While campaigning, Obama claimed, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket." But now he claims it will only cost the price of a postage stamp a day. Designed to combat global warming (well, “climate change” as they now call it to give themselves a measure credibility since global temperatures have actually dropped over the last decade), cap and trade will do little to help our planet.

It will, however, do a great deal to harm our country. I am not here, however, to debate the merits of the arguments against the theory that a supposed impending climate catastrophe is man-made. Indeed, while I see no evidence of such a nightmare scenario itself, much less that we are to blame, I’m not going to close my mind to the possibility that we do face potential problems. However, I can still breathe without an oxygen tank at my side, I still get hot outside just as I always did in the summer and I still get cold outside just as I always did in the winter. Further, climate history indicates that our planet has gone through numerous climatic changes and there is no logical reason to assume this will change. Scientists themselves fall on either side of this debate with some passionately promoting the theory and others just as passionately denouncing it.

So, which is it? If the scientists themselves cannot agree, then who are the politicians to presume they hold the truth? No doubt, there are many talented and intelligent men and women among their ranks. Lawyers, lobbyists, businessmen, even community activists can be found among our leaders. But the president is not a climatologist nor, that I know of, are any senators or representatives, either. So they either actually believe this theory based on what others have claimed or they stand to profit from pretending there is a real danger. I therefore question whether or not they have listened to, much less seriously considered, the other side of the argument.

Al Gore, Harvard graduate with a degree in government cum laude, vice president, career politician, author, and former journalist (I do not see scientist or climatologist here) has done much to argue in favor of (some might call it fear-mongering for) the side of man-made global warming. On the opposing side I would site Dr. Richard Lindzen as one of its leading critics. He has alleged that scientists who do not subscribe to this theory "have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse."

Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at MIT is a scientist and as such is actually in a position to speak with some credibility on the climate. In part, Lindzen's MIT biography reads:

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere.

He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radioactive transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole-to-equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation and the maintenance of regional variations in climate.

The biography concludes by noting the many awards professor Lindzen has received, what numerous and prestigious scientific bodies he holds membership in and so on. So, if you were interested in learning more about the climate who would you ask? Gore or Lindzen? Of course, this isn't to say that Lindzen is absolutely correct concerning his skepticism of man-made global warming. But I do question why scientists whose research leads them to oppose the theory of man-made global warming would have their funding cut off. Should we not seek the truth? Should we not maintain an open mind until conclusive proof, one way or the other, is discovered?

But Obama seems to have his mind made up. "The problem is" he claimed, "that can you get the American people to say this is really important?" Well, perhaps he can if we the people have enough evidence to support that it actually is important. Concluding this thought he then said we need to "force their representatives to do the right thing." Sounds totalitarian, but what is the "right thing" anyway? According to Obama, it is forcing through Congress a bill that is based on theory rather than fact.

If, as in April, Obama claimed, "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over” then it seems we need more proof. But with no clear-cut proof either way I would say ideology is not only in the driver’s seat but careening our nation towards the proverbial economic cliff.

Why? Because of what this bill really means for America. Cap and trade, or emissions trading, is supposed to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. Another way to put it is to provide punishments for not achieving reductions in pollutant emissions. What our government is going to do is issue pollution permits that can be bought by big polluters and sold by companies that pollute little or not at all. The idea here is that the buyer pays for the right to pollute and the sellers are rewarded for polluting less.

So we need to save the planet (according to the environmentalists) and yet we want to make sure somebody makes a buck while doing it? What else is going on here? These companies will still be allowed to pollute just as much as they want. They just have to pay for the privilege of helping to bring on this supposed apocalypse. I’m staggered by just how inconsistent this is with the environmentalists' stated goals of protecting the environment.

All Cap and trade will do is increase energy prices. Sure, Obama claims that the bill “is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.” But, as any Economics 101 student knows, expenses paid for by any provider of goods and services are passed along to the consumers of these same goods and services. Obama understands this, even admitted that such companies "would have to retrofit their operation" and "that will cost money; they will pass that money onto consumers." So emissions are not necessarily going to be cut, certainly not by much. But energy prices are clearly going to rise thanks to new, onerous regulations.

Under cap and trade it will cost you more now whenever you flip on a light switch, fill up your car with gas, heat your home during winter or cool it in summer, take a hot shower or bath, wash your clothing, dry your clothing, watch your television, surf the net, charge your iPod or cell phone and any other power you consume (or a restaurant consumes to prepare your food, or a hospital to provide medical services, or a salon to cut your hair, or a Wal-Mart to provide you a comfortable shopping experience or… well, you get the idea).

The bottom line is that there was no need to rush this bill through, no need for the House to pass it without even having read through it. Rushing something this big through Congress means our elected officials are trying to hide something from us. Further, there is no need to punish the so-called polluters until verifiable evidence is presented that yes, indeed, CO2 emissions are destroying our planet and man is responsible. So far, no such evidence exists and there are good arguments that it never will. For now, creating an environment that promotes designing alternative sources of power by rewarding such endeavors and not punishing others seems a balanced, reasonable approach. Tax breaks, grants for research and other methods to help foster wind, solar and other alternative sources of power should be developed as a way not only to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources but also to enhance human knowledge and perhaps, someday, find even more efficient and cheaper alternatives than our current energy sources provide.

Sadly, it seems it will be a cold day in Washington before that happens. But with global temperatures on the decline, perhaps that day is not too far off?

Jeff O’Bryant is the author of “Up into the Hills — A Brief History of Catoosa County” and holds two degrees: a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He can be contacted at jeffobryant@catt.com.