Arbor Update

Note that the only source I have for the town hall meetings is a comment ostensibly left by Dingell on MarkMaynard.com.

Thanks for the link, Murph… If anyone out there has an interest in the subject, I’d encourage you to jump over to my site and read the comments left not only by Dingell, and the local Greenpeace rep, but others in the community, like Murph. As people become more and more aware of the power that Dingell has relative to global warming legislation, I suspect the pressure on him to do more will grow. I’d encourage everyone to get involved.

Thanks for the post Murph. Congressman Dingell is indeed holding 2 town halls to talk exclusively about Global Warming on August 7th and 8th. Mr. Dingell very much wants to hear his constituents thoughts and ideas on Global Warming and make sure they know what he is doing to address what he calls “the moral issue of the 21st Century”

Also, please make sure to visit his website in the next few days and weeks as he announces other meetings on important topics during the August congressional recess. While there you may want to take a look at some of the things Congressman Dingell has been doing and saying on Global Warming. (Be sure not to miss his podcasts on the subject too) www.house.gov/dingell

Regards,
Jeff Donofrio
District Administrator
Office of Congressman John D. Dingell

Thanks for the info. I think I’ll go to the town meeting and loan Congressman Dingell my copy of “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. The “Moral Issue of the 21st Century” is certainly not Algore’s false hypothesis of imminent disaster resulting from cyclical climate change. How about 46 million children slaughtered in the womb, infanticide on demand, cultural acceptance of homicide (if a woman chooses), 1/3 of all children being aborted, a generation lost??????

Michael Crichton! Ahahahahahaha!

Here is most of a letter I received today from Congressman Dingell in response to my call to his office. My call was to ask him to support CAFE standards and to address the issue of climate change in general. I did not mention any specific piece of legislation. I have omitted the ritual politeness and kind offers of future communication at the beginning and end of the letter.

“As you know, H.R. 1506 was introduced by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) on March 13, 2007. The bill was immediately referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where I have the pleasure of serving as Chairman. H.R. 1506 requires an eaverage fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles per gallon for automobiles manufactured for model year 2012, and an average fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon for automobiles manufactured for model year 2018, with a minimum increase of 4 percent in the average fuel economy from the level for the prior model year for model year 2013 and beyond.”

“I believe the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) system has served an important purpose, but it is time to move beyond what has become a stale and sterile debate over CAFE standards. As the needs of the Natiuon, and the technology of vehicles and fuels, have evolved, it is becoming clear that regulating miles per gallon is no longer adequate. Consider this: Car A gets 36 miles per gallon buring Middle Eastern oil. Car B gets 30 miles per gallon buring a carbon neutral biofuel grown right here in the USA. Which car better serves our national gaols? With this in mind, we need to move beyond CAFE to encouraging and even requiring renewable fuels, new technologies and new ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, I am working to craft an economy wide cap-and-trade policy. This way, every industry will have to tithe. I am very optimistic that we can get a bill signed into law during this session of Congress and that the bill will mark the beginning – not the end – of our work on climate change. We will have to constantly monitor our progress to ensure that we have created policies that protect our environment while allowing American industry to remain competitive.”

(end of quote)

Analysis (or at least opinion):

1. A brilliant political strategm that changes the subject, brings in some special interests (corn ethanol producers) and threatens others (any industry subject to a carbon tax) while delaying action on the principal issue.

2. Anyone who saw and took in the argument of “Who Killed the Electric Car” (movie) will see the hollowness of this line of reasoning, as well as those of us who have purchased a hybrid small car. American car manufacturers have not provided the energy-efficient vehicles (made here) that many of its potential customers wanted.

3. This is another example of how those of us who live in Michigan must bear the shame of watching, and even voting for, otherwise very decent elected representatives who defend an indefensible position to the benefit of an industry that did not look to the future when it should have, to the detriment of our state, our country, and our planet.

“Consider this: Car A gets 36 miles per gallon buring Middle Eastern oil. Car B gets 30 miles per gallon buring a carbon neutral biofuel grown right here in the USA.”

Biofuel isn’t “carbon neutral”. Not even close. This is the same half-assed thinking that makes people believe that those Subaru plants are landfill-free.

“Moreover, I am working to craft an economy wide cap-and-trade policy.”

This sounds to me like we all get hats. And sometimes we get to swap them. So what the hell, I’m for it.

“This way, every industry will have to tithe.”

Tithe??! Does every industry get baptized, say in biofuel, too? What about communion? You know what, screwit, I’m for that, too. I say, let the communion wafers be chocolate-flavored and let there be some white frosting on the wafers.

In exactly that spirit, we can all take our First Communion at the event in the top-level post on Monday, 6 August from noon to 1pm at the Congressman’s Ypsilanti office. (I have it on good authority that the cake mentioned in the post
will have the required flavor combination.)

CAFE standards are a lousy solution compared to a gas-tax or carbon-tax. The problems with CAFE are many. For example, they don’t discourage driving and reduce congestion but rather, by driving down the per-mile cost, they encourage more driving and more congestion. And CAFE standards don’t do anything to promote many effective ways of improving energy efficiency, for example:

- Moving closer to work

- Working closer to home

- Telecommuting

- Combining errands

- Ride sharing

- Biking, walking, using public transport

Also CAFE standards have no effect on the existing fleet and, as a phase-in period is allowed, they don’t even have an effect on the future fleet for years. They only affect the behavior of future new car shoppers. Gas taxes, on the other hand, do effect the behavior all existing car owners.

I love when the forced birthers use ANY excuse to inject their views. And Karen, I don’t know if you realize this, but about 1/3 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. All by themselves. So, one could say that nature is its own abortionist.

I won’t bother you any more Karen…I’m sure you are busy caring for all of those unwanted babies that were delivered and are now being neglected. Surely you adopted a bunch and/or are volunteering for an agency that helps them…right?

An update on House action: The New York Times reported today, August 2 (John Broder, Business), that House leadership has dropped the CAFE requirement from its energy bill now under discussion. The amendment containing the softer requirement proposed (shamefully) by our delegation was also thereby dropped. “But because a nearly identical [this means the stricter one] CAFE amendment passed the Senate, there will be another chance to enact mileage standards when the House and Senate versions are reconciled in conference later this year.”

In other words, House leadership has simply bypassed Mr. Dingell. Hooray for Nancy Pelosi.

So Liz,

I guess this means you also think scare-mongering over short-term climate changes is the “Moral Issue of the 21st Century”? Can you explain this position to me? How do your moral values lead you to this conclusion? I assume you are a rational thinker who evaluates complex situations and has a logical basis for making decisions. Help me to understand your point of view by describing the thought process that leads you to believe that potential Global Warming is a greater moral concern than 46 million abortions.

If not Liz, maybe someone else…

You can always turn the discussion to the topic of your choice by starting an argument about whether it’s more important than the topic under discussion. People have tried this in the past and we’ve ended up having to delete comments. Please drop it.

“God” to Karen—

THOU SHALT NOT HI-JACK THREADS JUST TO AIR THOUEST’S PET AGENDA.

“Thine” is the word your looking for

Thanks Emilia. If I’m going to pose as God’s messenger, then I suppose I should learn his vocabulary better.

“Join community members at Rep. Dingell’s office and tell him to stop global warming.”

You’re kidding me, right? Why stop there? Tell him I want a pony while you’re at it. The earth’s getting warmer? Tell Dingell to make it go away. Yeah, let me know how that works out. Could these fools tilt at a bigger windmill?

I think the point you’re all missing about Karen’s posts, though she is going off topic, is there’s a boatload more important stuff for him to work on than something which, if it does exist, probably isn’t the result of human activity anyway.

I think I’ll do my part for global warming by burning a tire this weekend.

“I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart. And that’s exactly what’s pulling our country apart today. Because face it, folks, we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats or Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided by those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart…”—Stephen Colbert

Mr. Dingle should be commended for doing this.

I think the thread has wandered away a bit from the really interesting aspect of the news story which is the bare fact that 81-y-o John Dingell is finding it politically advantageous to cast himself as a pro-climate-change Democrat. I don’t want to provoke the DIngell fans here, so let me stipulate that he probably a pretty good voting record on environmental issues, but the Sierra Club he ain’t.

I hope 2006 Green Party candidate Aimee Smith will be running again this year for Dingell’s seat; has anybody heard about her intentions?

Congressman Dingell helped write both the Clean Water and Clean Air acts probably among the most important environmental bills in history. Locally and lately, he is largely responsible for saving the Humboldt Marsh from development and making it a nature area.

It’s actually the Humbug Marsh and Dingell did have a role in saving it by securing federal funds to purchase it from Trust for Public Land, which initially purchased the land after the developers who owned the land went bankrupt. He probably should be given more credit for establishing the “Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge”, which now includes Humbug Marsh and Island. I think Fred hit the right balance as Dingell does have some big environmental accomplishments but he’s been out of the mainstream on climate change.