I saw a snippet about this yesterday in the DC Examiner about the idea of the E.P.A. taxing farmers with a certain amount of livestock for rising levels of methane and other polluting nitrous gases emitted by their farm animals.
I decided to do some research on it and found that the actual tax has not been proposed by the EPA (yet) but that a lobbying group for farmers believes that a new report released by the EPA hints at it. I'm including snippets from the AP article:
- "John Millett, a spokesman for EPA's air and radiation division, said there has been an oversimplification of the EPA's document "to the point of distortion." "EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.
The EPA briefly mentions "raising livestock" in its report on ways to regulate greenhouse gases under the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the EPA report, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week. Many call it a "cow tax" and say the EPA proposed it.
"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops." (Read the full article here)
While the EPA has clearly said this tax is not in the works, farmers and other interested groups seem to believe that it could be in the near future.
Autograph
Insanity!
They are looking at taxing farmers who already struggle to get by, yet the auto industry is allowed to continue production on cars which cause much worse impact.
Maybe that will be included in the bailout package, revamp the industry to make it eco-friendly.
My next thought is will the farmers need a bail out, or will American just get used to eating vegetarian meals?
1Why are we focusing on cows here, when we could be focusing on reducing manmade emissions? The collective "gas" given off by humanity surely far exceeds that of the cows. It's so funny to me that in the name of protecting the environment some people think we should blame nature.
2That's the irony of it Kris, isn't it?
3Can only think of one word, LUDICROUS!
4I always wonder this: If certain entities want to reduce the environmental impact of livestock, what do they plan to do with existing livestock? How do they plan to cull the herds? Slaughter them? Sterilize them?
5Give them beano?
6"The collective "gas" given off by humanity surely far exceeds that of the cows. It's so funny to me that in the name of protecting the environment some people think we should blame nature."
But if they can show that the cows are giving off a large amount of methane, they can blame the farmers (and thus men) for having so many cows together.
7The run off from these farms is more hazardous then a herd of cows farting. Beano with their hay is not a bad idea.
8If a cow farts in the woods, does anyone care?
***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
Just a tad ridiculous.
9This stupid environmentalist idea would have 1 of 2 possible outcomes.
1. Farmers would produce less. Generally taxing commodities lowers their trade, and reason would have it work that way here. That would in turn would lower one area of the food supply which would drive costs up. Inflation because of environmentalism has happened before and is certainly plausible here.
2. Farmers would absorb the taxes and do what farmers do when prices stagnate, they produce more. If a farmer can't make as much per bushel of grain, and it's the grain he's set up for, he finds a way to produce more of it. Something like this could actually prompt farmers to raise MORE cattle so that they could make the same profit they are used to. This is harder to do with grain (as you have to buy/rent land) than it is with cattle. Also, if beef/pork become more expensive to produce, that cost would likely be passed onto the consumer.
So, either way, it's very possible that beef/food prices would increase. If enacted, I'd love for something like this to blow up in the EPA's face.
10wow dude
11wow
If this tax isn't even in the works, why get so worked up about it?
12The smart thing to do would be to find a way to harness it to run cars on cleaned methane methane LOL!!!
13Correction, cows do produce more methane then humans, but there is no scientific evidence that it leads to "global warming"
14"If this tax isn't even in the works, why get so worked up about it?"
I think it's important to get worked up with the fanciful musings of environmentalists early and the the message out there, so that fantasy never has to become policy. If we'd only known the effects of corn based biodiesels....
"Correction, cows do produce more methane then humans, but there is no scientific evidence that it leads to global warming"
This unfortunately is the truth that folks on the left choose to ignore standing behind Al Gore.
15I agree with Beavis.
It's good to be informed about things and know what is in the works. That way, if you have some stake in the situation (say you're the daughter of a livestock farmer, Lacey) then you could alert your family, have them call their "farmers' association" and make sure that the association's policy staff is on this and will ensure that no taxes will get passed that would put your family's farm out of business.
I think if, all in all, we were more informed about things BEFORE they became laws or taxes we'd have a more enlightened citizenry and, most importantly, a more efficient government.
So that's why we get "worked up over it" (although, to be honest, I didn't see one comment - or even the tone in my post - as being worked up... but if you're simply here to be argumentative, then so be it.)
16I beleive it that cows produce more methane than humans, but I was considering that the collective output of humans is surely greater than cows. Including stuff like smog and other pollution that harms the environment.
17No kris, the cattle produce more, much more. We eat differently and have different digestive tracks.
18That's not what I meant, but I believe you grandpa!
19huh i was wondering the same thing as comment #12. why make it a discussion before it's anything? seems like making something out of nothing, really. but i can see that innocent idea was not taken as so, lol. we're not all out to be mean, lolol.
20Well boww read comments 15 and 16 if you'd like a response.
21I'm confused. We are only supposed to worry about things at the time that our representatives get to vote on them?
This reminds me of something that I heard a George Carlin comedy act the other day. Here's part of it:
"...The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!..."
22Tiff we have the conceit to think we are the only species in the universe. But if you look at the loss of species since we have been here, we have to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the damage. Mother Nature can cure her own ills but not what we inflict. Maybe all of the stuff you mentioned is her way of getting rid of a parasite - US!
23***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
well if we waited to discuss things until after they were voted upon, that would be pointless, no?
24Sam, I think that it's pretty plausible that humans won't be around forever. But, I think that the Earth will survive, and recover as it always has.
25true & the cockroach will be witness to it all
26***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
So we don't educate and discuss things until they are already occurring? That makes no sense to me.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
27Sam, species have been dieing off since there has been species..... long before mankind was the dominant species on this planet. How are we going to limit the size of the human race? Do we sterilize, or use a one child rule and enforce like they do in China? The world needs clean water, it needs to be fed, and their waste products dealt with. There is a competition for potable water that can not be sustained. I don't have an answer, I wish I did. My guess is that species like the snail darter, and the like are going to have to make way to sate the thirst of mankind, add to that the amount of water needed to produce crops, and I shudder.
28Species will come and go but humans are greedy bastards and think they are above all else and take with out thinking of the consequences. Let disease take the 3rd world and we get more land and water (and more importantly certain species won't be murdered for some freaky aphrodisiac). Let certain groups shoot it out - more subway seats. Let Mother Nature bring her wrath, more space on the beach. Let people talk on their cell phones while driving, less traffic congestion. Sterilizing "those who shall not be named" not a bad idea. Ever notice how we manage a major disease or 2 in every generation that wipes out thousands? There are ways to cull the herd without getting your hands dirty.
29***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
Sam the world population is expanding exponentially. As we find cures for more and more diseases, people are living longer and longer. More and more people are living into their 80's. This puts a tremendous strain our medical resources, not to mention the cost to the taxpayer. Is their an acceptable solution, if their is I haven't heard it.
30That's what those ice flows were for. Save the Planet, End Global Warming. I promise to
to you from the shore. 
31***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
And serious birth control would not hurt in 3rd world nations.
32***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
Make sure there is a decent bottle of Irish whiskey on that ice flow, and I will wave back.
33Just name the brand - i would put you out with a couple bottles of Oban but that's from the Scots.
34***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
Bushmills Black label
35Bushmills it is. Bottle quantity will depend on size of ice flow and thanks to global warming, it might just be a glass- sorry.
36***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
A LARGE glass, I hope.
37One of those LARGE souvenir glasses.
38***************
"Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan
Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.