New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt examines a question that David and I have enjoyed disagreeing about (or at least that I've enjoyed disagreeing with David about) for a couple of months now: Is John Dingell sincere about tackling climate change, or is he pulling old tricks?
Leonhardt recounts the tale of Dingell's efforts to block fuel-economy standards introduced by former Sen. Richard Bryan a couple of decades ago by introducing a bill that would have created a nuclear waste dump in Bryan's home state of Nevada. Are we seeing that type of tactic again, albeit in slightly different form?
I still go back and forth on this. On the one hand, Dingell talks a good game to the press. On the other, what's really important is for him to whip up support among his colleagues for his carbon-tax proposal. The congressional aides I've talked to about this take stances ranging from "we don't trust him" to "we never know what he's really thinking" to "we believe he's out to axe real progress" to "it's too early to say." Time, as the kids are fond of saying, will tell.
Leonhardt writes, "If nothing else, it's also enormously useful that Mr. Dingell is no longer suggesting, as he did just eight months ago, that the scientific consensus on global warming may be a 'great error.'" It would be fascinating to figure out how Dingell came around, if he in fact has. And he certainly would like us to believe he has:
After the town hall meeting [which Dingell had called to discuss climate change] was over -- and he had listened to a couple of hours of questions about timed traffic lights, nuclear power and the possibility of impeaching President Bush -- Mr. Dingell sat down in a dark area behind the stage. I asked him whether Mr. Gore, who has been both a Dingell nemesis and ally at various times, had been right for all those years he was pointing out what was happening to the earth's climate.
"I think a cold statement on that point would be yes," Mr. Dingell replied.
And would it have been easier to solve the problem if we had started earlier?
"What's the saying? The saddest words in the English language -- 'might have been.'"
Henry Waxman’s decade-long fight to improve the Clean Air Act
Caption needed! UPDATE: Caption found
Dingell joins Republicans in calling cap-and-trade an ‘energy tax’
Comments
View as Flat
Sam Wells Posted 11:07 am
05 Sep 2007
The man has one heck of a problem on his hands. Have you been to Michigan lately? Hundreds of huge plants lay idle, shut down, and are locked behind fences that seem to allow for graffiti and broken window but not you and me. Thousands of workers are out of jobs. Go down by the waterfront and see how the once powerful coal, coke, and steel industry has created ruins that continually burp up Superfund toxics. People are either leaving or can't leave because they're too poor. It's enough to break your heart.
If it wasn't for some high-tech areas like Ann Arbor, as well as some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, we might as well write off Michigan as being meaningless. That's where Dingell is coming from, just to you know. Try Detroit for about two weeks and let me know what you think.
He cared about his people ... he changed his mind. I fail to see that as some kind of lacking. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:33 am
06 Sep 2007
Look..these guys are gonna float with the breeze until they see if this whole AGW thing is B.S. or not.
Who wants to be the guy on YouTube 10 years from now, standing in front of an audience telling everyone how they're going to drown, once the sea levels start their precipitous fall ( Bailo Model prediction ).
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink