Dingell Playing Troublemaker?

As I've reported [1] twice before [2], Rep. John Dingell, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and longtime ally of automakers, has been sending mixed messages about his intentions on global warming. It's been unclear if that's because his views were evolving in a positive direction, or he's trying to keep enviromental critics off-balance.

His latest gambit [3] indicates the latter.

Dingell raised eyebrows last month when he indicated support for a tax on carbon emissions [4], an idea backed fervently by some environmentalists but generally rejected by Democrats in Congress as politically impractical.

But in a C-SPAN interview aired yesterday [3], Dingell said he'll introduce carbon tax legislation with the intention to show it's a political loser: "I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them."

John Laumer of Treehugger [5] sees Dingell's move as a way to derail attempts to raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards (aka CAFE). Blue Climate [6] also speculates on the possibility.

Perhaps that's the intention, but I don't see it working.

All the momentum [7] on Capitol Hill [8] is for some form of cap-and-trade. There's been no significant push for a carbon tax.

If the only guy bringing up a carbon tax is explicitly doing it disingenuously, it is more likely to fizzle out than spark intra-party warfare.

Unless, of course, he can get such a proposal on the floor, and get enough anti-environment conservatives to join him in inserting a carbon tax "poison pill" to sink House energy legislation. (And you can be sure such a insincere proposal won't be the revenue-neutral version of a carbon tax backed by sincere advocates [9].)

But based on recent history, Speaker Nancy Pelosi [10] would likely do all she could to prevent that scenario. [11]

If Dingell really wants to be treated as a productive player on global warming legislation, he'll stop echoing conservative talking points, and help craft legislation that won't "cost" the public overall, but will invest in a clean energy economy that will create good, sustainable jobs.

Otherwise, he will only marginalize himself and his committee.

Other blog reactions to Dingell's remarks from AutoblogGreen [12], DailyKos' FishOutOfWater [13], TerraBlog [14], To The People [15] and Watching Those We Chose [16].