Government in action

I got a unique opportunity last week to combine two interests — agriculture and politics. Wednesday was Ag Day on the Hill, and Les Anderson, Martin County Farm Bureau president invited me along to the state capital to observe bureaus from across southern MN lobbying politicians and being debriefed by the Minnesota Farm Bureau on issues the legislature is tackling that affects agriculture. The most important issue for southern MN was the California Clean Car Standards legislation that would bring California's laws here and make them ours. Considering California is a leading state in air pollution control, that seems like a good thing to most people, however, the Farm Bureau disagrees. According to Les, ethanol, which is very clean, still doesn't pass the rigorous testing requirements for California. That could mean bad news for Minnesota's corn growers and ethanol producers. The Farm Bureau also has concerns that adopting another state's laws could be a slippery slope — what if they change their rules? Would Minnesota have to go along? The bill was taken off of the voting docket by its author, but could be reintroduced at any time. The author of the bill, Melissa Hortman, has indicated she has been surprised that the ethanol industry is concerned about this bill, saying they don't understand the bill and it doesn't cause trouble for them. After researching this topic, I ended up more confused than I expected to be. It seemed pretty straight forward. California recently introduced legislation to consider indirect land use when considering if a fuel is clean or not. That means considering if ethanol is going to be used, does that mean farmers are more likely to plant corn in the same field two years in a row instead of alternating with soy beans? And does that have an effect on the environment? And if more farmers in America grow more corn, that means farmers elsewhere will need to adjust their crops to meet the demand on what American farmers are not growing. Does that have an effect on the environment? Then there is the consideration on the type of fuel needed to power ethanol plants, and what the effects those fuels have. All these are to be considered when considering ethanol's "green value". When all that is considered, preliminary results show California wouldn't pass ethanol as a clean fuel. It is all preliminary, but I am beginning to see why government is so slow. Everyone has an opinion, and sometimes they aren't informed opinions. Everyone wants clean fuel and a clean environment, but no one seems to know how to determine what makes it clean. I would recommend keeping an eye on this issue. Giving our legislative powers to another state seems ill-advised, and whether or not that would happen is even more murky.