| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| EPA 'Cow Tax' Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases |
| 2009-01-05 |
| Call this one of the newest and innovative the ways your government has come up with to battle greenhouse gas emissions. I call it just another way to shaft Consumers and Business. Indirectly it could be considered a cheeseburger tax, but one of the suggestions offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is to levy a tax on livestock. The ANPR, released early this year, would give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas for not only greenhouse gas from manmade sources like transportation and industry, but also "stationary" sources which would include livestock. Livestock, stationary? They don't get out much, do they? The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month. "The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog," the release said. "Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits." Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times' "Green Inc." blog that such a "proposal is far from being enacted" and that the "hysteria may be premature." Hysteria over the enactment of such a stupid idea or hysteria over trying to curb CO2? But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it's certainly feasible -- especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt. "The new president has been on record as saying that he really supports regulating greenhouse gases out of the Clean Air Act," Krause said to the Business & Media Institute. "So, we really have to keep an eye on it. Legislation would really be the only way to exempt it at this point -- the cow tax." Jeebus, Cripes, what's next? The cost of meat products, already high, would be unafordable to low income people. These people have all the sense of a bucket of hair. Krause said it is difficult to quantify the cost that might be passed directly to the consumer by farmers from the legislation, but predicted it would mean higher costs for dairy production. "It's hard to figure what it would do to consumer prices since farmers, unlike other industries, really can't pass their cost along directly like utilities and things do," "About the only thing we could realistically come up, in terms of any of this stuff -- it would add between 7 and 8 cents per gallon of milk costs to farmers. So it would cost them 7 or 8 cents more to produce a gallon of milk." Even the Department of Agriculture warned the EPA that smaller farms and ranches would have difficulty with limits as much as 100 tons annually on emissions: "If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved." |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #29 Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved." And you can bet that the agribusiness lobby hacks (aka the 'farm' lobby) are licking their chops and doing what they can to support this. Instrumentation and paperwork - right up their alley. |
| Posted by: KBK 2009-01-05 22:38 |
| #28 There better not be a tax on popcorn, or you will have a necktie party on yer hands. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-01-05 21:36 |
| #27 Will there be a bag limit, Spusosh? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-05 21:28 |
| #26 Can we impose a moron tax on politicians? I was thinking more along the lines of a bounty. |
| Posted by: Spusosh the Prolific6862 2009-01-05 21:21 |
| #25 Amen, Barbara. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-01-05 21:17 |
| #24 Let's dump Education and HHS while we're restoring the Constitution, OP. There is NO authorization for either anywhere in the Constitution. And for those who don't give a rat's behind about the Constitution, education, health, and welfare in this country have gone downhill since those departments' invention, even as the costs of same have soared through the roof. Anytime the gummint gets its fingers in a pie, the cost of the pie skyrockets and the quality of the pie plummets. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-05 20:49 |
| #23 There are two additional problems not mentioned in these comments: the EPA can impose these rules WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION. They've been given the "authority" to "regulate" greenhouse gasses, any way they want. Secondly, they've ruled that CO2 is a "pollutant", which means that every one of us is a polluter (animals breathe in air, remove oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide). This is stupid, because CO2 is ESSENTIAL for plants to grow, and secondly to replentish the oxygen supply. The only solution is to restore the Constitution, which would eliminate the EPA - its formation was unconstitutional in the first place. It removed from Congress the regulation of businesses and governments that are the sole responsibility of CONGRESS and gave it to a bureaucracy unaccountable to the American people. There are still a few people in Congress that helped birth this abortion, and they need to hang for it. As more and more information becomes available that "greenhouse gasses" other than water vapor have little or no control of the environment, the work of the EPA will look more and more stupid. Don't expect anyone to bring it to their attention, especially not from Congress. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-01-05 20:33 |
| #22 Dear Vegetarian Friends, I'm eating the cattle as fast as I can. Help me eat them and we can save the planet together. Best regards, Darrell |
| Posted by: Darrell 2009-01-05 20:30 |
| #21 are current crop of politicians is the moron tax on the citizenry. no wonder they spent so much time crippling public education |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2009-01-05 20:13 |
| #20 Can we impose a moron tax on politicians? It would completely eliminate the deficit. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-01-05 19:27 |
| #19 Uh, uh, TIME TO JOIN TEDDY ROOSEVELT's "BULL MOOSE" PARTY [no tax on Moosey flatulence]? Gut Nuthin. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-01-05 18:31 |
| #18 no Rosie O'Donnell comments? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-01-05 18:03 |
| #17 Wait till you see the tax on |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-01-05 17:51 |
| #16 Why the 175USD figure? What is the cost of removing that amount of methane from the atmosphere? To me this sounds very like just another excuse for the state to extort money from the people. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-01-05 17:48 |
| #15 Just so y'all know, the cattle ranchers out here are taking it seriously and I'd believe them over Green Inc. which would benefit from you all not knowing or caring. The ranchers, however, are only concerned about the short term drop in sales and will recover - you will be the ones paying for the increase. "Well I don't eat cheeseburgers often so what do I care?" Well its a silly name for a serious pieces of tax legislation which will affect everyone. As far as I know, the biggest consumer of milk is schools. Want a hamburger pizza? Well that is meat and cheese. Jello? You bet its a cattle product. New baseball glove - you can still find made in the USA ballgloves but good luck after this, leather seats, cheese burrito, all cheese, hot dogs, bacon, doggy snacks, bbq ribs, beef broth soups, alfredo sauce, yogurt, so on. $0.08 per gallon is at the manufacturers site, wait till it shows up at your store or in your meal. 50 Beef Cattle out here is nothin, so then what a larger farm subsidy to save USA's #1 export, more tax money for schools to buy lunch then you get it again. Add that to a proposed gas tax. This is not Farmer Flyover's problem, this is your problem. Like any industry, tax the producer and the consumer pays for it. It is best to fight stupid acts of legislation before it gets started so it can't be 'premature'. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-01-05 17:13 |
| #14 Fat vegetarians fart too tax man! Hint! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-01-05 16:00 |
| #13 What about chickens and turkeys? Just because they're really dinosaurs, does that mean they don't create methane during digestion? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-01-05 15:42 |
| #12 Then they'll figure out that the cows and pigs don't fart as much as they thought they did and raise the tax. For "the children", ya know... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-01-05 15:33 |
| #11 GB - that would tend to make Bulls _very_ nervious...... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-01-05 15:12 |
#10 Attach a pilot light to each cow's tail, then unwanted gas would be flared just like a refinery. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-01-05 15:05 |
| #9 The cost of meat products, already high, would be unafordable to low income people. To you, it's a bug, Deacon. To these fools, it's a feature encouraging them to "go vegan". |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-01-05 15:04 |
| #8 First they tax air. Now they want to tax farts. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2009-01-05 14:54 |
| #7 $175 on a dairy cow is not going to put any dairy out of business -- it's just going to raise the price of milk 7 to 8 cents per gallon. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2009-01-05 14:51 |
| #6 Jeebus, Cripes, what's next? The cost of meat products, already high, would be unafordable to low income people. These people have all the sense of a bucket of Fixed it for ya. No charge. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-01-05 14:51 |
| #5 How much for tax on "Bloviating Politicians" |
| Posted by: Tom- Pa 2009-01-05 14:50 |
| #4 It's more than that. The animal rights / eco activists have had a huge influence on state and federal agencies. They have discussed this sort of tax in the past as a way to penalize and eventually force livestock raisers out of business. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-01-05 14:42 |
| #3 It's not idiocy, that would imply simple stupidity. This is simply a money grab. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-01-05 13:45 |
| #2 Tell me when the cow party is. This is more idiocy from useless government. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-01-05 13:38 |
| #1 The government wants a tax revolt against them, don't they? The more they tax, the more I want to stock up on guns and ammo. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-01-05 13:36 |