Last Sunday, Rep. John Dingell appeared on the C-SPAN show Newsmakers for a 30-min. interview (transcript here; video accessible via the website), and caused an enormous ruckus with this:
SWAIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to your statement that the American people want action [on climate change]. Does that also correlate with the American people being willing to pay higher prices, because of energy legislation?
DINGELL: I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.
I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people really feel about this. And it will impose, for example, on gasoline a 50 cent tax. It also will place a very substantial tax on CO2 emissions, amounting to a double-digit tax on tons of CO2 emitted.
And I think, when you see the criticism I get, you'll understand that you will be getting the answer to your question.
The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press all played the comments the same way: Dingell is offering the bill purely to show that it will fail.
This interpretation of Dingell's intentions was adopted and taken farther by bloggers -- see Bill Scher, John Laumer, Patrick Kennedy, Sam Abuelsamid, FishOutofWater at dKos, TerraPass's Adam Stein, Dan Drezner, conservative economist and carbon tax proponent Greg Mankiw, Leonardo at ToThePeople, and Gadfly at Watching Those We Chose -- who almost uniformly ascribed Dingell's move to a dastardly desire to thwart CAFE standards or, in the more overheated versions, to thwart climate legislation altogether.
To boot, I had several people email me to claim that my limited defense of Dingell was naive and misguided. "Look, we told you he's evil!"
Let's slow down and think about this a bit, shall we?
Try, if you can, to look at this from Dingell's perspective: he's convinced global warming is a problem. He's been charged with crafting legislation to tackle the issue, and he takes his responsibility very seriously. He's jealous of his prerogative as a committee chair. He's been battered around by conservatives (who say there's "no energy" in the energy bill), and then by progressives and by the head of his own caucus for failing to go far enough in his legislative proposals.
So this is what he thinks: "Look, you want me to do something serious about global warming? Fine. I'll propose a cap-and-trade system accompanied by a carbon tax, since that's what will do the job. You'll quickly see that the American people aren't prepared to pay what it will cost to do this, the proposal will disappear, and I'll get back to my job, i.e., creating a bill that can get bipartisan support and pass the House."
In short, he's calling Pelosi's bluff, and ours. He's going to find out if there is support, in Congress and among the public, for the high upfront costs that will face any serious climate legislation. That's why I think this exchange was much more revealing:
SWAIN: Where does the leadership come from, then, if, in fact, global warming is a problem you think must be fixed, policy has to change, and it will in fact cost more, but the American public isn't willing to pay the price?
DINGELL: That's a very nice question, isn't it. [long pause]
SWAIN: You have no answer?
DINGELL: You ask, where does the leadership come from? I'm going to try and give it.
I'm hoping that I will be supported by the leadership in the House and the Senate. I'm hoping that I will be supported by the White House. I'm hoping that the American people will endorse the idea.
We'll find out whether the American people - and whether their leaders here in Washington and elsewhere around the country - are willing to support what they have to do to really address the problem.
In other words: put up or shut up. If you're going to push me on this bill, I'll give you what you want. It's up to you now to run with it. Good luck.
This is a classic Dingell maneuver, pretty brassy, but I guess I just don't see how it's malign. If he was pushing a bill that only had a tax in it, you could say he was foregrounding costs and hiding benefits, but he's not. Earlier in the interview, he listed all the other stuff that was in the bill as currently constituted:
Residential appliance efficiency. Everything from clothes washers, dryers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, residential boilers will be covered, and a lot of other things, including refrigerators and freezers. This will be mandated -- something which has been avoided by every administration since we passed the first legislation back in the 1970s. Lighting efficiency, which will impose mandatory targets on future lighting efficiency, so as to save a tremendous amount of energy that is wasted now in inefficient lighting. Beyond that, building efficiency. It encourages stronger building codes, which is something that will save a large part of perhaps the 25 percent of our energy we use in housing, and houses and buildings and so forth.
In addition to that, we're going to require that we move towards a smart grid, a grid which uses our electric current generated in the most efficient way -- something which is extremely important. A requirement for the federal agencies to reduce electric consumption by one percent for 10 years. And a modernization commission to study how the process is going and what more has to be done in concert with EPA, which will make a similar study.
Then we will address the problem of loan guarantees, which are not moving forward as they should, to encourage the needed investment in new kinds of fuels and new technologies.
Last of all, we will have active work on the next generation of batteries, something which we desperately need, if we are, for example, to move towards hybrid cars and toward fuel-efficient cars, or plug-in electric and hybrid cars.
And of course, renewable fuels infrastructure. We have tremendous capability to produce new kinds of fuels and renewable fuels for automobiles and other things. But we haven't got any infrastructure to deliver it. This will be encouraged by the bill.
And last of all, there will be enhancement of the energy efficiency, rather, the energy information service, so that we can begin to understand what we're doing, how we're doing it, what more we have to do, and how we should do things differently.
All that stuff kicks ass, and it will all save consumers money.
You might also criticize Dingell for not including any kind of regressivity amelioration in his climate tax proposal -- something like a payroll tax reduction -- but does anyone know it isn't in there? As far as I know, it could be.
All this said, of course Dingell's not going to go out an martyr himself trying to get a carbon tax passed. It's not his passion; it was never his issue.
But he's giving us what we want.
He thinks -- and says openly -- that it will bite us in the ass. But if the carbon tax goes down in flames, and takes climate legislation along with it, that's not Dingell's fault, it's our fault, for not being able to muster the public and political support needed to pass serious, effective climate legislation.
Dingell's a crusty old fart, yeah, and kind of a bastard, but he's a damn good legislator. He's trying, in effect, to deflect the fire coming at him from the left. Purely from a pragmatic POV, it's smart. It's also our chance to keep the carbon tax alive -- to show that the American people are willing to pay some money upfront. If that effort fails, it's because of forces far larger than Dingell.
Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September
MoveOn calls on Senate to preserve Clean Air Act in climate bill
Coal-nundrum and Ex-gas-peration
Comments
View as Flat
naturescene Posted 6:27 am
12 Jul 2007
bluff indeed.
Nice perspective and insight Dave. Can someone explain to me how proposing a carbon tax bill undermines the fight for a carbon tax?
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:59 am
12 Jul 2007
Hilarycare
Nat, I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but I think the thinking is that Dingell's proposal is to a carbon tax what Hilary's health care reform was to health care: a gigantic setback because the crater left when it crashes scares the spineless pols so much that they scurry for cover for the next 15 years or so before discovering that (GASP!) more than 40 million Americans have no health coverage at all, and about 260 million are at the mercy of avaricious and corrupt insurance companies.
After 50 years of TV dominance, Washington has become a very simple minded, very short attention span place. The best place for the average person to see Washington in action isn't on C-Span, it's at the monkey exhibit at their local zoo ... when one monkey finds a shiny/pretty, all the monkeys pile on, trying to grab it; when a monkey gets hurt in one area, all the monkeys avoid that area.
That's the fear that people have about Dingell's less-than-half-hearted carbon tax proposal. It's Nixon goes to Taiwan rather than China ...
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 8:18 am
12 Jul 2007
Yeah but
That's a bad argument. For one, it doesn't really look like a half-ass carbon tax at all. Putting something on the table isn't a setback, it's a step forward. Do people really expect that the holy grail of climate legislation is just around the corner, waiting to save them?
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:22 am
12 Jul 2007
Hey, you asked
I didn't say it was a good argument. I think we should make the most of it (Dingell's move).
There were plenty of people ready to go with a 50 cent tax on every gallon of gas in 1980 when John Anderson was pushing that.
We need to ask "What would Wellstone do?" -- and I think he'd say "Seize the moment."
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:00 am
12 Jul 2007
The Hillary health care debacle
was the first thing that came to my mind. I have zero confidence in our political system at this point in time.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
frankbruno Posted 3:28 am
13 Jul 2007
What about CAFE?
Isn't the Occam's Razor answer that he's just trying to move the conversation away from increased CAFE standards, which would disproportionately hurt the US auto companies whose districts he represents?
If he gets a carbon tax passed, sure, the price of gas goes up, but it gets spread across all industries and products. It also puts the onus on consumers to decide whether or not they still want to buy that sexy Ford Explorer. Whereas CAFE standards require that the auto industry go in and re-design the Explorer itself (or stop selling it).
-- Bruno and the Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio http://www.brunoandtheprofessor.com
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:56 am
13 Jul 2007
You say that like it's a bad thing
Given that CAFE standards are pretty much a failure and that carbon taxes on all sources a great idea, why is moving the discussion AWAY from CAFE and TOWARDS all-source taxes a bad thing?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:38 am
13 Jul 2007
How are CAFE standards a failure??
How are CAFE standards a failure? AFAIK, they're just too weak. Sure, there's an SUV loophole, but that made sense when CAFE started, and SUV mileage is still higher than it would be without CAFE. The SUV loophole would have been fixed if the whole thing hadn't gotten frozen.
The solution to a weak CAFE is a stronger CAFE.
Sure, carbon taxes are better and more comprehensive, but we need both: consumers always underestimate operating costs, and fuel costs get lost in the mix. You have to both regulate efficiency AND provide market incentives.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:11 am
13 Jul 2007
Right then
This is what we've been waiting for. So why am I getting any email from MoveOn about any subject at all other than this proposal?!
Priorities, people...
Permalink
vbstenswick Posted 3:25 pm
13 Jul 2007
Incremental carbon tax
Imposing a large carbon tax in one step would scare alot of people away. Some congressman introduced or talked about introducing a carbon tax of $10 per ton, every year. That is probably too high. By my calculations that came out to $0.09 per gallon of gas. While I think that is quite reasonable, I doubt it would fly politically. $5 per ton, every year, for 40 years would probably fly if the proceeds were used to reduce other taxes and give massive rebates or subsidies for energy efficiency. The tax could also be selective, in that we could raise the gasoline tax $0.03/gal every year, a tax on coal a certain amount, etc, including CO2 produced by livestock. The savings will start to occur a few years down the road as people trade in their cars and know that the price of gas will increase every year, no matter what the market does. Ditto for all other use of fossil fuels.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:11 pm
13 Jul 2007
Dingell
This moronic shill for the failing US auto industry needs to retire.
It would be great to see a democrat beat him in the primary by bringing up this carbon tax proposal. Dingell wants to bankrupt your family by raising gas taxes 50 cents per gallon!
This meat head should be made to eat his words. No more dingell! No more dingell! No more dingell! I'd attend that rally.
He's trying to kill the effort to stop gas guzzling with this nonsense, taking a cue from all the carbon taxers in our eco-midst.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:02 am
14 Jul 2007
I support Dingell for his carbon tax on coal.
Taxing oil and gas is not going to leave those fuels in the ground. Taxing liquid fuels may be a national security response to improve fuel efficiency, but will do nothing, sans discounting, for saving our ship from tipping points. CO2 is not a rates related problem. All that matters is the total CO2 in the air. It is an absolute problem.
I did not see attribution of bankruptcy due to gasoline doubling in price. Fifty cents per gallon is $200 per ton carbon. Is that tax being proposed? The message I take away from Congressman Dingell is that we should not tax gasoline.
People still buy natural gas power without going bankrupt. I would like to see coal taxed to become as expensive than natural gas, with increases to mirror the increases of gas prices. The benefits of turning down warts, lights, air conditioners, and clothes dryers will become enlighten self interest without the need for imposed moral behavior change.
If we had a government not controlled by corporations, and markets not controlled by a government then alternatives to coal would less expensive than coal. We do not have the time nor the smarts to build a perfect world. A coal tax is a quick and doable alternative in an imperfect world. If Dingell's carbon tax moves forward, he would become the hero of the world.
Permalink