If you’re going to say that someone “displays an ignorance for the subject so profound it’s almost gutsy,” you should probably take pains not to sound ignorant in your response to them, right? Here’s Conor Clarke on Sarah Palin’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post:

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.
I don’t think cap and trade has many supporters who think it’s the best way to become “less dependent on foreign energy sources.” (As a sidenote, I’d add that I’m skeptical we should become “less dependent on foreign energy sources” at all, for the same reason I’d be skeptical of becoming less dependent on foreign cars or foreign cucumbers. A “more industrialized” world is an accomplishment of free trade, not a reason to turn against it.) The point of cap and trade is to solve a problem of social cost: As an energy consumer, I am imposing a cost on society (pollution) that I do not take into account when I make the original decision to consume.

Emphasis added. Here’s Barack Obama, urging Congress to pass Waxman-Markey, the legislative vehicle for cap-and-trade:

There’s no disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security; we know it is. There’s no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy; it’s happening. And there’s no longer a question about whether the jobs and the industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy. The only question is, which country will create these jobs and these industries? And I want that answer to be the United States of America.

And here’s Henry Waxman, co-sponsor of the bill:

“Today the Committee took decisive and historic action to promote America’s energy security and to create millions of clean energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long-term growth,” said Chairman Waxman. ”This bill, when enacted into law this year, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution. I am grateful to my colleagues who supported this legislation and to President Obama for his outstanding leadership on these critical issues.”

And here’s Al Gore, testifying in favor of the bill:

By Repowering America with a transition to a clean energy economy and ending our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels, which is the common thread running through all three of these crises, this bill will simultaneously address the climate crisis, the economic crisis, and the national security threats that stem from our dependence on foreign oil.

And so on. Sure, these Waxman-Markey supporters are not necessarily referring to the cap-and-trade provisions of the bill — other provisions codify the national fuel-efficiency standard that will supposedly deliver us from oil addiction — but they might as well be. Petroleum refineries are going to need a lot of permits to stay under the caps, and when they run out of free ones, gas prices are going to go up. That’s the idea. The quickest way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to induce Americans to use less oil (God forbid we should drill more here), and the best way to do that is make gas more expensive.

Cap-and-trade is not the only way Waxman-Markey would lead to higher gas prices. There are tariffs, mainly directed at China, that would affect products such as oil processed from Canadian oil sands. Canadian officials have already said they will bring their refineries into compliance, which will make Canadian oil more expensive. Obama opposes these tariffs, but there is no way that cap and trade works without them; nothing else prevents the (further) outsourcing of CO2-intensive economic activities like manufacturing to countries that do not also hamstring their economies. Obama is a smooth talker, but the hope that he can talk the Chinese and Indian governments into following us over this ledge is a hope too far.

It’s funny that Clarke works a paean to the virtues of free trade into his attack on Palin. The monstrous legislative vehicle he piously tsks her for opposing is one of the most protectionist bills to emerge from Congress in decades.