Climate Change Bill Passes Key Hurdle, Faces New Hurdle
The American Clean Energy and Security Act--also known as the Waxman-Markey bill--was reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last night. The vote was split almost perfectly down party lines, with 33 in favor and 24 opposed.
Now Democratic leaders faces a dilemma. Normally they would move the bill on to the floor of the House and it would receive an up or down vote (subject to various stall tactics, and so forth). But yesterday, The Hill reported that Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)--House Agriculture chairman--is threatening to whip all of the Democrats on his panel into voting no on passage unless that committee is given equal jurisdiction over the legislation and is allowed to mark it up on its own. If he gets his way, the legislation could lose yet more of its teeth. If he doesn't (and if he's able to make good on his threat) then it may not pass at all.
We'll see how this shakes out.
Josh
Matt
Eric
My heart fell into my shoes when I read this on Kos yesterday. This guy says this is the work of a buncha city slickers who don't know what rural 'merica needs and because of that the bill as it is now won't pass the Senate, where rural areas are part of the constituiency, less'n he and his fellow faux hayseeds get a whack at it first.
If one didn't know this is a naked powergrab by a Blue Dog, one would think he's laboring under the delusion that the Senate can't amend bill from the House on its own.
May 22, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where might we contact this jackass Collin Peterson to send him the MIT chart produced the other day that shows global warming getting much worse faster than they thought a year ago?
May 22, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Living in Peterson's state, but not his district, like you I can only appeal to his constituents to say something. He won't listen to anyone else. He's a policy wonk on agriculture and I get the impression he's basically a decent person, but he's also the poster boy for congressional provincialism. The world can rot if that what it takes to save mild discomfort for his district, which is heavily agricultural. He puts the desires of agribusiness above all else, and his opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill is based entirely on protecting corn-based ethanol. There are studies showing it takes as much energy to produce as we get out of it, and he doesn't want to hear that. There was a U of Minnesota study a couple years ago showing native prairie grasses are more efficient for ethanol, but there's no prairie grass lobby.
May 22, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Economies of scale might change that energy in and out ratio for corn but it's never gonna change the fact that corn is a lousy feedstock that requires
more refining than native grasses would. I think if you look it up you'll find this wanker is heavily supported by Cargill, ADM and other big corn processors. The farmers most likely aren't his problem or his real concern.
May 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Benen says Peterson wants to remove carbon restrictions on ethanol, so here's what Pelosi should say:
OK, Collin, here's the deal: no carbon restrictions on ethanol, but no subsidies, either. Ya like that better, you pig-fucker?
(And I say that as someone who lives someplace way more rural than Peterson's ever been, and who has friends who get corn ethanol subsidies.)
May 22, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink