"Farm groups prevail," the New York Times announced this morning in a report detailing negotiations on the huge climate bill pending in Congress. As a result of some deal-making between House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (a California Democrat) and Rep. Colin Peterson (Minnesota Democrat), the "Agriculture Department will have the lead role in overseeing agriculture offsets under the House climate bill, a major victory for farm groups that pushed lawmakers to take the lead away from the U.S. EPA and a defeat for environmental groups that fear the agriculture agency may be too lax in oversight." 

Peterson had threatened to put together as many as 50 farm state House members to oppose the Obama administration's huge climate change bill. Peterson was worried that biofuels would be judged to cause the release of more greenhouse gasses than they prevent. And Peterson "wanted to alter the rules for agricultural offsets, which are credits farmers would receive for tilling and conservation practices that keep carbon dioxide stored in the soil," according to the Washington Post. Also, rural legislators feared that rural electric coops, which depend largely on coal-fired power production, would fare poorly under the bill.

Under the compromise, USDA will judge the worth of the offsets, a new study will be conducted on biofuels (that must obtain the okay of the agriculture department) and rural co-ops  will receive extra emission allowances. Michael Steel, spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said “the back-room deal struck tonight by Chairman Peterson will not protect rural America...Though he eked out a few trivial concessions, the core of this legislation remains the same.” 

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (above), this morning said he opposes a watershed announcement in what could be a revival in nuclear power. Four energy companies are expected to share in $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees crucial in jump-starting new nuclear-plant construction as soon as 2011. The loans are awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy, headed by Secretary Stephen Chu, who The Wall Street Journal reports has made nuclear power a priority. “I am opposed to that,” Harkin said in response to a question from The Daily Yonder. “We’re going to be looking at that here in Congress."

In a conference call with reporters Harkin said he would fight to see that the loan guarantees flow instead to wind energy, solar power, geothermal and other sources he believes are not fraught with as many environmental concerns. No new nuclear plant has gone online in 30 years since the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. “I’m not hard and fast against nuclear power,” Harkin said. “The problem is there’s still no way to know of how to dispose of this waste. We just don’t know.”

He said the nuclear industry and its advocates have promised solutions on waste issues for a half-century and failed to deliver. “From 50 years we’ve never solved it,” Harkin said. “I think more and more you’re seeing more support for truly renewable energy.” Harkin also sees more nuclear power leading to increased weapons development. “I don’t care what you say, the more nuclear power plants we build, the easier it is to make nuclear weapons, period,” Harkin said. According to The Wall Street Journal, the four projects in the running for federal assistance for nuclear power plants are: UniStar Nuclear, Calvert County, Md.; South Carolina Electric & Gas, Fairfield County, S.C.; Southern, Burke County, Ga.; and NRG Energy, Matagorda County, Texas. Seventeen companies applied for $122 billion in loan guarantees for 21 proposed reactors, The Journal reported.

Douglas Burns

A coalition of farm-state legislators is blocking the climate change bill backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to The Hill's Jared Allen. Allen reports that the bill put together by House Energy and Commierce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) might fail unless it satisfies a group of ag state legislators led by House Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson of Minnesota (above). "Peterson has warned that the bill put together by Waxman and Energy and Environment subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) will fail if agriculture-related provisions aren’t altered, and he’s said he has as many as 45 votes on his side," Allen reported. "That number of Democratic defections would certainly doom the prospects of passing the bill in the House."

House members from rural areas have objected to how the legislation treats biofuels. Other issues separating rural legislators from urban ones are "unidentified," according to Allen.

Peterson has said that he might be happier letting the Senate take the lead on this issue. “Generally, my members probably think that what the Senate’s doing is better,” Peterson said. “I’ve had some of them say, ‘Why don’t we do what the Senate is doing?’ ”

The Politico reports that "rural Democrats are threatening to vote against climate change legislation unless the Environmental Protection Agency halts new proposals that could hamper the development of corn ethanol."  Recently the EPA released a report finding that changes in land use worldwide indirectly related to increased corn ethanol production in the U.S. could disqualify the biofuel as a renewable fuel.

As a result, House Ag Chair Collin Peterson of Minnesota and 26 Democrats on the Ag Committee have said they will vote against President Obama's climate change bill. Peterson told the New York Times that as many as 45 Ds will vote against the bill.  Meanwhile, in the Senate, Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced legislation that would remedy the situation (from the pro-ethanol point of view).

The EPA has counted "indirect land use" to show that ethanol has little effect on reducing global warming pollution. What's that? Politico's example is that changes in which crops are planted in the U.S. could result in changes in crops planted worldwide. More corn planted in the U.S. could result in increased deforestation of rain forests in South America, for example. U.S. farmers (and farm-state politicians) object to this kind of calculation, which requires U.S. farmers to be responsible for land use decisions made on other continents. Farm Policy reports that deforestation in Brazil has actually fallen over the last five years, and that the country reports that it can triple its grain and beef production without having to cut down a single tree.