MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Seeing as how it only applies to farmers with a certain threshold of livestock, I think we should do something parallel. Simply charge any local gvt representing over x amount of people this flatulence tax based on population. This way it won't hurt the smaller comunities who already have lots of cattle instead. See, it can be balanced!
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 73,362
- 34,877
- 136
IF one in going to tax carbon emissions at all then this proposal makes sense. Taxing a high emitting, low producing (in terms of economic output) industry makes more sense than nailing lesser polluting, higher value industries harder to make up for the sins of the farmers one decides not to tax.
Real world example: Here in my fair county we are in an air quality non-attainment area for PM10 particulates. By far, the largest sources of PM10 particulates are the farms. Construction, mining, dirt and gravel roads, and general commerce and industry emit less dust than the farms (mostly cotton farms). Because this is a non-attainment area, all sorts of rules apply to watering bladed land, construction projects, dust control on roads, etc. However, cultivated agriculture is exempt from the Clean Air Act. So, no matter what everybody else does, we will forever be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act as long as the farmers continue to employ current farming methods. To add injury to injury, cotton farming is heavily subsidized so we are paying the farmers to pollute the air to the point where we have to engage in a pointless effort to clean the air up.
Real world example: Here in my fair county we are in an air quality non-attainment area for PM10 particulates. By far, the largest sources of PM10 particulates are the farms. Construction, mining, dirt and gravel roads, and general commerce and industry emit less dust than the farms (mostly cotton farms). Because this is a non-attainment area, all sorts of rules apply to watering bladed land, construction projects, dust control on roads, etc. However, cultivated agriculture is exempt from the Clean Air Act. So, no matter what everybody else does, we will forever be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act as long as the farmers continue to employ current farming methods. To add injury to injury, cotton farming is heavily subsidized so we are paying the farmers to pollute the air to the point where we have to engage in a pointless effort to clean the air up.
How very true, DisgruntledVirus. Yet, so many believe that a new tax would only be paid by the business owner, not the consumers (us, the tax payers). An attempted cheap shot by flimsy vegetarians, probably.
if you are emitting that much carbon, you should pay the tax. it really doesnt matter whether it comes from a smokestack or a cows asshole, pollution is pollution. and if you are worried about this leading to higher prices for consumers, heres an idea: stop subsidizing big agribusiness corn growers and take those billions and billions and use some of it to give people a tax rebate
Methane, the chemical of farts, is 20x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. This is not without merit.
It could be done better, but it's better than doing nothing.
It could be done better, but it's better than doing nothing.
Sorry if I have a difficult time getting excited about more taxes. What would the EPA do with this new source of revenue? Wondering if there's a plan in place to use the money to develop a solution to the carbon production.
What's the benefit to more taxes in a case like this? Increasing the price on goods so that fewer are sold? Maybe we should just let the government decide who gets to eat beef/pork.....the poor should be completely excluded from such foods, right?
What's the benefit to more taxes in a case like this? Increasing the price on goods so that fewer are sold? Maybe we should just let the government decide who gets to eat beef/pork.....the poor should be completely excluded from such foods, right?
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
The money could possibly be used to research new feeds/nutrition that could be used to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions made by livestock.
"Could possibly be", or might be used to supplement school funding like the lotto (shell game), or putting SS tax money into an untouchable SS fund.
Your thought has merit, Capt, but I wonder if the gov't could follow through responsibly.
I didn't feel like going through and quoting all of your posts. A little lazy on my part, but I've got to cut corners somewhere.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Dave, mark this moment.
I think it's the first time I will ever agree with you.
It's a funny equation that sees government profiting from animals farting. Can you imagine the IRS wing that would deal with this? "Now sir, you can deduct sharts, but all-hot-air farts count against you. Stinky ones especially."
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
yeap.
every farmer i know buys the manure to spread on the feilds. it stinks to high heaven for a few days when they do it.
down the road from me is a dairy farm. the guy has a few hundred cows. All waste is collected in containers (can't smell it) and the methane burned off. he then sales the manure to local farmers.
as for taxing them for the animals farting thats fucking idiotic.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
This is the most retarded argument possible. Let me explain why and end this thread about an idiotic idea.
Where the hell do you people think the carbon comes from in the carbon dioxide? Nuclear reactions inside the cows? No, it comes from the plants that the cattle eat. Farming cattle is carbon neutral except for the carbon dioxide produced by farm vehicles that are running on fossil fuels. Plants absorb carbon dioxide, cattle eat plants, cattle release carbon dioxide. I already know that politicians are often incapable of any thought about science. Don't tell me their lack of insight into a situation has spread to you P&Ners too.
And, as cattle actually contain carbon, it can be argued that through the agricultural process, from the point where bare fields are planted to the point where the cattle are slaughtered, actually sequesters carbon. The beef contains plenty of the carbon that was taken from the air, and their manure that was left behind also contains organic matter. However, the carbon in beef is eventually metabolized by people who eventually exhale, no matter how hard they try to hold their breaths (and of course, much of it goes into waste.)
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 73,362
- 34,877
- 136
For range cattle, your analysis is simply wrong. Plants sequester carbon. Those plants grow whether or not anything eats them. Cattle, by metabolizing the plants, continue to sequester the small portion of carbon that becomes meat, provide an portion of continued sequestration in the form of solid waste, and emit the rest as CO2 and methane.
Even for feedlot cattle, there is a net carbon emission as fossil fuels used to grow feed and used to process beef is converted to beef. The amount of carbon sequestered as meat is a small portion of the feed metabolized. Once that meat gets to humans, an even smaller portion is sequestered with more emissions produced.
However in the bigger picture, this all works out with a carbon credit trading system. If we are going to tax emissions at all then tax emissions equally, regardless of source, and let the market sort out the rest. If cattle production turns out to be a carbon sink as you suggest, the ranchers pay no tax and might get to sell carbon credits to others. If cattle ranching is a carbon emitter as I think, then ranchers pay the tax and pass the cost along to consumers.
My main point is that if certain favored emitters are exempted from the tax, then the market is skewed toward those producers and the market will not operate as efficiently as it might. The OP's attack on the proposal was not grounded in science but a knee jerk reaction.
If this goes through consider it another slit in the throat of America. Now we will be importing food as well as energy. You think we are war happy now? Wait until we cant eat.
Secondly this is being supported and most likely driven by those loon bats at PETA. They dont care about the Co2 emissions. They found a clever way to utilize this silly war on greenhouse gases to implement a tax that would destroy our livestock industry and curb the amount of meat we eat as a nation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...e/farm_scene_cow_tax_2
Secondly this is being supported and most likely driven by those loon bats at PETA. They dont care about the Co2 emissions. They found a clever way to utilize this silly war on greenhouse gases to implement a tax that would destroy our livestock industry and curb the amount of meat we eat as a nation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...e/farm_scene_cow_tax_2
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter