Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, has an article up at the Huffington Post entitled, “A Good Week for GM?” Here’s a clip:

It certainly looks like it. The settlement of the short-lived strike by the United Auto Workers is seen as having resolved the threat that retiree health care costs posted to General Motors’ competitiveness, and the company’s stock price soared on the news. Meanwhile, Congressman John Dingell, whose wife Debbie is a GM lobbyist, has embraced GM’s long-standing policy preference in dealing with global warming and America’s oil dependence; that is, to tax fuel.

Dingell has embraced — officially, at least — the idea of a $50 per ton tax on carbon, roughly $15 per ton of carbon dioxide, phased in over five years, and pegged thereafter at the rate of inflation. GM prefers a carbon tax, which puts the burden of emissions cuts on the oil industry (and GM’s customers), over tougher federal fuel economy standards for cars, trucks and SUVs. Recently, the company also embraced a cap-and-trade system that would also price carbon, thereby joining USCAP, an alliance of environmental and business groups working for such legislation…

Dingell also announced that, in addition to his proposed carbon tax, he was considering a cap-and-trade program. In doing so, Dingell, the auto industry’s strongest congressional supporter, joined former Vice President Al Gore in advocating a combined carbon tax and carbon cap.

But just as GM officially advocated a gas tax for years without really doing anything about it, there remain questions about Dingell’s sincerity. Back in July, when Dingell first talked about the possibility of a carbon tax, he made it clear that his motivation was in part to illustrate how little public support there was for effective action on climate: “I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.” He added that he would introduce legislation, “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

In fact, as Dingell is no doubt well aware, there is ample research showing that a carbon tax is the LEAST politically palatable mechanism for dealing with global warming. So it’s hard to avoid two observations: First, Dingell has seemingly designed his strategy to fail, and admits as much — which is not something a legislative craftsman as skilled as he would normally do. And, two, he has done so at a time when Congress is debating the most popular mechanism for reducing oil consumption — tougher fuel economy standards — which Dingell and GM loathe. In other words, it would seem that Dingell’s intention with this maneuver is not to pass a carbon tax, but simply to keep fuel-economy improvements out of a pending Congressional energy bill. If this is true, what seems like a good week for GM will in fact be just another missed opportunity…

The heat is definitely going to build on Dingell in the coming months. As reporters begin digging, I suspect we’re going to see more and more about his economic ties to the auto industry and his wife’s position at GM. My hope is that he doesn’t let it get that far. It seems to me that by moving to support the modest increases in fuel economy that we’ve been talking about, that can be avoided, and he can preserve his legacy as a great leader for Michigan and an environmentalist. The alternative, I’m afraid, is an ugly public fight which calls into question his motivations, and sullies his legacy. I for one don’t want to see that happen.

When we began our petition drive, we very consciously made the decision to stay positive. Our goal was not to have Dingell step asside, but to encourage him to be the kind of leader that we want and need. My sense is that most reasonable people are like us. They aren’t hoping to see Dingell end his illustrious career being called a liar in the press, with other members of the House legislating around him. Michigan should be leading the charge — not fighting it. And, as I’ve said before, Dingell shouldn’t be expending his considerable strength fighting the inevitable. He should instead be demanding federal dollars for R&D and job training. Instead of working fiercely to stop this from happening, he should be focusing on getting federal dollars into Michigan to help the Big 3 make the transition. This doesn’t have to be bad thing for Michigan. Facing reality can, in fact, present opportunities. Hopefully, for the sake of Michigan and himself, he’ll recognize this before it’s too late.

update: Debbie Dingell, the Congressman’s wife, just left a rebuttal to the Carl Pope piece at the Huffington Post.]