...Because it mentioned Grist.  :)

You know, I'm not denying that Dingell comes across as a monumental a-hole, but I really can't bring myself to have a problem with what he's proposing.  A giant tax increase on gas, a direct tax on carbon emissions (I'm guessing this'll be based on electricity usage, which will make everyone, including industry, want to conserve), and a tax-break-cut that makes large, sprawling homes less attractive.

None of this is going to be popular, as Dingell himself points out, but think how much it would cut greenhouse gas emissions if it actually happened.

We spend years decrying the rule of spinmeisters and con artists in politics, the triumph of style over substance, and then when someone comes along who lays it out straight with the bark off, we say he must be trying to lose because he's not spinning it or selling the sizzle enough.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Now that's going to rally American voters!

I suppose the proper way to rally voters would be to lie and tell them that they won't have to do anything, just vote for the right people and the government will do it for you.

After all, isn't that how the war in Iraq was sold?

Actual GHG reductions will require sacrifice/pain.

GHG intensity reductions are imminently doable with minimal pain, but they won't protect the climate.

Future technology will make consistent incremental improvements but that will be insufficient to produce actual GHG reductions.

California's much vaunted and technology advancing energy efficiency programs have simply been able to keep energy use per capita (an intensity measure) flat over a long period of time.

Public policy to reduce energy use per capita (actual reductions in emissions) will require sacrifice and pain.

Voluntary powering down of human society has never happened painlessly.

Dingell can be a dingbat but he certainly has a point that the newly green pollyannas don't want to confront.  

So on that note, Dingell is doing everybody a service in calling out the elephant in the living room.

If the newly minted greens don't engage with him it will be a historic opportunity lost.

I heard a good joke that was broadcast on Fox.     (I watch Fox for it's humor, it's the second comedy channel, (sorry E!))    It came from Mr. Markey.

"The European diplomats at the global warming conference led by Bush must have felt like people at a prayer meeting led by an Atheist."  

How absolutely true.

Before anybody braggs about an effort, we should be reminded that this is not religion.   Effort doesn't matter.   It's about results.   If Mr.  Dingell gets results, great.    And we should appaud the effort, but we need to get it done.

We also shouldn't emphasize that it will be pain to reduce carbon emissions.

We have to say that it will be a tax trade.   we can lower sales, property, income and social security taxes at the same time we increase carbon tax.

Will some people be worse off in this effort and some better.   Yes, but everybody will be just as well off as before.  

We tax 4 trillion in a 13 trillion dollar economy.  we can reduce taxes 500 billion dollars at the same time we increase carbon taxes 500 billion dollars and we will be in the same place economically, but we will be using less carbon energy.