By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has come out against any climate change legislation unless certain changes are made to it.

“He is opposed to the cap-and-trade legislation that Rep. (Henry) Waxman (D-Calif.) introduced and he’s seeking changes to it,” an aide to Peterson said.

Peterson has also introduced House Resolution 2409, which reverses language in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring that the EPA consider indirect land use when considering greenhouse gas emissions associated with ethanol.
In a press release from the House Agriculture Committee last week, he complained the offending provisions in the 2007 energy bill would make it impossible for the biofuel industry to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard. The ranking Republican member, Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, is quoted as agreeing with Peterson’s proposed changes.

The proposed cap-and-trade climate change legislation would seek to reduce industry generated carbon emissions.

Peterson recently sent the National Grain and Feed Assoc. (NGFA) and several hundred other groups a detailed questionnaire regarding their views on the matter. A staff member of the Agriculture Committee said that there were about 200 responses to the nearly 500 questionnaires that went out. The responses are going to be published in a book by the Government Printing Office.
“It will help the Agriculture Committee make decisions about what to support,” the staff member said.

The NGFA, for one, is afraid such legislation would put American farmers at a competitive disadvantage unless such a law is enacted as part of a global agreement. It’s also opposed to legislation that would idle more land in the name of carbon sequestration.

“This proposed legislation might encourage farmers to sell their land in order to get credits,” said Randall Gordon, a spokesman for the NGFA.

Proposed legislation might allow landowners to get credits by trading the perceived environmental benefit of land idling with companies that emit a lot of pollution, such as power companies. According to the written response NGFA prepared for Peterson, “significant portions of the most environmentally sensitive agricultural lands already are enrolled in USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program. It is imperative that any carbon-reduction program avoid additional cropland acres being idled.”

In another section, the response states, “The NGFA will not support a program that undermines the assurance that there will be adequate acreage to continue to produce a safe and abundant food supply for world consumers and to capture opportunities presented by the growth in biofuels.”

U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a member of the Agriculture Committee, also opposes the proposed legislation. According to King aide Matt Lahr, the legislation has yet to be introduced.
“He’s against what everyone thinks the legislation will turn out to be,” Lahr said. “This legislation would really hurt all families across America, especially families in Iowa. This bill would really punish coal production.

“Other states that are less reliant on coal, like Massachusetts and California, would only see their electric bills rise 3 to 9 percent. This bill will really punish the Midwest.”

Lahr said Iowa’s electricity consumers, who rely heavily on coal production, would see their electric bills rise 15-30 percent.