That's great news especially when not long ago I was a bit appalled by a "Policy Development Questionnaire" published by the Missouri Farm Bureau in its July/August issue that stated under its "Climate Change" heading:

Climate Change is receiving increased attention in Washington, D.C. and in a number of states as environmental organizations push for restrictions on greenhouse gasses (GHG) like carbon dioxide. GHG's are perceived as contributing to rising global temberatures even though scientists have not reached a consensus on man's impact on the global climate.

It goes on to say that 5 states have imposed mandatory caps on GHG emissions and 19 have set non-binding targets for reducing emissions. Then follows with:

Proponents argue state action will prompt the federal government and possibly other countries to adopt climate change policies. Opponents cite the lack of conclusive data and the increased costs of fuel and utility bills that will result from GHG restrictions as reasons to oppose such measures.

The Yes/No questions that followed were:
Do you support a mandatory cap on GHG emissions in Missouri?
Do you support a voluntary target fro reducing GHG emissions in Missouri?
Do you believe a comprehensive study of a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and it's (sic) economic impacts on agriculture and other sectors should be conducted before any action is taken?

Am I the only one that senses a bit of a slant to the wording of this? Am I wrong for supposing that the aforementioned ballot measure might meet stiff resistance from the ag community?

MClemens