Climate change=more corn!

House ag chief Peterson: what, me worry about a warming planet? 17

collin petersonPeterson, right, with combine rep: With climate change and big diesel-guzzling combines, we can grow lots of corn!After researching my story last week about the ag lobby’s attempt to turn Waxman-Markey into a cash cow for the agrichem and ethanol industries, I assumed that Waxman would quietly make some unspeakable deal with House ag chief Collin Peterson (D.-Corn) and call it a day. After all, Peterson has been quite credibily threatening to rally farm-state democrats to vote against the bill—unless it turns into a cash cow for the agrichem and ethanol industries (and a thus disaster for everyone else). And without the support of those very farm-state dems, the bill will likely die in the house. So the political landscape looks like: appease Peterson or the climate bill dies. And Waxman really wants a climate bill.

But Waxman has held out admirably, even as the deadline set by House speaker Pelosi looms ever closer. Waxman told The New York Times that he hopes to have a deal by today; we’ll see what happens.

Meantime, let’s check in with Peterson to gauge how he balances the perils of a warming planet vs. the interests of the ag lobby. Here he is, in today’s Wall Street Journal:

“We’ve just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we’ve ever had,” he said. “They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn.”

In other words: Hey, last winter was cold. Are you sure about this climate change thing? And anyway, even if the planet does warm, WE CAN GROW MORE CORN. Because, you know, growing more corn is all that matters.

And I suppose that’s true, to a point—if you’re an agrichemical company selling farmers the inputs to grow that corn; or a grain-processing firm that profits from buying it cheap and selling it at a profit as corn syrup or beef.

But for the rest of us, it really sucks if this man has the power to dictate climate policy.

 

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Matt Rosenberg Posted 11:23 am
    17 Jun 2009

    Why would Peterson feel the way he does about climate change? Hmmm, let us count the ways:Donations to Peterson by industry in 2008:IndustryDonation% of totalAgribusiness$542,13449.7 %Labor$129,50011.9 %Finance/Insur/RealEst$111,92910.3 %Misc Business$88,1928.1 %Energy/Nat Resource$43,4944.0 %Lawyers & Lobbyists$43,4804.0 %Ideology/Single-Issue$28,6062.6 %Health$26,2002.4 %Transportation$23,6002.2 %Construction$19,4001.8 %Communic/Electronics$18,7501.7 %Defense$7,5000.7 %Other$7,5000.7 %Total:$1,090,285

    Permalink

  2. veritone Posted 11:48 am
    17 Jun 2009

    The sharp end of this stick isn't people like Collins so much as the corporations they serve. Collins is carrying water for the likes of Monsanto and other Agribiz Giants. As Lincoln warned us: "As a result of the [Civil] war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."Clearly Lincoln was prescient in this regard and I surely share his anxiety. Given that corporations are pseudo-people who don't die, small wonder they have so little regard for real humans or the serious predicaments we find ourselves in today. It is a shame, of course, that people like Collins can be found so easily (and elected so often), but it is, as Lincoln observed, simply "corruption in high places."The only anti-dote is massive grassroots citizen action. Your website helps inform and this is very useful information to have and much appreciated.Mind you, Collins statement makes me recall Schiller's famous dictum: "Against stupidity even the Gods struggle in vain."

    Permalink

  3. Orng Crush Posted 12:09 pm
    17 Jun 2009

    It's a little disingenuous to say he's just beholden to corporate interests.  Practically his entire constituency is farmers.Right or wrong, he's representing what the regular Joes in his district think.  New York Times today said he won more than 70 percent of the vote last election.In this case, I think the contributions were more reflective of his stances on agriculture issues, as opposed to the other way around.

    Permalink

    1. Tom Philpott's avatar

      Tom Philpott Posted 12:48 pm
      17 Jun 2009

      Hey Orng Crush.There is def. a conflation in corn country between the interests of farmers and the interests of agribiz. Pols like Peterson thive on that conflation--"we're defending our farmer-constituents!" But if you look at the increasing dominannce of agribiz over the past half century--using, say, Tyson's market share in beef, chicken and pork processing as a proxy--and compare it to the number of farms, you'll see the graphs go in opposite directions: more and more control by agribiz means fewer and fewer farms. Many of the few survivors left--mainly the largest players--band together in groups like the National Corn Growers or the American Farm Bureau  to advance the interests of the agribiz giants, to whom they are beholden. But they by no means speak for all Midwestern farmers. i urge you to check out groups like the American Corn Growers or the National Family Farm Coalition. Peterson by no means speaks for all farmers.

      Permalink

      1. Orng Crush Posted 1:59 pm
        17 Jun 2009

        I'm just saying it seems like the implication in the post was that he's representing business and is out of touch with regular folks.I lived in a relatively rural part of Minnesota (although not in his district), and I know most of the people there care deeply about policies supporting agriculture. I'm really only arguing with one piece of your post, where you said: "Because, you know, growing more corn is all that matters. And I suppose that’s true, to a point—if you’re an agrichemical company selling farmers the inputs to grow that corn; or a grain-processing firm that profits from buying it cheap and selling it at a profit as corn syrup or beef."I'm saying his broad constituency supports growing corn, not just agrichemical companies and grain processers.  There are undeniably fewer independent farmers than there used to be.  However, I have three independent farmers in my family (more if you count second and third cousins).I still live in a relatively rural area, definitely corn country.  I support many environmental policies, and I don't automatically defer to ag interests.If environmental interests really want to make a difference, it would be best to not just dismiss farm-state politicians as people representing huge ag companies.  They, in fact, represent a huge segment of the population who think environmentalists are working against them.  Most rural Americans I know look at environmental groups as self-interested and out-of-touch people with undue and dangerous influence in politics and, consequentially, our everyday lives - likely much the way environmentalists view the agriculture industry.I bike or walk whenever possible.  My thermostats high in the summer and low in the bitter winter.  My kids and I share a flush whenever possible.  I argue with my wife about using the clothes lines vs. the dryer.  I'm sure I'm not as green as the majority of people who visit this site, but for my area, I'm practically an enviro-nut.When I see postings that look at agribusiness as the main obstacle to environmental policies, it becomes clear to me why I'm in such a minority here.  Traditional, middle America and its concerns are at best ignored, at worst belittled by the environmental movement. 

        Permalink

      2. Orng Crush Posted 2:29 pm
        17 Jun 2009

        Sorry I'm on a rant. But there's a major PR problem here.The environmental movement doesn't need to seriously compromise its message, it just needs to look for opportunities to celebrate and make a difference in farm country.GPS on farm equipment, for instance, have improved planting practices and decreased fertilizer rates because they allow for more precise work.  Let's get some Sierra Club folks riding on some of that equipment, saying "We support efforts to cut back on fertilizer use and improve crop yields."On one of your previous Waxman-Markey posts, you wrote: "the role of ag isn’t explicitly laid out, but farming projects are eligible for offsets."Why can't the environmental media, such as Grist, explicitly lay them out?  I don't know what they are. I rely on the media to tell me, because I'm not going to dive into a pile of legislation. If it's been done, I haven't seen it, and it should be inserted into every story you do about Peterson.An environmental group can take that list to the Midwest and hold town hall meetings and help the farmers implement these practices.  Put out a sign that says "Free Donuts" and you'll fill the hall, I promise.Instead, everyone just says "ADM sucks!", complains about Peterson, lobbies for land use legislation, and leaves the farmers flapping in the wind.Right now, a farmer might have $500,000 revenue for the year, and end up clearing $35,000 because of seed, equipment, fertilizer, etc. costs.  That's why we're losing independent farmers. Carbon or climate change legislation is putting them at a much greater risk than it is you or me.  They need people to work with them rather than look down at them or dismiss them. 

        Permalink

  4. Samuel Fromartz Posted 1:31 pm
    17 Jun 2009

    The problem with Peterson's quote is that he is flat out wrong. NOAA yesterday stated in a climate change report:“Even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean rice, cotton, and peanut crops.” Guess he didn't get the memo. 

    Permalink

  5. Chris Pratt Posted 1:38 pm
    17 Jun 2009

    Here is what I think.  You have your zoombie banks and you have your zoombie politicians and zoombie people.   Real people who are becoming pseudo people when they allow their minds to be snatched away from them by corporate media brain washing.  Thinking is hard when you don't know who to trust. 

    Permalink

  6. justlou Posted 7:58 am
    18 Jun 2009

    This pushback derives largely from an agricultural industry that has effectively resisted or weakened most previous regulatory attempts largely through the same means that they resist this new move into energy and climate legislation.  Their PR and lobbying machine is strong and the legislators listen.  And I guess that these rural state legislators are getting very little feedback from their non ag dependent constituents pushing for stronger environmental and climate legislation.  Most people have so little contact with primary nature that they are not aware of the environmental impact of agriculture.  Here in the Midwest agriculture accounts for about 75% of the degradation of water quality in rivers and streams.  The media simply doesn't cover much environmental news here.  There is such little enforcement of existing regulation that this rarely gets covered.  Some of the big spill events get some news, but the death by a thousand cuts largely passes undetected or is ignored.      

    Permalink

  7. Chris Pratt Posted 8:40 am
    18 Jun 2009

    Fill the hall with what farmers?? maybe a handful of farm hands, but seriously there are not enough real independent farmers left to fill dinning room.  Agrobiz is the farmerof today and they are coroporations that are interested in making money, not food or culture, wake up.

    Permalink

    1. Orng Crush Posted 9:47 am
      18 Jun 2009

      I live in farm country.  Almost everyone directly or indirectly relies on agriculture.And, like I said, my family is in agriculture, and we're not really big or rich.  I have friends in farming.  I have enemies in farming.  I see complete strangers in farming.  The independent farmer is not dead.  Have you ever been to the rural Midwest?  Or are you just repeating a talking point?I won't deny there are fewer of them, but they are still a big part of rural America.The farmers that I know are a lot more worried about environmentalists regulating them to oblivion than they are about large corporations taking farm land.  The bottom line is, the more regulation there is, the less profitable an already struggling farmer will be.  That, in turn, forces him to have to find someone to buy his land.  Usually, that's not another independent farmer.Economy of scale means corporations are better equipped to handle these changes, unfortunately.Which brings me back to my point.  Let's help the independent farmer become more environmentally conscious rather than pushing regulation and leaving him to figure it out or sell out.

      Permalink

      1. justlou Posted 10:30 am
        18 Jun 2009

        The farm lobby including Farm Bureau has been promoting self regulation from the get go and they have pretty effectively won the day with that argument.  Farming is one of the least regulated industries in the US.  And regulations have broken very few farmers.   Especially considering how weakly any regulations or penalties for non compliance have actually been enforced or applied.  In many cases any contol authorities or monitoring agencies have simply looked away, partly out of their own political or economic self interests.  Sorry, but any appeals to independent or small family farmers just does not cut it with me.  I see too many fields eroding and too much shit running into the creeks and rivers to have much sympathy for self regulation.  

        Permalink

      2. Orng Crush Posted 10:58 am
        18 Jun 2009

        Identify areas within regulation where they can succeed and help.  All I'm saying is that the environmental movement is dismissive and arrogant in its treatment of farmers.  They should be trying to work with them to actually get something done.

        Permalink

  8. VAenviro Posted 5:06 pm
    18 Jun 2009

    I grew up in Peterson's district, and while I've been gone a long time, I think I understand the people and I have family there too.  They are very independent and skeptical of outsiders, no matter who they are.  That would include environmetalists, as there don't seem to be many local ones.  A factor that has not been mentioned is that the midwest, especially northern MN, stands to lose the least from "atmospheric disturbance" (I learned that term from Grist).  If you have seen those color maps of who gets the greatest impacts, there is a nice blue spot made up of about 6 states in the upper-central midwest that will see the least effects of GW.  Tie that to Peterson's insistence that any climate bill coming through his committee HAS to include a piece of the action in the form of subsidies for corn ethanol - my understanding.  So we should reason with these people, try to convince them they should ask their congressman to set aside the pork, and take up some altruistict arguments?  The one thing I can thnk of that might make sense  to them is that they could benefit from an expansion of the wind industry.  They could lease their land for turbines and have manufacturing jobs if we can start to make that change.  But that takes imposing a cost on carbon and not spending the resulting revenue on corn ethanol, I'm sorry.   Yes, it comes down to values, do they put their selfish interests above the broader (global) community? 

    Permalink

  9. ShellyT's avatar

    ShellyT Posted 4:43 pm
    19 Jun 2009

    Peterson is not a denier, he's a skeptic.  That means he can be reasoned with. Painting him as some hick corn-loving farm boy doesn't help anything. He is trying to do what is right for his constituents. Surely there are farmers in other states and people who understand that farmers are very important?  I think Peterson's point was that telling his farming constituents that their growing seasons are going to lengthen and that it might get warmer and be easier to grow crops is going to make reducing emissions to stop it a perplexing idea for a lot of people who just want to grow things.  That include organic farmers and those who raise things I bet everyone eats.  Don't Grist writers eat vegetables? Where do they come from?  I bet they come from a farmer who wishes they had a more ideal growing season.  That was Colin's point.How about Grist propose how we can educate the public on what climate change is rather than the use of phrases like D-Corn?  Peterson isn't a moron, he's a politician who is representing farmers.  Maybe Grist has a better idea of how he can talk to them, for him.ORNG -- As for ag offsets in the bill, this is what I found: An article in the NYT from Climate Wire:   " Farm Groups Seek stake in House climate bill."  If there are offsets for coal, I would assume offsets for farmers makes sense.But let's face it, the whole bill is not going to do the job on climate change. It's the wrong approach.As for the last line in the article: " it really sucks if this man has the power to dictate climate policy."You could probably say that about every member of Congress.  Why are they doing any of this and not the EPA or Steven Chu in the Energy Dept? Isn't this the job for the EPA and scientists?  I don't know what Congress is even doing making these decisions. They are really not qualified.  When NASA wanted to go to the moon, they didn't turn over the details of how to do that to Congress. They just got funding from the money guys and let the scientists and the engineers do the rest.  (Congress = money guys.)    Making this all about markets is what is dumb, not so much Peterson's comments.I really don't think Peterson is a denier, he's a skeptic. We can work on skeptics if you feel it's worth it, but actually I don't. I'd like to see the EPA step in and just do whatever it takes. 

    Permalink

    1. veritone Posted 9:24 pm
      19 Jun 2009

      I don't agree with your assertion that Peterson is a skeptic. His remarks show that he didn't even open the cover of the report that was released earlier this week. If I were told that Joe Barton had made those remarks, I wouldn't have been surprised. I think Tom Philpott nailed it by comparing him to Alfred E. Newman. Perhaps some of his constituents appreciate his anti-intellectual, "aw shucks" approach to vital science, but it truly sounded idiotic to me. Yet I don't think he's an idiot. He's playing the fool for a number of audiences.Peterson may pose as someone interested in what farmers want, but he gets way too much money from Agribiz to be anything other than principally concerned with their interestes. The rest is window dressing. And the rate at which Agribiz actively destroys the prospects of any farmers other than those self-same titans should settle the matter of his true allegiance quite firmly.Whether he can be "worked with," remains to be seen. I daresay Waxman is trying mighty hard to work with him, but so far to no avail. I see all the compromise emanating from Waxman's side and all Peterson appears to be doing is digging his heels in for his Agribiz clients. 

      Permalink

      1. justlou Posted 6:53 am
        20 Jun 2009

        Representative of how entrenched the technocratic mindset is in governing our lives.  No matter how terribly maladapted the technology is, to measure it with any other values or considerations than its ability to perpetuate the technocratic state is just unthinkable in many minds. 

        Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement