Peterson flips, would now vote against climate bill

By Mike Lillis
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm

collin-petersonRep. Collin Peterson, chair of the House Agriculture Committee, was one of the more successful negotiators during last summer’s climate change debate, winning big concessions for some of the nation’s largest polluters in the name of protecting Big Ag. To win Peterson’s vote, for example, House leaders were forced to exempt agriculture from a proposed emissions cap. The bill sponsors also had to scrap a provision that would have required regulators to consider foreign deforestation when calculating the environment impacts of domestic biofuel production.

At the time, Peterson seemed pleased. “We have reached an agreement that works for agriculture and contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,” he said in a statement. Just days later, Peterson voted in favor of the bill. But that was then, and this is now.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported over the weekend that Peterson would no longer vote for the climate change bill — even if the concessions remain.

The Agriculture Committee chairman said he was “stuck voting” for the bill (which awaits Senate action) in June because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi granted his requests for broad agriculture concessions, but he won’t support it again if it remains unchanged….

“First of all, this isn’t going anyplace in the Senate,” Peterson said. “But if it did and we ended up with a bill that was similar to what came out of the House and that was going to become law, I would vote no.”

In an election year, with unemployment still hovering in double digits, it’ll be hard enough for Democratic leaders to pass legislation addressing global warming. Peterson’s defection — should it be indicative of a trend among moderate Democrats — only adds to the party’s headaches.

Peterson is one of 17 Democratic House members on a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) “Dem Retirement Assault List.”

Comments

8 Comments

majii
Comment posted January 11, 2010 @ 5:50 pm

Peterson: A weakling, a coward, and a sellout. It seems that keeping his seat in Congress is more important than standing up for what is right.


darkmark
Comment posted January 11, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

my advice, don’t have children. there are no adults in congress or the senate. at least not enough of them to make a difference in the way the climate is going. having children is just sending more people into a terrifying future.


T-Paw Is A Jerk
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 9:05 am

Peterson has always been a Republi-thug at heart. It is time to kick him out of the DFL. He is not deserving of any support from anyone on our side of the fence.

Get rid of this bum! He is costing every one of us money and opportuinty with his rediculous positions on everything near that helps those of us that need assistance.


Dennis Holman
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

Let’s all CONGRATULATE Rep. Peterson on his enlightenment. Recent exposure of the global warming HOAX is stopping the climate change crowd in their tracks (as it should).


Eric Ferguson
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

Yeah Dennis, a few out of context sentences from some e-mail undoes decades of climate science. Now, would you please enlighten us on how the moon landings were faked?

Peterson reminds me of the cynical definition of an honest politician: he’s stays bought. It’s bad enough Peterson had to be bought, but to not stay bought is pretty awful.


Dennis Holman
Comment posted January 12, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

Eric, you, now, need to put the word “science” in parentheses when you use it with the word climate.


Dano
Comment posted January 13, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Good, I’m glad another gov official has come to his senses on the bs that is man made global warming.


Eric Ferguson
Comment posted January 13, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

I would chide the deniers for just making snide comments without showing their evidence, but snide comments are the whole denier case. Do you have any scientists not on a fossil fuel payroll? Even one? And taking sentences out of context to change the meaning doesn’t count.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.