Question by Berry X: Will we really tax the farming industry for green house gas?
A study showed cattle produced methane as the number 1 cause of green house gas causing global warming, and as a result the Obama transition is planning a tax on farm green house gas.
This is not a joke!
Best answer:
Answer by Don’t Call Me Peanut
a tax? they must be joking. They should just stop subsidizing them
Give your answer to this question below!
If there is to be a tax it should be applied on beef at retail and milk products rather than attempt to evaluate greenhouse gas at the farm level. In effect the consumer of these products should pick up the cost directly rather than have farmers in the USA pick up this tax while beef and milk produced outside of the USA ride free.
This also places the tax on the person who benefits from the tax reductions such a tax would permit.
However, there are also greenhouse gas emissions from farm land itself, as soil gives off CO2 when plant material decomposes. If we attempt to tax this we are inducing farmers to deplete the soil of its carbon content, and that will be very bad for farm production. In this case farmers should be able to avoid the tax by stripping the land of all crop residue so that the soil starves. Is that the intent?
It would be in line with the thinking that there are crop waste products that should be used for energy. But in reality we need to feed the soil, not starve it. There is no such thing as crop waste, even though there is a problem with crop residues being wasted (left in a pile to decompose).
Strategies to extract a carbon tax from forest floor decomposition appear to be the most obvious mistake being discussed. Is someone trying to eliminate forestry? Or does someone imagine that their tax will induce some change in the way forests are managed, sending in an army of sweepers to pick up the leaves, needles and twigs from the forest floor so that they do not decompose there? Even if that happened it would destroy the land on which th e forests grow. Even forest fires leave the plant nutrients in the soil, but removal of the leaf and needle removes even that. This would destroy forestry, not just economically but physically.
I have no objection if the consumer chooses to tax their own consumption for some noble end, other than as it hurts my business. But we have preferred to let people eat without taxation on their food. Do we next tax them for breathing?
It’s possible, unless the public gets involved. I know this isn’t a joke. In fact the tax could be as much as $ 175 per milk cow, $ 87.50 per head of beef cattle and upward of $ 20 per hog.
So, write to the EPA.
Hey man u have a mistake with ur logic that cattle produced methane.
Generally, the cattle excreted some type of sticky and with foul smell semi-solid material which can be represented by “dung”.
And if we give this dung to convert into rotten ones then only they will going to produces methane(CH3)gas which is really harmful for the atmosphere. But look man if we can store the gas and can use it as a bio gas then there is no question of having polluted the ozone layer and i think that will be much more cost effective than LPG and can be used as a good source of energy of which the material will not going to end unless the world destroyed.
I think we shouldn’t think of putting tax upon the farm industry instead we can use them in various ways, one of which has already mentioned above.
Thank u for questioning. Bye.
Well it has nothing to do with Obama.
It has to do with Delaware suing and winning in the US Supreme Court against the EPA. The Court ruled that EPA has jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Now the debate is should they and if so how.
The comment period just ended on their proposed regulations.
The proposal for agriculture was a 100 ton exemption and then a tax above that. According the figures the EPA would currently use that would be 25 dairy cattle, 50 beef cattle, 200 hogs or 500 acres of corn. Other livestock and commodities were not mentioned.
After the exemption, they would be taxed, it would appear to be at EPA’s minimum rate which for this year was $ 43.40 a ton if I remember rightly and would go up slightly next year.
I don’t know why you blame this on Obama since everything up to and inculding the proposal of the tax has taken place under the Bush Administration.
Is it going to happen, likely going to take a few more rounds of proposals and comments. What they had really wasn’t ready for use and they brought up a lot of objections themselves.
The most common comment seems to be how wonderful it is that EPA is finally moving forward.
Anyway, cattle are not the number one source. Seems to me it’s like number 3. I was pretty sure wetlands were ahead of them but don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to permit us to drain wetlands.
You are correct in one big thing, it is not a joke. Never thought I would see a tax on breathing but we are just about there.
Marv