Dingell admits Cash4Clunkers was stimulus, not enviro plan

That’s one of several takeaways from a wrap on sales from the “cash for clunkers” program.

Another one? As a stimulus, it actually helped the Japanese Big Three more than the American one.

Waxman topples Dingell – hope for energy future

Two big things to note on Henry Waxman’s ousting John Dingell as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

One is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi does have elbows, and she’ll use them. (Why she didn’t use them more on other issues in the past two years, lie Iraq withdrawal, is another subject.)

Two — a Big Three bailout on blank-check terms ain’t gonna happen. If Detroit wants help, it’s going to have to overhaul itself.

Waxman to challenge Dingell

Rep. Henry Waxman will challenge House Methuselah John Dingell for chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

A Waxman chairmanship would make a HUGE difference on greenhouse gas matters vis-à-vis the auto industry. Go, Waxman!

Other potential changes in Congressional leadership are Keep an eye on already shaping up. Among House Democrats, the possible move to the White House by Rahm Emanuel is inspiriing much of this.

Keep an eye on Roll Call in days, even hours, ahead for other Congressional news.

The Dingell is in the details on carbon taxes

Several weeks after promising it, Michigan’s House Democratic war horse, John Dingell, has delivered an energy bill. And, as I expected at that time, there’s a lot about which to be concerned; there’s some halfway good stuff, too, but even that has the lingering aroma stench of pandering to it.

I have several points of analysis:

• I’m OK with a carbon tax. But, if you’re going to submit something so serious, and you intend for it to succeed (whether Dingell does so or not is an open question, at best), you’d better put plenty of negotiating padding in there. And, I don’t think $50 a ton does. I think you would need to start at $100 a ton (too much more than that would turn people off right away) to bargain down to $50 a ton.

• Exempting biofuels? Crazy, and scientifically illiterate. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter its source. But, Michigan grows some amount of corn, and sugar beets, which some wonder whether they might substitute for cane sugar for ethanol. Michigan/Midwestern political pandering, at least to a fair degree, I think.

• A 50-cent a gallon gas tax is good, but, exempting diesel fuel? The Oil Drum argues that Dingell is pandering to the Teamsters. It’s possible, is what I’ll say, at the least. Dingell ranks 17th among Representatives from 1990-2006 in Teamsters political contributions, according to Open Secrets, receiving $71,000.

• Eliminating the mortgage writeoff above 3K square feet on homes? The size standard panders somewhat to anybody not moving to the upper edge of the middle class and beyond, but, as more and more cookie cutter McMansions beyond this size are built by cheap builders, I welcome this. Dingell does soften the blow by having homes over 3K in size lose the mortgage deduction on a sliding scale and not all at once.

• The “revenue-neutral” part? I’m OK with putting part of the money this raises toward health care issues, but think part of it should be used for budget reduction, too, rather than all of it being spent.

Bottom line? If Dingell’s bill is intended in addition to the 35mpg CAFÉ standard for cars (and trucks being finally included), I’ll give him a B-minus. It doesn’t get higher because we need to nail a first effort on carbon tax. In addition to junking the gas tax free ride for diesel and the carbon tax loophole for biofuels, I’d like to see a carbon cap-and-trade program as part of this legislation.

If this is intended to substitute for a CAFÉ increase, there’s enough here I won’t give Dingell an F. But, that’s about all I’ll say.

John Dingell being a little turd on global warming

The New York Times reports the Michigan Democrat is planning to introduce a carbon tax bill, including a hike in the gas tax, simply to try to prove Americans don’t want to pay for it.

“I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,” said Mr. Dingell, whose committee will be drafting a broad bill on climate change this fall.

“I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people think about this,” he continued. “When you see the criticism I get, I think you’ll see the answer to your question.”

Here’s what I think Dingell is trying to do.

Hold the new CAFÉ standards passed in the Senate hostage in the House. How much will the House cave, if this is the correct interpretation? And how much will Dingell compromise?

That said, this is a dishonest bill. It says nothing about what America could save with carbon taxes in place, whether from weather-related, pollution-related, or job creation-related causes.

But, given John Dingell’s blindsight history of protecting the Big Three at all costs, it isn’t surprising.

Now, that said, I hope other Democrats take him up at face value, point out the savings side, and call his bluff. We need something like this. After all, for all the good CAFÉ standards do, coal-fired electric power plants are far and away the top emitters of carbon dioxide, well ahead of automobile traffic.