Cow fart tax !?! More EPA insanity.

[Missourian]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.*—* For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law. Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which is one of several put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases emitted by belching and flatulence amounts to air pollution. "This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal. It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog. The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."

More here

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462445,00.html

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why don't they just give the cows some beano?

 

[pegwinn]

A-freaking-maizing

 

[Old Rocks]

A really stupid idea. When there were vast herds of wildebeast and buffalo, the amount of CH4 was not increasing. The cows are not the problem. Intensive rice farming was the problem, with the introduction of dryland rice, the atmospheric CH4 increase had ceased. Now, for the last two years, it has increased. The present problem is not cows, but the warming of the artic ocean and the release of the clathrates in that ocean.

 

[Red Dawn]

Here's the relevant part of the article that failed to get posted:

EPA officials said the agency has not taken a position on any of the matters discussed in its response to the Supreme Court ruling. And 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

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn't believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.

I know manufactured outrage like this helps ratings on the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows. But, its all bullshit. This tax, the way its described, will never happen. I suspect what went down, is that EPA drafted an environmental impact report, that (by law) probably has to assess all possible options. Including ridiculous ones that will never be enacted. That's what those type of reports do, They evaluate every thing under the sun, so policy makers will have information on the full spectrum of what is possible. But, they don't recommend what is probable or likely to happen. Its the same reason the Pentagon keeps contingency plans for invading Canada or Iceland. They're just contingencies for looking at everything under the sun that is theoretically possible, but will almost certainly never happen in reality.



FOXNews.com - Farmers target EPA report they say might tax cows - Business And Money | Business News | Financial News

 

[Chris]

Busted!

 

[RodISHI]

Here are the links that each one can check out and read for themselves if they are interested.

EPA proposal PDF Format I cannot quote it verbatim as my computer will not open the doc. properly.

Regulations, EPA Document Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act

EPA document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318

EPA document in HTML

 

[RodISHI]

Here's the relevant part of the article that failed to get posted:





I know manufactured outrage like this helps ratings on the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows. But, its all bullshit. This tax, the way its described, will never happen. I suspect what went down, is that EPA drafted an environmental impact report, that (by law) probably has to assess all possible options. Including ridiculous ones that will never be enacted. That's what those type of reports do, They evaluate every thing under the sun, so policy makers will have information on the full spectrum of what is possible. But, they don't recommend what is probable or likely to happen. Its the same reason the Pentagon keeps contingency plans for invading Canada or Iceland. They're just contingencies for looking at everything under the sun that is theoretically possible, but will almost certainly never happen in reality.



FOXNews.com - Farmers target EPA report they say might tax cows - Business And Money | Business News | Financial News

The problem is these type things do get enacted and that is why every small family farm is up in arms trying to get some attention to the matter.

If it were not the case that these type rules were not put in place they would not all be screaming about the mandate to pay veri-sign about $3.00 bucks each time they have to put a chip in their animals.

 

[Missourian]

Here's the relevant part of the article that failed to get posted:





I know manufactured outrage like this helps ratings on the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows. But, its all bullshit. This tax, the way its described, will never happen. I suspect what went down, is that EPA drafted an environmental impact report, that (by law) probably has to assess all possible options. Including ridiculous ones that will never be enacted. That's what those type of reports do, They evaluate every thing under the sun, so policy makers will have information on the full spectrum of what is possible. But, they don't recommend what is probable or likely to happen. Its the same reason the Pentagon keeps contingency plans for invading Canada or Iceland. They're just contingencies for looking at everything under the sun that is theoretically possible, but will almost certainly never happen in reality.

I suspect that you really have no idea and are just guessing.

"EPA officials said the agency has not taken a position on any of the matters discussed in its response to the Supreme Court ruling."

"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said

A true statement...it will be an impact fee.

 

[Luissa]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.*—* For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law. Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which is one of several put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases emitted by belching and flatulence amounts to air pollution. "This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal. It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog. The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."

More here

FOXNews.com - Proposed Fee on Smelly Cows and Hogs Angers Farmers - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I am for regulating pollution but this is crap especially since my brother is rancher in Wyomnin raising cattle. And in regards to Wyomning, I have seen more ranchers doing more to raise open range beef without all the hormones then many other places with a higher cost of raising them. Plus I guess my dad might be getting fined now also!

 

[Luissa]

The problem is these type things do get enacted and that is why every small family farm is up in arms trying to get some attention to the matter.

If it were not the case that these type rules were not put in place they would not all be screaming about the mandate to pay veri-sign about $3.00 bucks each time they have to put a chip in their animals.

If you are refering to the chips that trigger the cow to eat more through hormones then why not charge them $3.00, the chip is one of the problems with the beef industry. Now if you are refering to the tracking chip to make sure the cow is only had natural products and been raised open range with no hormones I have a problem with that also.

 

[Missourian]

I am for regulating pollution but this is crap especially since my brother is rancher in Wyomnin raising cattle. And in regards to Wyomning, I have seen more ranchers doing more to raise open range beef without all the hormones then many other places with a higher cost of raising them. Plus I guess my dad might be getting fined now also!

Next time you talk to him ask him if he has heard any serious talk about this.

I'm curious if Red is correct. That this story is contrived.