here:  one is found in the axium, "Familiarity breeds contempt;"  the other found in the fact that "too much of a good thing will make one sick."  I know,  kind of the same thing framed differently.  You can see it;  wonder why Obama does not.  

Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008).  

True? Yes,  

But why?  And,  the answer is amazingly straightforward:  Obama intends to make the transition from traditional and available fuels to alternatives,  while he seeks to suspend the economic principle of "supply and demand."  And who gets hurt the most,  when the reality of supply and demand is rejected?  The poor,  who do not have the incomes needed to absorb the untimely and transitional price increases.  

What Obama should have said is this:  "If I make the transition tomorrow, we will pay through the nose.  But,  if I take 40 years for the transition,  the working poor will be able to keep up  -  but I don't give a crap about the working poor while I am saving the World. I need this transition now  - for the sake of my legacy as president/reformer."  

Correct me,  if I am wrong.