<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Farm lobby: Shoot the climate bill, but keep the Peterson goodies]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by schahczenski</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-farm-climate-bill/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:46:13 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-farm-climate-bill/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p>Nice analogy,</p><p>I think its simpler, Big Ag is conservative, conservatives don't hardly want to admit climate change is a real issue much less support any legislation to do anything about it.&nbsp; Now Big Ag Business (input industries) want to have this bill because they can game the offset program to their advantage. This may also be part of the schizophrenic behavior, since Big Ag can't afford to necessairly offend its big benefactors.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p>Nice analogy,</p><p>I think its simpler, Big Ag is conservative, conservatives don't hardly want to admit climate change is a real issue much less support any legislation to do anything about it.&nbsp; Now Big Ag Business (input industries) want to have this bill because they can game the offset program to their advantage. This may also be part of the schizophrenic behavior, since Big Ag can't afford to necessairly offend its big benefactors.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by Orng Crush</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-farm-climate-bill/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:28:39 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-farm-climate-bill/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">It seems logical to me.&nbsp; They probably just want to pass the amendment so that on the off chance that the overall bill gets passed, at least it includes that amendment.&nbsp; Otherwise they risk having the bill pass and not getting the amendment.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">It seems logical to me.&nbsp; They probably just want to pass the amendment so that on the off chance that the overall bill gets passed, at least it includes that amendment.&nbsp; Otherwise they risk having the bill pass and not getting the amendment.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Orng Crush</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-farm-climate-bill/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:58:35 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-farm-climate-bill/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Also, there are those who aren&rsquo;t voting for the bill specifically because of the amendment.&nbsp; If that amendment doesn&rsquo;t pass, supporters would recoup those votes and, again, it could pass.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Also, there are those who aren&rsquo;t voting for the bill specifically because of the amendment.&nbsp; If that amendment doesn&rsquo;t pass, supporters would recoup those votes and, again, it could pass.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>