The issue is that production agriculture can AT BEST  offset 4-5% of annual U.S. GHG emissions... And that can only be done if we set high standards on how such offsets are calculated, their ultimate price and how well the program is administered, something better left to the EPA that doesn't have a vested intereste in Big AG Business (NOT farmers and ranchers). If Peterson thinks that the EPA is in "bed" with corporations that want to end corn ethanol, then he is clearly in bed with the likes of Monsanto,etc. who want to see greater sales of round-up to support no-till under soil carbon sequestration standards that can't be measured accurate enough to provide legitimate offsets. There are also reports that Waxman offered Peterson a new program that would support farmers and ranchers who adopted practices that would move them toward more climate friendly farming and ranching. Its a deal Peterson should have taken because it would have taken famers and ranchers  out of the crazy gaming going on with offsets, but still benefit sustainable farmers and ranchers.

Nice post, and dead-on. Green-minded people ought to contact Peterson's office--but be forewarned that he's inclined to ignore comments from anyone outside his district, and phone is the best way to reach him. Read my post about his bizarre feedback policy at http://www.utne.com/Environment/Greens-Dont-Let-This-Democrat-Weaken-the-Climate-Bill.aspx.

Keith Goetzman

Utne Reader

Didn't we vote so this kind of shit wouldn't go down on our watch?  Why is this Peterson guy even a democrat if he acts like a republican? 

Why do I feel so helpless?  What's Obama doing????? 

Wow, how depressing. 

Thanks for all the good news Tom ;-)  Great work as always.

I'll link it to my blog, there's got to be some kind protest about this.

urbanfoodguy.blogspot.com

Mark Owen

I take it they are talking about this study that has eliminated corn ethanol and soy biodiesel as low carbon fuels in California because they cause deforestation in other parts of the world.

This same study was just used by Seattle and Berkeley to drop use of biodiesel.

All seems rather comical to subsidize and mandate the use of fuels that are worse for global warming than fossil fuels. Take a look at the comment field of this op-ed. At what point will politicians in blue states start responding to this biofuel backlash? Why don't we stop federal subsidies and mandates and let the red states fund their own mandates and subsidies instead of robbing the blue states? The answer of course is that they can't afford to do that. This is a wealth transfer scheme. Give me your primary votes and we will funnel blue state cash to you.