John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is about to propose a carbon tax–a proposal he expects (and hopes) will be widely rejected.

According to a New York Times story titled Counting on Failure, Dingell is taking a very cynical tack:

Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.

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

Not only is Dingell hoping to lose, his primary objective seems to be to set up anyone who dares support the idea of a carbon tax for ultimate failure–rejection by the voters at the ballot box.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal points out:

If Congressional Democrats are really serious about global warming, they'd nonetheless have the courage of their professed convictions: Take the Dingell honesty test and vote to raise carbon taxes. We suspect along with Mr. Dingelll, however, that keeping Senate and House seats is going to stump saving the planet.

It's clear that Dingell can't lose this game of political chicken. He's been a fixture in the House since 1955, and his constituents, most of whom would oppose a carbon tax,  are savvy enough to see the merits of his ploy.

So, who loses? We all do–because what should have been an open, honest and transparent consideration of the merits of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade systems has now been spoiled by Dingell's shrewd use of his bully pulpit.

Carbon Neutral Journal's rants are brought to you by Vertical Media.

Popularity: 10%