With his Washington Post op-ed today, John Dingell has done something admirable. He's come out in defense of his climate change proposal without saying anything about how impossible he thinks it will be to pass it. Still, I'm suspicious.
I apparently created a mini-storm last month when I observed publicly for at least the sixth time since February that some form of carbon emissions fee or tax (including a gasoline tax) would be the most effective way to curb carbon emissions and make alternatives economically viable. I said, as I have on many occasions, that we would have to go to some kind of cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.
What created the furor, of course, was that Dingell questioned the seriousness of the green caucus publicly and then announced a forthcoming piece of climate change legislation so strict that he seemed confident it won't pass. So confident that you could practically hear him snickering to himself. At the Pelosi breakfast yesterday, she seemed cautiously optimistic at best that Dingell would work with her. Then there's this.
This Congress may be able to enact a cap-and-trade system, and other policies to address climate change, only without a carbon fee. Ultimately, though, we're going to have to be more ambitious.
As far as I'm concerned, the stricter the policy, the better. And we're going to need calls like this for ambition no matter how strong the bill. But it's also possible to start with a cap-and-trade system and then add the carbon tax in down the road if either the urgency is greater, or (precisely because of the impact of the cap-and-trade) the cost to consumers of that tax becomes much lower. Like I said, Dingell can't possibly be both "the guy who gets things done" and "the guy who works against his own legislation." This is a good start, but if he's really really serious about this stuff he'll need to be very actively greasing the wheels behind the scenes, too.
Trojan Horse major plans can fool the media (and probably the public) into believing the proposer is 'sincere'.
Bob Dole, as part of the organized opposition to Hillary-Care in 1993, proposed his own health care plan as the GOP alternative to the Clinton task force proposal. But then Dole voted against his own plan as the framing wreck of Hillary's proposal crashed into the deck of the carrier USS Harry and Louise teevee ads. Dole's stated objective for the GOP: no health care plan at all.
Maybe that inspired Dingell, but war-horse House Committee chairs have awesome power, and Dingell knows all the tricks to get his way.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | August 02, 2007 at 11:18 AM