Farmers Taxed For Animal Flatulence?
-
-
- animalia_libero
- added this
http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=104931
There are rumblings in the farming community... because of rumblings on the farm. Some farmers are raising a stink over the idea of a sort of 'gas tax'... likely not the gas most of us expect.Tom Huff loves life on the farm. His family has farmed land near Fair Grove, Missouri since 1938. The President of the Greene County Farm Bureau and his wife Tammy are getting some serious indigestion over what some are calling the 'cow tax'. Livestock - as a natural by-product of simply living - emits methane gas in the form of belches, flatulence and manure. A regulation fee on methane emissions could mean a huge expense for farmers.
"We'd be forced to quit," says Tammy Huff. "It would be bad business."
The controversy started with the EPA's 'Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking' regarding regulated pollutants - which doesn't specifically mention livestock, but doesn't eliminate it either.
The Farm Bureau estimates that farmers could have to pay a fee of $20 per hog, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $150 for each dairy cow.
"It would shut us down," Tammy Huff says. Tom Huff agrees. "Without an exemption for livestock we'd go out of business," he says. "We could only hope to make that much profit off our beef cattle."
The Farm Bureau estimates that farmers could have to pay a fee of $20 per hog, $87.50 per head of beef cattle, and $175 for each dairy cow. The Huffs figure it would cost them about $8700 a year. "Would you like an $8700 pay cut this year?" Tom asks.
EPA Spokesman Jonathan Shadlar says right now, the EPA is only discussing carbon dioxide, not methane. Besides, he says, there are bigger sources of methane.
"To say the we are going to do a cow tax would essentially be the same as saying we were going to cap Mt. Kilauea in Hawaii because it puts out too much carbon dioxide," Shradar says.
But farmers like the Huffs who fight huge expenses anyway, say this type of regulation will mean fewer farms, more foreign imports, and higher meat and dairy prices.
"People who don't understand farming because of this will see livestock as a problem," Tom says. "Farmers are a solution."
Until the whole issue is settled, he Huffs say they won't be afraid to sound the alarm on an issue they think is 'udderly' ridiculous.
The EPA says it doesn't have the authority to impose a tax, only congress does. And every lawmaker in Washington has farmers as constituents, so a tax would be a hard sell. Congressman Roy Blunt's office says he would not support it.
A 'fee' however, is a different story. EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar says farmers don't need to worry just yet -- but that's little comfort for the farming community.
___
Farmers that pollute the Earth and abuse animals for profit can cry me a river. They can save money by growing plants. They should be held accountable for the impact their production has on animals and the rest fo the planet.
-
- tags:
- Green, Environment, Climate Change, Animal Rights, 7 more
-
-
futurefarmer
-
I can't imagine a world like that and here's an example why: Some people in the US had a problem with slaughtering horses. This practice is on a large scale no longer allowed. What do you think happens to these horses? Instead of being killed in the US where there are regulations, they are now shipped long distances to Mexico where there are no restriction. The horses are still dying, there's just not much we can do about it. There are realistically no "animal retirement farms" where old animals can live out their days with free medical care. It's just number crunching, all animals and people too must die. Sorry, off point. I guess I'm saying that things like beef and milk production will move across borders where there will be very little regulation. Do you want your milk coming from China with a little melamine in it? No thanks, I'll drink my US produced milk and my free range steaks. Besides, I assume you ride a bike, since there are more cars in the US than cows and they produce alot more CO2. Along with the tractor that burns diesel to produce soy milk. There is no "quick and easy fix" here, as every aspect of living in today's world is entangled with another. Assuming there was no more animal farming and everyone raised crops. Given a long enough time line isn't it possible that the O2 levels could also become toxic? There is a circle of life. Plants grow, cows eat plants, cows poop on plants returning processed nutrients to the soil so that the plants roots have the building blocks to grow. There is no magic dirt that can sustain plants indefinitely. Fertilizer? where does that come from? Either animals or chemicals. Ask the bald eagle if the pesticide DDT was a good idea. Sure we had a handle on those evil ( and necessary) bugs, but at the expense of near extinction.
- 1 year ago
-
futurefarmer
-
-
animalia_libero
-
futurefarmer:
Those things have already moved across borders. A hell of a lot of animal products come from China, India, and other countries to here. The prices will go up as transport becomes more expensive and the meat diet will become even more expensive, leading to even less people eating it.
On top of that, meat eating "environmentalists" would have to face the amount of environmental damage going into simply shipping meat and stop as well.
I do understand the horse slaughter point though. But, that stems from the problem of globalization and capitalism- which I also have a problem with- involving exploiting the poor in other countries.
- 1 year ago
-
animalia_libero
-
-
futurefarmer
-
futurefarmer:
Do you mean to say that you don't own a set of running shoes (made from leather), a cell phone cover (sometimes leather) dressy belt or dress shoes? No eggs, chicken, fish, spam, turkey bacon, etc. No feta cheese or cheese at all. If you use any of these things then you are a hipocrit. What about the epidemic outbreak of ecoli in vegetables, and the new one on peanut butter in ohio. There will always be food poisoning, disease, etc. What do you suppose we do with the white tail deer? They are a herbivore, living on farmers land. If not hunted for food, how do you prevent over population? They breed like rabbits and would soon starve to death due to lack of food. You can't catch them to spay or neuter as this causes them stress and many would be injured in the process and thus "treated badly" How about a pet, confining an animal to an apt could by some be seen an inhumane, locked up for hours, not running free. If you live in a city and look up at the buildings, where does that power come from, coal. While using your computer to write these messages you are contributing to pollution. Nuclear power has hazardous byproducts too. Where do you draw the line. The closest you could come is to be like my Amish friends, but even they are "destroying" the environment by growing what they eat. You have alot of work cut out for you if you choose to fight all of these wrongs, and being in the minority increases the struggle. What do you suppose we do with the cows if you get your way. They would have to be killed to prevent them from reproducing, and spay and neuter is not an option since they would continue to live and produce methane. You can't have it both ways. You can't keep them alive and happy and not polluting. Maybe your efforts would be better spent ending inhumane treatment and not total removal. I think it's unfair to say "stop" to others without offering a realistic solution.
- 1 year ago
-
futurefarmer
-
-
animalia_libero
-
futurefarmer:
I'm a vegan. So no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no ,no, no, and no. All of the clothing items have vegan alternatives and I don't eat animal products. I don't need to use animals so I don't.
The white tail deer population is easily balanced by their predators, which hunters kill off (in their ultimate success in screwing up the ecosystem for the sake of sport), then act as if they help the deer population by hunting them. The animals do just fine without us.
I ride a bike and avoid supporting the other pollutions you name. But sure, I have a computer that I use to try and raise awareness about these things. I sit here typing in the dark if it's any consolation.
The amount of time it will realistically take to phase out meat will never leave millions of cows just sitting there.
There will always be things we can do more of. People like you always act like they have the ultimate "gotcha" when they realize this. BUt in reality, you're looking for an excuse to keep things the way they are and discount my work.
As for the "humane treatment" movement, you should check out this site and see that it has done far more harm than good: http://www.humanemyth.org
I offer a realistic solution. It just takes work and people being responsible. That threatens some people. But it's not unrealistic, it's just different. You may want to ask yourself why that makes you so angry.
- 1 year ago
-
animalia_libero
-
-
futurefarmer
-
I understand that being vegan is a choice. In the land of the free we all get to make choices for ourselves. I'm not saying I agree with the truely careless farmer, but some large operations are responsible and humane with the slaughter, just as some small farmers are irresponsible. This is basically a blanket tax to get money from all of them which I disagree with. If you remember about 240 years ago we told Britan to screw themselves because of unfair taxes on colonial exports. A crippling blow to the farming industry may start the same path again.
- 1 year ago
-
futurefarmer
-
-
animalia_libero
-
futurefarmer:
Humane and slaughter are mutually exclusive terms as far as I'm concerned.
While I do agree that taxes can often make things worse, this tax would put people who abuse animals and the planet out of business- something I have no problem with.
So, my support comes from my abolitionist standing. Imagine a world where animal farmers shifted to plant farming. Imagine the reduction in pollution, animal abuse, health problems, and even world hunger.
- 1 year ago
-
animalia_libero
-
-
futurefarmer
-
By the way, do you think milk will remain around 4.00 per gallon if the "bad guy" farmers have this as an expense? Do you think 1.89 a pound for hamburger is stable. These products come from cows. I love bacon, but I guess I'll switch to turkey bacon. The nation freaked when gas prices doubled in a years time, what happens when food prices double.
- 1 year ago
-
futurefarmer
-
-
animalia_libero
-
futurefarmer:
You eat vegan because it is better for the environment, the planet, the animals, and our health.
- 1 year ago
-
animalia_libero
-
-
futurefarmer
-
I fart and my dog farts, and i know that some 2/3rds of american families have dogs as pets, and my dog can clear a room. Oh where does the stupidification of government end. Speculation can go only so far but with the new trillion dollar deficits for years to come the next administration will be forced to do stupid stuff like this.
- 1 year ago
-
futurefarmer
-
-
animalia_libero
-
futurefarmer:
Imagine if you had 4000 dogs.
- 1 year ago
-
animalia_libero
-
-
theirishlion13
-
this is the stupidest idea in the world. we all fart, its natural. if this were to get passed, what would stop the government from taxing land owners on the wild animals on their property.
- 1 year ago
-
theirishlion13
-
-
animalia_libero
-
theirishlion13:
Do we all forcefully breed each other in massive amounts, kill the babies, and dumb shit and piss into the water supply?
- 1 year ago
-
animalia_libero
-
-
SiberianRat
- This comment has been removed.
-
SiberianRat
-
-
wierdobeardo
-
My feelings exactly. What's bad for business isn't bad for the public in this case. Factory farming is linked to too many problems to name and it isn't even sustainable.
- 1 year ago
-
wierdobeardo
