In recent reports, I’ve focused on the economic realities of cap and trade. But today I want to zero in on the radical ideology behind it. I’ve mentioned it before, but it is worth repeating as it underscores the tremendous consequences of elections and informed voting.

Writing at Forbes.com, Joel Kotkin discusses the disturbing “de-development” agenda behind cap and trade. Cloaked in noble notions of saving the planet from global warming, cap and trade is economic suicide, which is why China and India won’t agree to it. (So why should we?) The goal is to destroy capitalism and bring America to its knees. Here’s an excerpt from Kotkin’s column:

“To deal with this looming crisis, Holdren in the 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with Anne and Paul Ehrlich) developed the notion of ‘de-development.’ …The only way to close ‘the prosperity gap’ was to lower the living standards of what he labeled ‘over-developed’ nations. [That’s us!] …

“So who benefits…? Hegemony-seeking communist capitalists in China might fancy seeing America and the West decline to the point that they can no longer compete or fund their militaries. A weakened European Union or U.S. also won’t be able provide a model of a more democratic version of capitalism to counter China’s ultra-authoritarian version. …De-industrialization means the West falls back while emerging economies grow…”

In case you don’t know, the “Holdren” Kotkin refers to above is Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science czar. Let me connect the dots again: We have a president who has vowed to bankrupt the coal industry, an energy secretary who wants $8.00 a gallon gas and a science czar who wants to “de-develop” the United States (and who has also advocated forced abortions and sterilizations).

Energy is the lifeblood of America’s economy, our national security and your standard of living. Few issues could so negatively effect our country’s future and our children’s futures as cap and trade, and that’s why it matters.

Why It Matters

My friends, it is difficult to overstate the profound impact of the Obama Administration’s decision to regulate carbon emissions. This move could have a devastating effect on our standard of living. Yesterday, I noted how environmental regulations in Germany have led to electricity prices that are three times higher than ours and $8.00 a gallon gas. It’s hard to imagine that any politician would think that is a good idea, but that’s exactly what the Left has done in Germany, and that’s exactly what it wants to do here.

Barack Obama said his cap and trade program would bankrupt the coal industry. Well, America gets half of its electricity from coal. (Once Obama bankrupts the coal companies, will they be eligible for a government bailout like GM?) And I suppose it is just a coincidence that President Obama’s Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, advocated for European-style gasoline taxes just last year, telling the Wall Street Journal in September 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” If higher electricity prices and more pain at the pump aren’t enough, how do you feel about paying twice as much for food?

In June, Robert Zubrin of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies wrote an excellent article on the impact of cap and trade to America’s agriculture industry. Here’s an excerpt:

“If you tax carbon, you tax fertilizer and pesticides. If you tax these things, you tax food, and by no small amount. A $15/ton CO2 tax would increase fertilizer production costs directly by about $60/ton, with the cap-and-trade bill’s increased transport costs inflating the burden still more. That’s enough to make many farmers use less fertilizer, and less fertilizer means less food.

“To get a sense of what it would mean for farmers to abandon fertilizer, … go to the supermarket and compare the price of the ‘organic’ produce, grown without chemical fertilizer, to the regular produce, which… typically costs less than half as much. It is one thing for wealthy organic food buffs to voluntarily pay such high prices for their food — that is their right. But to impose such costs for basic groceries on everyone else, and particularly the poor, as part of a largely symbolic effort to try to change the weather, is self-indulgent in the extreme.”