Dingell's Proposed Climate Change Intervention Policy

Image from An Inconvenient Truth


“Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” Press Release for An Inconvenient Truth

David Roberts1 tells us that, at a town hall meeting in Ann Arbor, Mich. (see transcript below), Dingell unveiled various climate-change proposals:

  • 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.

He announced that he will introduce these proposals to Congress on Sep. 1.

“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” reports the Ann Arbor News. In the newspaper interview, Dingell adamantly denied that he is setting up the initiative to fail, what commonly is being referred to as the Dingell Gambit.

To give the Dingellsaurus Fabricatus Thruhisfangus his due, he did acknowledge the disproportionate impact of a carbon tax on the less wealthy. His proposals would include provisions for such impact.

Read the details for yourself after the page break.

Climate Change Town Hall Meeting
August 7, 2007
Remarks by Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Thank you all for joining us today to discuss the fight against global warming.

The issue of climate change is a critical one. It has energized all of you and it has become a topic of great concern in communities all over our nation and world. I’m here to tell you that this issue has my full and undivided attention.

Like so many of my colleagues in the Congress, I am committed to addressing the issue of climate change this year. I am committed to developing legislation that will better protect the health of our planet. And I am committed to working to reduce carbon emissions by 60 — 80 percent by 2050.

Already, a lot of progress has been made. The day after the election I announced that we would move to fight global warming. In the short time since the Democrats have controlled Congress, we’ve moved well beyond the question of does climate change exist and are now intensely debating how best to address the problem.

This past weekend, we took the first step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions when we passed energy efficiency legislation that would remove 10.4 BILLION tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by the end of 2030. That is more than the annual emissions of every car on the road in America today.

This legislation sets new efficiency standards for appliances, requires more efficient lighting and promotes green buildings in the Federal and private sector. It also promotes the development of a smart electricity grid that will deliver energy to households in a more efficient manner, and paves the way for a more intelligent use of electricity that will make innovations such as plug-in hybrid vehicles even more promising.

This bill also improves loan guarantee programs at the Department of Energy to spur advanced technologies. And it makes the largest investment in our history in biofuels, along with promoting a much-needed biofuels infrastructure.

But to those of you who say this is not enough, you are right. This is just the beginning.

This fall I will develop a comprehensive, mandatory, economy-wide program to get us to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050. My own judgment is that we are going to have to adopt a cap-and-trade system and some form of carbon emission fee to achieve the reductions we need.

CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM

We know from the Acid Rain Trading program that was adopted as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that a well-designed cap-and-trade program can achieve our environmental goals in a cost-effective way.

The Europeans have shown us how NOT to design a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases, and this is to our benefit.

I intend to design a cap-and-trade program in which we learn from the mistakes of the Europeans and which will help us reach the goal reducing greenhouse gases by 60 to 80 percent in a cost-effective and fair manner.

CARBON TAX

In addition, when Congress reconvenes in September, I will introduce legislation to impose a tax on carbon and petroleum products.

In order to address the issue of climate change, we must address the issue of consumption — we do that by making consumption more expensive.

My carbon tax proposal would:

* impose a stiff tax on carbon;
* increase the tax on gasoline; and
* remove the mortgage interest deduction on “McMansions” — homes over 3,000 square feet.

My legislation would also significantly expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, increase funding for renewable energy research and development, conservation, healthcare and the Social Security Trust Fund.

To those who have suggested this may be an attempt to sabotage climate change legislation: you are wrong. In my 52 years in Congress, I have never introduced legislation with the intention of seeing it fail. I do not intend to start now.

As part of the process of writing climate legislation we will also need to address such matters as motor vehicles and fuels, the role of nuclear power, the proper responsibilities of the States and of the Federal Government, the future of coal under carbon constraints, our relationship to international climate change programs, and many more challenging issues.

CAFE

I support raising CAFE Standards as part of our efforts to reduce Carbon emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050.

But we must not destitute our economy and our region in the process.

I am a co-sponsor of the Hill-Terry bill, H.R. 2927, which would mandate separate car and truck standards to meet a total fleet fuel economy standard of between 32 and 35 mpg by 2022; increases up to 40 percent over current standards.

I’m in good company since this legislation has the support of 163 bipartisan Members of Congress from all regions of the nation, the UAW, the AFL-CIO, and many others. It continues to gain support with every day that passes.

This legislation prescribes aggressive, but attainable, CAFE standards that manufacturers must meet. It does so in a manner that preserves jobs, and in fact, encourages increased domestic production of advanced technology vehicles.

The Hill-Terry bill proves that it is possible to make significant environmental gains while preserving existing jobs and creating new ones. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for other proposals to increase CAFE standards that are floating around Washington.

Let me be perfectly clear about one additional matter: the Hill-Terry bill does NOT preempt the States or EPA. I have spoken to its authors about this myth, and they have assured me it is not their intent. They have pledged to work with me, and others, to be certain that nothing in the bill would have that effect.

RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS

I have voted for a renewable portfolio standard in the past, I intend to do so again in the future when the Committee on Energy and Commerce addresses the issue this fall.

Last weekend during consideration of the energy efficiency legislation on the House floor I voted against an amendment to require electric suppliers to provide 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2020. I did NOT object to this amendment on policy grounds. My objection was on the process by which the amendment was considered (did not go through the committee process).

Proposals like these are complex and each state’s ability to tap into renewable resources is different. Some southern states may have trouble meeting this standard and we must understand how this mandate will affect every state including Michigan. This is why we have committees and why we must follow the proper legislative process.

Conclusion

In all my years in Congress, this is the singularly most difficult undertaking of my career. I am up to the challenge.

We have a lot of lost time to make up for on this issue so we must move quickly.

I am confident that we can work together, as we have on many occasions in the past, to accomplish great things that will better protect our planet.

Thank you.

Continue reading here: Cobasys NiMHax Battery in Enova Retrofit

Was this article helpful?

0 0