Nice perspective and insight Dave.  Can someone explain to me how proposing a carbon tax bill undermines the fight for a carbon tax?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.