Pres. Clinton: Carbon Offsets Should be Monitored by EPA, not USDA

by Natasha Chart · 2009-06-16 15:11:00 UTC
Topics:

Clinton meeting with bloggers in Harlem, June 15, 2009; by Deanna Zandt, aka, randomdeannaIf today is a Clinton-themed day, well, the photo should explain why. Yesterday I was able to join a group of progressive blogger types in a meeting with former President Bill Clinton at his Harlem offices.

(I'm at the center left, black jacket, short blonde hair. My partner Chris Bowers is just behind me to the right. Two people to the left of me is Deanna Zandt, also with short blonde hair and wearing a fetching tie, of the Hightower Lowdown and GRITtv - she's the proud owner of the camera used for our group photo. Between Deanna and I, in the orange jacket, is nyceve, who wrote today about Clinton's comments on healthcare at the meeting. We are surrounded by an incredibly cool group of progressive bloggers whom I admit that I was as excited to meet in person as Clinton himself.)

From Chris' post on the event - I didn't get a chance to ask my question, but he got one in for both of us - comes this report on the Agriculture Committee's footstamping over the climate bill:

... In regards to the committee's attempts to have the USDA determine who receives carbon offset credits, President Clinton said that "too many carbon offsets have nothing to do with agriculture" for the USDA to become the appropriate regulatory agency. He added that "it's not the right thing to do. Keep it in the EPA."

President Clinton did note that Chairman Peterson, like many of the Democrats on the committee, comes from a conservative and rural district. However, making the USDA the regulatory authority is something that "not even the coal industry" would support. ...

Right now, Rep. Waxman is in negotiations with Peterson, who may have 35-40 Democratic votes he can whip against the bill, and we'll probably hear this week what the outcome is.

Finding some money for agriculture in this bill, I don't necessarily mind. But stripping the EPA of regulatory authority to determine the effectiveness of carbon offsets? Please, no. It's not fitting. Not when a technical abstract submitted to the USDA's Agricultural Research Service in 2007 describes USDA's soil carbon measurement methods (mandated by Congress, btw) as, "invasive, costly, and ... time and labor intensive," and when the research the USDA relies on may often be significantly corrupted by corporate sponsorship.

I don't support all aspects of the current climate change bill, but I definitely don't support making its oversight provisions even suckier. That seems self-defeating.

[Update: Brad Johnson further details Peterson's anti-science approach to asking for unregulated agricultural subsidies at The Wonkroom.]

(Photo credit: Deanna Zandt, aka, randomdeanna on Flickr.)

Natasha Chart
PREVIOUS STORY:
Sustainability and Hunger
NEXT STORY:
Join the Social Media Day of Action to Rid Girl Scout Cookies of Forest-Destroying Palm Oil

COMMENTS (0)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.