Interesting Argument On Why We Have To Do Climate Change Bill
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Thanks to our friends with the Kansas Farm Bureau and their radio interview with Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota, we have more insights on why he went along with passage of the bill, after extracting some provisions he thinks offer protection for agricultural producers. Clicking here will bring you the audio for this radio interview.
I found his comments on the need for the legislation, due to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Court Case on carbon to be an interesting note of why we have to do something – as opposed to just not passing the legislation.
Congressman Peterson feels that since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon regulation is a requirement of the court case, agriculture will not be as negatively impacted as if the bill wouldn’t become law. At the same time that he is making this argument, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House are working to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Clean Water, not wanting the decision from the court case to limit EPA’s ability to inflict regulations on every drop of water.
If the court case on carbon didn’t turn out the way that you wanted (and it certainly didn’t come out well) why not use legislative authority to define carbon out of EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Air Act?
Sometimes the trouble with trying to have it both ways is that people see through the arguments and wonder which way you’re trying to go this time.
If Congressional members are so concerned over how badly agriculture is going to be treated by government regulation, the Climate Change Bill and the Clean Water Act Reauthorization Bill should be killed.
Thanks to our friends with the Kansas Farm Bureau and their radio interview with Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota, we have more insights on why he went along with passage of the bill, after extracting some provisions he thinks offer protection for agricultural producers. Clicking here will bring you the audio for this radio interview.
I found his comments on the need for the legislation, due to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Court Case on carbon to be an interesting note of why we have to do something – as opposed to just not passing the legislation.
Congressman Peterson feels that since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon regulation is a requirement of the court case, agriculture will not be as negatively impacted as if the bill wouldn’t become law. At the same time that he is making this argument, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House are working to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Clean Water, not wanting the decision from the court case to limit EPA’s ability to inflict regulations on every drop of water.
If the court case on carbon didn’t turn out the way that you wanted (and it certainly didn’t come out well) why not use legislative authority to define carbon out of EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Air Act?
Sometimes the trouble with trying to have it both ways is that people see through the arguments and wonder which way you’re trying to go this time.
If Congressional members are so concerned over how badly agriculture is going to be treated by government regulation, the Climate Change Bill and the Clean Water Act Reauthorization Bill should be killed.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/6/2009 9:57 AM 
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: EPA Regulations Climate Change Legislation Congressman Collin Peterson
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: EPA Regulations Climate Change Legislation Congressman Collin Peterson
Comments