by Dan Burns

Jul 10, 2023, 8:00 AM

MN-07: Ever wonder what became of Collin Peterson?

I never did, either, since he got bounced out of Congress. But I happened to see this.

Tom Buis, former leader of the National Farmers Union and CEO of Growth Energy, is now the CEO of the American Carbon Alliance. He said the group has formed to tell the story of carbon capture “and what that means not just to the ethanol industry, to farmers, to rural communities — everyone has a stake in the rural economy.”

…Among the senior advisers is Collin Peterson , former congressman from Minnesota who spent time as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Peterson said he and Buis were recruited to head up the alliance, “try to educate the public, and farmers and agriculture about the profitability and potential of carbon as another revenue source in agriculture.”
(AgWeek)

I ran across a really good overall takedown of carbon capture. From it:

In a study published in the journal PLOS Climate in February, a team of American scientists analyzed the benefits and downsides of the two pathways in detail.

They used three criteria: effectiveness (“does the process achieve a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere” once all inputs and outputs are accounted for?), efficiency (“at a climate-relevant scale … [of a billion metric tons of CO2 per year], how much energy and land are required?”), and impacts (“what are the significant co-benefits or adverse impacts [on nature and society]?”).

The team gathered data and crunched the numbers. The lead author, June Sekera, a carbon researcher and visiting scholar at the New School for Social Research in New York, concluded:

Biological sequestration methods, including restoration of forests, grasslands, and wetlands and regenerative agriculture, are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal than are techno-mechanical methods – which use machinery and chemicals to capture CO2.

Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of technical/mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive.

(Asia Times)

What we’re really talking about is the ultimate in corporate polluter greenwashing, and one with the potential – likely already being realized – for massive grifting as well.

I blogged here, a while back, about Summit Carbon Solutions, whose planned pipeline includes sections in Minnesota. It’s not a done deal.

Speaking of people regarding whom you don’t know what they’ve been up to – whether you actually particularly care or not – MN-07’s current U.S. Representative, Michelle Fischbach (R), who replaced Peterson, has certainly proven to be a “low profile” type. It occurred to me while drafting this that I never see her name, in the paper or online. So I did a couple of news searches. The most important thing is what she didn’t do, namely, get a seat on the House Ag Committee. She and Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN), though, have formed “advisory committees.” Which no doubt are quite the displays of profound and learned brilliance.