Colin Peterson on the Waxman-Markey Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:03:55 AM PDT

During the House debate, the bill was introduced into the House Energy & Commerce committee (chaired by Waxman, whose name is on the bill) and was substantially weakened before passing out of that committee. Then Collin Peterson got his environment-hating claws on it, and he worked out a compromise that allowed the bill to pass the full House. In the end, Peterson voted FOR the bill but many Ag committee members did not. It was in the aftermath of that that he went on the radio show AgriTalk on July 2.

Peterson said that he was happy with what he accomplished but it was not a perfect bill. He thinks that the Senate will water it down quite a bit more because rural states each have 2 Senators, just like the more urban states do, and therefore rural areas have more power in the Senate compared to the House. He said that perhaps the global warming part of the bill will be entirely dropped in the Senate, leaving us with a bill that only deals with energy (and added that that wouldn't "hurt [his] feelings" if it happened).

He said that if you asked him a month ago whether the bill would go to the President's desk by the end of the year, he would have said no. But now he's not so sure. He also said that if the current House version of the bill was going to be voted into law, he'd vote no. That's pretty significant. The bill only passed by 7 votes, so he is basically saying that it would NOT pass in its current form if it was the final vote to send it to the President.

Probably the most interesting point he made was that a recent court ruling decided that the EPA had to regulate carbon as it was a health hazard. Therefore, if Congress does NOTHING, the EPA is going to regulate carbon no matter what. The bill will essentially stop the EPA from doing whatever they would do on their own and instead give them specific instructions based on whatever Congress wants. It sounds to me like the environment would be better off if the EPA were left in charge and if Congress kept its nose out of it, but the risk is that we'll have a future President like George W. Bush who appoints, say, a coal lobbyist (or similar) to head the EPA. In that case, it will be nice to have a law in place from Congress that sets the rules for carbon regulation. Peterson, of course, is very much opposed to leaving the EPA in charge.

In other words, he admitted his own weakness here. He can hold up this bill all he wants, but in the end, ANY bill is going to be better (to him) than letting the EPA decide how to regulate carbon on its own. So really, Peterson's in a bad place to negotiate from. It's amazing that they let him have so much power so far. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I'd say "Fine Collin. Then we'll have no bill and the EPA will regulate carbon. How will you like that. You won't? OK, well here's the alternative. You play by my rules."

The most amazing part of the interview was towards the end, when Peterson said that he has grandchildren, and this bill is for his grandchildren. He had expressed interest in eliminating the need for Middle Eastern oil as a national security measure, so is that what he is doing for his grandchildren? Or does he actually see a need to save the planet? For most of the interview he spoke about how much he wanted to throw a wrench in any and all efforts to help the environment. If that's what he thinks he's doing for his grandkids, well, that's not a very grandfatherly thing to do.

Farm Bureau confident climate change bill going nowhere

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF director of public policy, tells Agriculture Online that Farm Bureau doesn't anticipate the massive climate change bill passed by the House last week to pass the Senate this year.

And the New York Times reported Tuesday that opposition from Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups threatens to kill the bill in the Senate. The Times reports that groups such as AFBF wield greater clout in the Senate, because members there must be protective of an entire state, rather than a small congressional district.

Here are the links to the Agriculture Online piece and the New York Times article.

You may recall that the Farm Bureau Federation lobbied members of the U.S. House to vote for Collin Peterson's lousy amendments to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act but against the bill intended to address climate change.

I have my own problems with the ACES bill, especially the deals made to appease the coal industry and Peterson's colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee. That said, the objections big agribusiness and their Congressional allies have raised against the cap-and-trade approach are off-base and short-sighted.

It wouldn't surprise me if Farm Bureau's vote-counter is correct and the Senate rejects the Waxman-Markey bill for the wrong reasons. Frankly, that might be better than letting senators like Claire McCaskill make this flawed bill even worse.

Energy and Food Independence

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

It seems fitting that the same week we celebrate the independence of our Nation, the House passed historic climate change legislation. In theory, this bill should bring us closer to the goals of oil independence and freedom from the disastrous future of a warming, melting planet. If America is to prosper in the 21st century, then we must take immediate action to reduce our role in causing the climate crisis. And yet, the bill left those of us who care about our shared environment shaking our heads. Is the Waxman-Markey bill is even slightly better for the planet than the status quo, or will it pave the way to increased, legalized pollution? Perhaps the most tragic part of the bill was the compromise with agribusiness interests that was required to secure its passage through the Agriculture committee.

Waxman-Markey Narrowly Passes House

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 17:54:43 PM PDT

Washington Post to Farm Bureau: You're Stupid

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:49:38 AM PDT

With the possible exception of the ski industry, it's hard to think of any sector of the economy that will be hit harder by global warming than agriculture. A report out last week from scientists at 13 government agencies found that climate change is happening more quickly than we thought and that by the end of the century, many farmers will face scorching summer weather, severe storms, prolonged drought and swarms of new insects.

Here are some highlights of the rest of the piece:

But, for farmers, it wasn't enough to get a free pass on carbon emissions...

So farmers demanded that they be allowed to earn some extra cash by reducing the carbon footprint on their farms and selling these "offsets" to the factories and power plants unlucky enough to be subject to the carbon-cap regime. They want to be paid extra if they change the feedstock to cut down on cow burps and farts. Or if they use the no-till method for planting seeds, which doesn't release the carbon trapped in the soil. Or if they put in devices to trap the methane released from animal poop.

And they demanded to be paid not just if they do these things in the future, but also if they did them last year or the year before. They demanded the payments even if they are already getting a check from the government to do the same things as part of some other conservation program.

Outrageous? YES. And pigheaded and stupid. He ends by saying:

The next time the world's most selfish lobby comes to Washington demanding drought relief, someone ought to have the good sense to tell them to go pound sand.

What's the saddest to me is the number of genuinely good farmers who are being hurt by the stupidity of the "farm lobby" - which, let's face it, should really be referred to as the "agribusiness lobby" because they aren't doing jack squat to help the average farmer, nor do they care about the fate of the average farmer. If they did, they wouldn't take such an idiotic position on global warming.

Farm Bureau: Yes on Peterson's amendment, no on Waxman-Markey

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:29:41 AM PDT

In a letter sent today to all 435 members of the House, AFBF President Bob Stallman said H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will "unquestionably impose enormous costs on the American economy, including agriculture."

An AFBF economic analysis shows that at a minimum, net farm income will decline by $5 billion annually by the year 2020, if H.R. 2454 is passed.

"The $5 billion impact is under the most optimistic set of assumptions," Stallman said. "Those estimates do not begin to tell the story of what will happen when the program mandated by this legislation fully takes hold." [...]

Stallman praised Peterson's effort to improve the bill and urged passage of his amendment because it incorporates provisions that are critical to American agriculture.

"The Peterson amendment establishes an agricultural offset program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture; provides for a list of eligible agricultural offsets; corrects the misuse of indirect land use calculations in evaluating the use of biofuels; and alters the definition of biomass," Stallman explained.

I have a lot of trouble supporting the ACES bill myself, because as written it seems more like a pretend solution to a problem than a real effort to combat climate change. That said, Farm Bureau is taking the worst possible position: supporting an amendment that undermines the bill without supporting the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Challenge to Big Ag: Can You Make a Bad Climate Change Bill Worse?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 05:23:15 AM PDT

As the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill moves forward in the House, Big Ag interest groups are circling their plows and sharpening their pitchforks. Some of the largest corporations in the agribusiness sector-including the GMO-and-herbicide giant Monsanto-are pushing to control how agriculture would fit into the bill's cap-and-trade scheme.

Sampler Platter 06.09.09

by: JayinPortland

Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:40:54 PM PDT

• Over at Grist, Ken Ward looks at Waxman-Markey, and wonders why American environmentalists "remain irrationally committed to a losing strategy".

• Also from Grist, Sara Barz reviews the new film "The End of the Line", a documentary which takes a look at the impact of overfishing on our oceans.  Looking forward to seeing the film, but unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to make it to the Netherlands or San Diego (or to Seattle, ummm, yesterday...) to catch an upcoming screening...

• A piece from last year from Culinate, but certainly relevant as I sit here sweating buckets while typing - it's time again for cool summer cocktails!  I prefer cold (good!) beer on a hot day for the most part, but a few of those drinks look great.  Matter of fact, I think I could use a Pyramid Apricot Hef.  Or if I was back in Jersey, maybe a Raspberry Wheat Ale from JJ Bitting's.  Also, I just found a cool beer blog that may come in handy on an (eventual) upcoming trip to Vancouver and BC...

• Lol, yeah - I definitely don't want to be known as a "drinkie".  So there's gotta be a better term than "foodie", right?

• I passed on fennel at the market last week, mainly because I don't usually know what to do with it.  Here's a really great-looking parmesan fennel gratin recipe.  (drooling...)  Maybe next week!  

• From Civil Eats, Paula Crossfield and Friends build raised beds on the roof of their 6-story Manhattan walkup.

• Wolves are re-establishing themselves in Washington State for the first time in 70 years, and now environmentalists, government agencies and ranchers are working together to promote peaceful coexistence between livestock producers and the wolves.

How Bad Is the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill?

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

Here's a bad sign: Alternet article "Why does the Much-Touted Climate Change Bill Look like it was Stolen From a Republican Playbook?" Ouch.