Agriculture Killing Climate (Bill)

Speaker Pelosi has apparently personally contacted Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) to secure his support for the climate bill:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) placed a call Wednesday night to her Agriculture Committee chairman, hoping to find out why he is holding up a climate change bill that she wants passed this summer.

Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who has made known that he has enough votes to derail the Speaker’s priority legislation if agricultural provisions aren’t changed, said he spoke with Pelosi “for a while” and that it was “cordial.”

“She’s not putting any pressure on me,” Peterson said. “She knows where I’m coming from.” ...

Where he's coming from ... hmm, where could that be? Over at OpenLeft, Chris Bowers asks Peterson to just name a price and get to the haggling:

... If what members of the Agriculture Committee want in order to pass climate change legislation is more money for farmers, why don't we just start handing out cash to farmers? Cash would be better than these credits, since it both gives the farmers the money they want but doesn't exempt them from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone wins.

Of course, in order to do this, the Agriculture Committee would first need to specific exactly how much cash they want directed to the farmer's in their districts. While it could be as high as $24 billion, that would still be a small price to pay for mitigating climate change. ...

As I've said before, I think it's less morally problematic than the bribes that are going to the coal companies for 'clean' coal research. Agriculture could, in theory, if not as commonly practiced, be a boon to the climate. Coal? Erm, no.

Peterson is at the least being honest, and not asking for something oxymoronic by nature. Still, as Tom Philpott notes, most of the money would go straight to Monsanto: by supporting chemical no-till farming made possible through the offices of their Roundup herbicide.

The best I'll say about the practice is that it may prevent erosion. Though again, slightly less problematic than paying off an industry that's steadily leveling the Appalachians.

Let the haggling begin, I suppose. The result is sure to be a mockery of science, as Peterson is allergic to the idea of independent EPA review of the carbon sequestration benefits of any approved practices, but science isn't the point. The Republican members of the committee don't even believe in that, Philpott says they used their time at the recent committee hearing mostly to deny anthropogenic global warming.

Why is it such a commonplace, acceptable thing for Congress to have whole committees packed with greedy, sometimes reprehensible, human beings? Who knows. But tell you what ...

Next time you want to ask for a raise, don't be embarassed to do it. Congress isn't.

(Photo credit: kimberlyfaye on Flickr.)