OK, I'm back to defending Dingell (sorry Brian!), mainly because the activists attacking him are acting like idiots.
At a town hall in Ann Arbor, Mich., Dingell unveiled the various climate-change proposals he's going to introduce to Congress on Sep. 1. Press coverage of the event is fairly sketchy, and I can't find a transcript anywhere, so there's not a lot of detail, but the measures include:
- A carbon tax of up to $100 per ton.
- A gas tax of $0.50 a gallon.
- A cap-and-trade system.
- Ending the mortgage tax deduction for "McMansions" over 3,000 sq. feet.
- All with the goal of reducing GHG emissions 60-80% by 2050.
As for previous accusations that Dingell is setting this stuff up to fail, he talked with the Ann Arbor News:
He adamantly denied assertions from environmentalists who have recently targeted his record on auto emissions standards that he's considering a tax merely as a way to ensure the legislation will fail.
Although he has previously said he doubts American consumers would be willing to pay the price for efficiency, he insists a tax has to be part of any serious discussions on slowing climate change.
As for hurting lower-income citizens with a consumer tax, Dingell said he intends to balance any such proposal with provisions to increase the Social Security trust fund, bolster funding of a federal program that helps low-income residents pay utility bills and adjusting tax rates for low-income workers.
Obviously the devil is in the details with all these measures, but they certainly amount to an ambitious program -- "the most difficult undertaking in my career," says Dingell.
Meanwhile:
Outside the town hall meeting, about 30 environmental activists, many from Greenpeace, wore red T-shirts and held placards criticizing Dingell for his stand on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which mirrors what auto companies are willing to support rather than the tougher standards environmental groups are demanding.
Argh. Silly, gimmicky, irrational crap. If this is what Dingell runs into, it's no wonder he holds green activists in such contempt.
Relative to what Dingell's proposing, the difference between a 35mpg CAFE (which he supports) and a 45mpg or 50mpg CAFE (which greens support) is meaningless. Utterly and completely trivial. A distraction.
If we could get in place a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system, the effects will dwarf minor changes in CAFE. Instead of hectoring Dingell about CAFE, activists should be using their energy to push other legislators to support these bills.
This is not to say Dingell's strategy is optimal. He's focusing almost entirely -- and I suspect/fear, sincerely -- on punitive measures, things that will cost Americans money in the short term. But as I and others keep saying, there are plenty of measures to address climate change that would benefit middle-class and low-income Americans, and prove an economic boon in the long-term. We should be starting with them, or at least giving them equal emphasis.
Whatever you think about that angle, though, it's certainly clear that Dingell is approaching the problem more seriously than the costumed twits who follow him around with placards.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 6:30 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:02 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:06 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:13 am
09 Aug 2007
I won't swear to any of that (long story), but it's clear that he is making some effort to put the revenue toward reducing regressivity.
grist.org
Permalink
Stretch Posted 12:51 pm
09 Aug 2007
This year as chair he held hearings only after Pelosi directly threatened his jurisdiction by forming the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Dingell is not trying to pass legislation. He and Chairman Boucher are trying to delay anything harms to their respective pet projects- namely the domestic auto industry and coal.
He is not being subtle about it either. Dingell has intentionally picked proposals that are so politically unpopular that they could never ever pass. This way he can say he wants action while undermining realistic efforts to enact change.
Despite what some people suggest gas taxes are unpopular. No politician in his or her right mind wants to have the price of gasoline hung around their neck. The attack ads would write themselves.
Similarly a carbon tax is doomed. Anyone who reads the paper knows that politicians that get labelled as tax raisers are done.
And now he is proposing to mess with people's love of bigger houses? The policy is great but come on! Anyone projected to have a race anywhere close to being competitive might as well come out against ice cream. (And good luck raising any money)
I am no fan of Greenpeace's tactics but please do not dirty this site with defenses of Dingell.
I think your site needs to fill that DC reporter position quickly if this is the garbage that is going to qualify as insight into politics.
Permalink
tomcal Posted 12:13 am
10 Aug 2007
He was in the minority with the other Democrats, i.e. they could not call any hearings under Republican control.
How soon we forget...
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 1:27 am
10 Aug 2007
Dingell is an incredibly skillful politician and he's clearly playing a complicated political game.
We're having trouble interpreting it because he's balancing competing political claims -- the growing consensus for greenhouse gas legislation among Congressional Democrats, his support for the auto industry, his desire not to be one-upped by the Speaker, and god knows what else, including whatever backroom deals he's got going and maybe even his legacy. Not to mention whatever he may be hearing from constituents.
Greenpeace is annoying because they're falling into the trap of looking shrill in the face of a policy proposal that at the very least seems serious. That just makes Greenpeace look stupid.
I'd love to be a fly on Nancy Pelosi's wall right now -- let's see how she decides to take this proposal -- it'll be a serious test of her political skill.
Permalink
Stretch Posted 2:40 am
10 Aug 2007
He was the ranking Democrat on Energy and Commerce. He did not publicly demand global warming hearings. In fact he was pretty much silent on the entire topic unless it was to bash Kyoto or downplay the possibility of legislating on the topic until September 2006.
Permalink
ErikB Posted 5:43 am
10 Aug 2007
They dont want higher gas mileages. Never have never will. I dont trust this guy at all.
HOW did this guy end up as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is the real question!!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:31 am
10 Aug 2007
Permalink
roz Posted 8:38 am
10 Aug 2007
I'd rather see 5¢ added to the per gallon gas tax per year over the next 10 years.
This way the pricing expectations are clear, people can forecast how much tax will be added, but they don't freak out. It will be tougher to pass it this way.
Permalink
sukumar Posted 7:55 am
13 Aug 2007
Permalink