Meet the man who may determine the fate of climate policy in the next two years: Rep. John Dingell.
The formidable Democrat from Michigan, now 80, has served 51 years in the House of Representatives -- the second-longest of any congressional career in history. During that time, he played a key role in pushing through many of America's cornerstone environmental laws, including the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) system that has defined America's automotive energy-efficiency strategy since 1975. "I've been a busy little boy," Dingell says in describing his own environmental record.
But despite these achievements, environmentalists are not uniformly overjoyed that Dingell will soon take the helm of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees most energy-related bills. As they see it, his record has a sizeable hitch: as representative for a district that includes suburban Detroit, Dingell is a dogged defender of the U.S. auto industry. Though he helped author CAFE rules 30 years ago, in the midst of the Arab oil embargo, he has since staunchly opposed ratcheting up fuel-economy standards, on the grounds that it could imperil the American economy.
That's why some environmentalists see Dingell as the single biggest roadblock on the path toward meaningful climate policy in the 110th Congress, while others are busy crafting Detroit-friendly climate plans that they hope will win Dingell's support.
Dingell spoke with Grist from his office in Washington, D.C., giving insight into what the climate-policy landscape may -- or may not -- look like over the next two years.
What major environmental breakthroughs do you see on the horizon for the 110th Congress, in an ideal world?
Oh, you're a smart girl, because that's a nasty question. You know, this is going to be very difficult. There's still harvesting of the ill will that's been sown over the last dozen years. We've got a Republican president, and we've got to bring the Republicans in and establish some cooperation, of which there's been relatively little of late. I'd rather tell you on what we're going to work than tell you what we're going to do, because I don't like to look foolish by having promised something that I don't deliver.
What are your environmental priorities for the 110th Congress, particularly for the Energy and Commerce Committee?
We'll have to see first what is ready, what is ripe, and what is doable. We've got a bunch of things. Proper funding for brownfields and for Superfund, administration of the Clean Air Act and other acts under the jurisdiction of the EPA. We're going to take a look at global warming and see what has to be done there.
Barbara Boxer [incoming chair of the Senate Environment Committee] has said repeatedly that she sees global warming as the single biggest environmental threat on the horizon. Do you agree with her?
I don't agree and I don't disagree. I don't know what the biggest one is. Certainly if there is environmental warming, it is a very major environmental problem and it should be addressed.
So you don't believe the scientific consensus on global warming is established at this point?
This country, this world, the [human] race of which you and I are a part, is great at having consensuses that are in great error. And so I want to get the scientific facts, and find out what the situation is, and find out what is the cure, and find out what is the cure that is acceptable to the country that I represent and serve.
You mentioned in our last conversation that you want to call for climate hearings. Is your hope to get a clearer idea of the science and the potential solutions?
Yes, yes. We need to hold hearings to gather the facts on questions of both science and policy solutions. Let's talk global warming. If you remember, Kyoto was, in an anticipatory fashion, rejected 95 to nothing in the U.S. Senate, on the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which said that the Senate would not ratify any agreement which imposed burdens on the United States which were disproportionate to the burdens that everybody else was going to get. And so Kyoto never got ratified by the Senate. That's a serious matter. So if we're going to deal with this problem, you have to recognize we're not the only people that burn coal, emit carbon dioxide or pollutants of any kind. New Zealand, which has relatively little industry, is an enormous emitter of CO2. They've got a bunch of sheep over there that do it.
The methane.
The methane. So, we are not alone in this problem, and we should not be alone in the solution.
Would it not be wise to introduce domestic solutions in the meantime, even if we don't yet have an international agreement?
Is that going to solve the problem? China has an exemption from the Kyoto agreement because it's classified as a developing country. The Indians are, too. In a meeting about the Kyoto agreement, I asked the Chinese, "How long are you going to be a developing country, before we can expect you to participate in cleaning up?" They looked me in the eye and said, "Dingell, we're always going to be developing. We aren't ever going to be a stable, staid, complete society. So we're never going to be covered by it. We're just going to go ahead and burn all the damn coal, emit all the carbon dioxide that we want to emit." And they will very shortly be the biggest emitter in the world. Far bigger than we.
Now you ask, if we were to terminate all of the burning of coal and all of the production of CO2 in this country, and China and India and Europe and everybody else in the developing world keeps going, I don't think you're going to be looking for much in the way of a resolution. This is an international problem.
So you believe the emphasis needs to be on how we're going to rally the world to address climate change, not how we're going to rally ourselves to address it?
Well, we have to do all of the above. We've got to begin to find out what we can do, and how we can do it without destituting the American society. But by the same token, we're going to have to help others to do the same thing and persuade them to be participants in that undertaking. In terms of diplomacy, that's probably one of the single biggest problems this country's got.
But you've got a lot of [Americans] saying, "We're going to solve the problem. We're going to make these cars." Well, we could all be riding around in kiddie cars and we wouldn't solve the problem. And we'd have an awful lot of angry Americans. You're not going to solve [the climate] problem yourself any more than you're going to solve Iraq by yourself.
What's a kiddie car?
Don't you know what a kiddie car is?
No.
It's one of those three-wheel things that kids get when they start out, they sit on and it's got a little handlebar, and they sort of pad around on this little three-wheeled tricycle.
Got it. What type of climate legislation should we be talking about domestically?
If I knew that, I'd be glad to tell you, but I don't. We're going to try to find out what we need to do and proceed in a responsible fashion.
You were one of the authors of legislation establishing CAFE standards in the 1970s, but you've since opposed raising the standards. Do you still oppose raising them?
The law says that the government has the authority to fix fuel efficiency at the maximum technologically feasible [miles-per-gallon] number. It has raised this a little bit, but it's not been able to make any radical changes from the numbers we wrote back in the 1970s. I will probably be asking if there is greater efficiency that can be achieved, and if so, how. We'll also ask how this can all be done without destituting American industry.
What do you mean by "destituting American industry"?
One job in 10 in this country is in the auto industry. Most people don't know that. The auto industry is the biggest user of carpets produced in the Carolinas. The auto industry is the biggest user of glass produced in Pittsburgh. The autos are the biggest consumer of steel. The autos are tremendous users of plastic. And they've got, I think, about four computers in an automobile. Now, you can be quite calm about destituting Detroit, but do you want to shut down Silicon Valley and North Carolina and the Gulf Coast and Pittsburgh and other places that are heavily dependent on this? Plus the transportation industry that moves these cars around?
What would CAFE 2.0 -- the next generation of CAFE standards -- look like?
If I knew that, I would think I was a very smart fellow.
In the next two years will you try to work on it? Perhaps it could be part of your legacy -- that you not only helped write CAFE, but also its sequel.
Well, we'll be hacking away at it. But I'm not getting ready to hang things up yet. I'm just getting into my middle years.
Look, I'm going to be doing my best to get us there. Because it's in my interest just as it's in everybody else's to solve the problem. I'm an American. And I gotta help my country. But in a like fashion, I've gotta help my own constituents and people.
Some argue that protecting Detroit from increased CAFE standards has actually made the U.S. less competitive. Today the most successful auto companies are the ones that are producing the most efficient cars.
Now let me just tell you this. First of all, you know which auto company produces the most lines of fuel-efficient cars? General Motors. They produce more fuel-efficient models than does any foreign manufacturer. More than Toyota, more than Nissan or any of the brands.
But the concern is that the total aggregate of their fuel efficiency ...
Here's your problem. And you're a bright young woman. You don't have to have this explained to you. Look: Why do Americans buy SUVs? They buy them because they're big, because they're comfortable, because they feel safe, because they can haul six kids and a big load of groceries. Because the soccer mom can take the soccer team to a soccer game. Because they've got four-wheel drive if they run into a huge damn snowstorm. That's why they buy it.
Right. And they could buy those same big cars with hybrid engines and more efficient designs.
Well, understand one thing. Everybody says, "Oh, hybrids are going to solve this problem." The simple fact of the matter is, if you drive a hybrid around the city, it's going to work. If you drive a hybrid on interstates, it isn't going to save you any fuel. Because what a hybrid does is, it retrieves the energy from the motion.
From braking.
From braking, yes. And this generated electricity from braking moves into batteries. But you've got a thousand pounds of bloody batteries in the car. And we haven't really resolved the battery technology. And there's a huge cost differential [between hybrids and traditional vehicles]. The cost differential can go around $3,000 or $4,000 a car. That ain't peanuts.
So you don't believe these hybrid technologies are necessary?
No, no, no. There is no one simple solution to our energy problems. Whether we're talking about transportation or generation of electricity, it's many things -- it's alternative fuels, it's conservation, it's nuclear, it's a whole wide array of things. And in automobiles, we're going to have to explore things like hybrids. We're going to have to go to diesels. I'm trying to push us going to diesels because we get a 20- to 25-percent fuel benefit.
What about biofuels?
If you used every nickel's worth of corn that this country produces, you could only have 70 percent of the fuel it takes to run the American transportation fleet. Do you want to eat corn bread and corn syrup and have your beef fed with corn, or do you want to ride around in a car?
And let me give you another thing. Only recently have we gotten production of [ethanol] to the point where it isn't just about a one-to-one input of energy for output of energy. The president has wisely suggested we go to cellulosic fuels. That's a great idea, and I favor it. But right now that's not ready. And so we've got to push a lot of technologies.
Do you think there's a way of developing a Detroit-friendly climate policy? For instance, some environmentalists have been outlining a proposal for a cap-and-trade program that offers special allowances to automakers that would help fund the industry's technological advances.
I'm willing to consider it. I don't know. You know, before you start making a bunch of wise-ass comments, you better know what you're talking about. And right now I don't. There's all types of people running around with solutions, but when you put these solutions to the test, sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I would be willing to bet you that half don't.
What kind of car do you drive?
I drive a good, American-made car.
Your wife is head of the General Motors Foundation. Does she influence your thinking about ...
She doesn't lobby. And she won't even talk to me about these matters.
In closing, what do you do in your own life to reduce your environmental impact?
Well, I heat my house not above 70 degrees. I take a Navy shower. I carpool with my wife. I shut off the water when I'm cleaning my teeth. I recycle every damn thing I can recycle.
Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation
The U.S. military’s battle to wean itself off oil
A video interview with Bill Moyers
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 6:15 am
20 Dec 2006
Throw the bum out. It is time for Dingell to retire and sleep with carbon-neutral sheep.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:09 am
20 Dec 2006
Dingell's dismissive comments about kiddie cars, hybrids, batteries, etc. bespeak a mindset of deliberate obtuseness and inflexible certitude. If Congress is going to hold hearings, the more productive topic might be, "Can Americans get their daily fix of godlike power without fossil fuels?"
Permalink
mtneuman Posted 8:30 am
20 Dec 2006
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR REDUCING HIGHWAY TRAVEL
AND ENERGY DEMANDS IN WISCONSIN
http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/vmr.pdf
Permalink
kyotousa Posted 10:42 am
20 Dec 2006
I think you make a very good point about New Zealand sheep. New Zealand is home to some 43 million burping, farting, pooping sheep that are undoubtedly producing tens of thousands of tons of methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas. Our paltry herd of 6 million burping, farting, pooping sheep, given their numbers, produces much less.
But did you know, Rep. Dingell, that the US has 93 million (mostly factory farmed) bovine gas producers (107 million if you add the Canadian herd) compared to just 5 million New Zealand cows? So, when it comes to barnyard emissions, I think it's safe to say that we in America are still No. 1! Please try to get your facts straight before passing the blame for US inaction on climate change onto the shoulders of the less culpable.
In that light, I welcome the fact that you will be holding hearings on climate change in the House. The US Congress (with a few notable exceptions) may be the least informed body in the world on global warming and its impacts. The sooner you and your colleagues get to work on creating much stricter CAFE standards (did you know that we can't export American cars to China because they don't meet Chinese gas mileage requirements?), putting some real money into renewable energy tax credits and subsidies (taking them from the carbon industries' overflowing coffers), funding public transportation, taxing carbon emissions, and protecting our remaining forests and open spaces, the more likely we Americans will be able to stand proudly with the rest of the world in the daunting effort to preserve the diversity of life that inhabits this beautiful planet.
Let's see what you're made of.
Permalink
dbaker Posted 6:33 pm
20 Dec 2006
The only industry at risk is the Fossil Fuel powered electrical generating facilities.
Perhaps they should participate in the replacement technology.
and the health care industry due to reduced illness.
Dennsi Baker
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 9:57 pm
20 Dec 2006
Don't US politicos have a sell-by date?
Whiskerfish
Permalink
farlane Posted 12:43 am
21 Dec 2006
Open consideration of the evidence could go a long way to dispelling the notion that climate change is a debatable issue.
Permalink
afridley Posted 2:09 am
21 Dec 2006
Well done Ms Griscom you have once again shown that often the difference between Republicans and Democrats is just the color of their tie.
Andrew Fridley
Registered Independent
Permalink
JimDiPeso Posted 10:51 am
21 Dec 2006
Word of caution to conservationists: A "D" after a congressman's name does not necessarily make him green.
Jim DiPeso
Republicans for Environmental Protection
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 1:01 am
22 Dec 2006
I would hazard a guess that the auto workers working in US located Japanese car factories feel a lot safer from destitution than those working in Ford, GM and Chrysler factories. The American companies, as Jim says above, have done a fine job destituting themselves. Is efficiency really going to do any more harm than they have already done?
I think (as a current michigander) that it's time we started thinking about the health of the automobile industry, not the health of the American automobile industry. Even better, we need to start thinking about the health of our mobility industry as a whole. As Amory Lovins (I think it was him) points out we don't need cars we need the service they provide - mobility. Let's look at the health of the entire US mobility industries, it's environmental impacts and all. If we reinvigorate trains will we create jobs at the same time as we lose Automobile jobs? If we stimulate public buses will we create jobs?
I also think it's time the automobile industry actively engaged in what Joseph Schumpeter calls "creative destruction". The big three should break themselves down to their essentials so their creativity and innovation can be loosened again.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 1:27 am
22 Dec 2006
Next year Toyota may become the biggest automaker in the world.
Maybe, you should have a little heart to heart with the car companies formerly known as the "big three"
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:56 am
22 Dec 2006
Dingle serves his constituency. Big US auto companies and the union reps they own.
He does not represent the voters who work at union jobs in the auto industry. Their jobs will be outsourced and he will still be blaming environmentalists for it. And begging for their votes.
Every democrat everywhere ought to be ashamed of this idiocy uttered by a fellow democrat. Excommunicate this chump now!! Put him in the traitor wing with that bush busser Lieberman.
Permalink
GPinchot Posted 9:30 am
22 Dec 2006
It doesn't take much effort for one to discover how valuable a friend to the environment Rep. Dingell has been and how important he will be in
the next Congress.
Those who would belittle or dismiss John Dingell do themselves no credit and do the cause of environmental protection harm.
Just look at the Wikipedia:
"Dingell is generally classed as a liberal Democrat, and throughout his career he has been a leading congressional supporter of organized labor, of social welfare measures and of traditional progressive policies. At the beginning of every Congress, Dingell introduces a bill providing for a national health insurance system, the same bill that his father proposed while he was in Congress. However, he was a strong proponent of Bill Clinton's managed-care proposal early in his administration."
Of course Dingell isn't monochromatic on all issues:
"On some issues, though, he reflects the conservative values of his largely Catholic and working-class district. He was a supporter of the Vietnam War until 1971. Although he supported the Johnson Administration's civil rights bills, he opposed campaigns to expand school desegregation to the Detroit suburbs via mandatory busing. He takes a moderately conservative position on abortion. He has voted against clean air bills if these appear to threaten Detroit's automobile industry.
"An avid sportsman and hunter, he strongly opposes gun control, and is a former board member of the National Rifle Association. For many years, Dingell has received an A+ rating from the NRA."
I don't agree with everything Dingell believes, especially about General Motors and guns. Should that be the litmus test?
The political analyst Michael Barone wrote of Dingell in 2002:
"There is something grand about the range of Dingell's experience and about his adherence to his philosophy over a very long career. He is an old-fashioned social Democrat who knows that most voters don't agree with his goals of a single-payer national health insurance plan but presses forward toward that goal as far as he can."
"It's hard to believe that there was once no Social Security or Medicare", Dingell says. "The Dingell family helped change that. My father worked on Social Security and for national health insurance, and I sat in the chair and presided over the House as Medicare passed (in 1965). I went with Lyndon Johnson for the signing of Medicare at the Harry S. Truman Library, and I have successfully fought efforts to privatize Social Security and Medicare". Whether you agree or disagree, the social democratic tradition is one of the great traditions in our history, and John Dingell has fought for it for a very long time."
Now look at what matters most about the environment: not some abstract, unreacheable goal of environmental utopia, but down to reality issues regarding pollution in this country and the imminent hazards to public health not being addressed by this Administration.
That is Dingell's agenda. When a man with his experience, knowledge and influence speaks, we ought to listen carefully before leaping in with emotional reactions uninformed by any information.
Who is responsible for most of the threat from pollution we face? Who is responsible for cleaning it up or protecting us from it? How are they doing?
Without John Dingell do you seriously expect any attention let alone action to occur regarding the protection of public health and the environment in this country over the next two years?
Environmental protection is an extremely complex, technical subject. The subject of Clean Air Act compliance and this Administration revolves around what toxic pollutants? Do folks know it is mercury and now lead?
What upsets me most is to see not only commenters with their ready, shoot, aim knee-jerk, top of the head, uniformed emotional outbursts, but rather it is the vacuous, uninformed and poorly researched approach of the reporter on this piece.
She doesn't know or care, apparently, the extent of the pollution caused by the US Dept of Defense or what Mr. Dingell appears ready to do about it.
She doesn't know, apparently, how this Administration has used the Dept of Defense as its stalking horse, using its vast political clout, to suppress all other Federal agencies, roll over the US EPA and the State regulators, and do serious damage to the infrastructure of our environmental laws.
She takes for granted that all we have to do is fix global warming and save the pandas and whales and all will be well -- or at least it sounds to me like that sort of teenaged volunteer sort of thing. The Jessica Simpson approach to environmental protection -- "I totally don't know what that means, but I want it."
Not one jot of evidence she knows what she is about in my opinion.
Very disappointing.
For example, why not ask Mr. Dingell why he is concerned about the Pentagon's cleanups? Why does he share Sen. Boxer's concerns about Ammonium Perchlorate and TCE?
Why does the Administration want a top Pentagon official to be the US EPA Inspector General despite the fact the man, Alex Beehler, has no accounting or investigation experience?
What does Mr. Dingell think the Pentagon is up to when it appoints high level people to work on what they call "emerging contaminants?" What are those? Or are we assuming chlorinated hydrocarbons in industrial solvents are ok for us to have in our drinking water in any old concentration the Pentagon likes - so long as they don't have to pay to clean it up?
Is the Pentagon planning to clean up those chemicals in our drinking water for which it is responsible? Or is the Pentagon planning to find a way to destroy the Federal and state regulatory role as scientific arbiter of how much environmental public health risk is too much -- in other words, take away the fundamental cornerstone of environmental law, the ability of independent regulators to set a standard above which you got to clean up.
Just a little homework would have found all that ...
Pls, try to do better next time -- better still, go back and get it right.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:57 am
22 Dec 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:03 am
22 Dec 2006
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:25 am
22 Dec 2006
The Democratic Agenda regarding Energy is Energy Independence. Maybe when they update it this next year from 6 for 2006 to 7 for 2007 they might consider adding Global Warming.
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 12:32 am
01 Jan 2007
Here's a sample:
So why are the Democrats allowing Dingell, who's so obviously beholden to a special interest, the power to decide such an important issue? It's because under their current rules and leadership, they don't have much of a choice. Democrats continue to give out committee assignments on the basis of seniority, not competence or even how well a particular chairman represents the sentiments of the majority of the Democratic caucus.
It's that system that has elevated other Unfrozen Cavemen like Jack Murtha to important posts, despite undistinguished and ethically questionable records...
There is another way, though it's the Republicans who pioneered it. When they came into office in 1994, the Republicans did away with the seniority system, requiring committee chairmen to run for office, and instituting term limits...
Permalink