Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 01/06/2009 4:18:02 PM PST by vadum
The EPA, last year, published its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. One of the suggestions the EPA made to regulate GHG is to levy a tax on livestock.
“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.”Analysts predict that it would raise the cost to produce a gallon of milk by about $0.08. It would also drive up the production cost of beef and pork. These costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Prominent politicians on both sides of the aisle can be pretty out of touch with cost of staple foods (John Edwards and Rudy Guliani are examples), so maybe the suggestion of a mere 8 cent raise in milk prices isn't a big deal. But to the average American family it sure is. To the family that has seen the cost of milk, bread and eggs nearly double (in the case of eggs, it more than doubled), in the past few years, additional spikes in food costs are hard to swallow.
Regulating GHG emissions by taxing everyday food items is a bad idea as it hurts people who buy food (which, if my calculations are correct, is a lot of people!). It will also hurt small farmers especially, as the profit margin for small farmers is already pretty small and the additional transaction costs associated with applying for permits and paying a new tax will only hurt
Lookout baby BOOMERS! They're coming for you next! We all know what comes with old age!
Methane gas has increased 150% in the atmosphere since the mid 1700’s. (During the same time period, carbon dioxide has increased only 30 %.) A gram of methane gas has more than 25 times as much greenhouse gas impact as a gram carbon dioxide. As many know, flatulence, “farts,” are composed almost entirely of methane gas.
Therefore, Al Gore has developed a new program to combat this obviously increasing peril to our planet, and make a little money for himself at the same time.
It is called Fat Al’s Recycle Technology (F. A. R. T.).
Everyone will be required to wear a “F.A.R.T. meter,” (Cost $75, available only from Al Gore) which will record and automatically transmit to a new government agency (the Federal Automatic Recording Technology Department, The FART Dept.) the occasion of each fart and the volume thereof.
For an additional fee of $4,500, interested parties can purchase a fart capture device (available only from Al Gore). This 25 pound device can be conveniently worn under the special clothing available also from Al Gore in attractive shades of brown.
When full, the interested consumer can present his fart capture device to Al Gore’s recycling center, where for a fee of $0.10 per fart, the captured farts will be recycled into the US natural gas distribution system. Al Gore also will receive a modest fee of only $0.015 per fart for the energy content of the gas.
The interested consumer will also receive “fart credits” for the number of farts he recycles. These “fart credits” can be traded to other consumers, who elected not to purchase a fart capture device, through Al Gore’s Fart Trading Exchange. Al Gore will extract only a small commission of $0.01 per fart for each trade.
All Consumers will be required to be “fart neutral” by a “Cap and Trade” regulation, administered by the new FART Department.
Legislation is being developed as we speak, by the concerned Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her erstwhile compatriot in the Senate, Harry Reid.
Get ahead of the mandated stampede to control this growing threat to our planet. Get you fart capture device now.
Simply contact Al Gore and follow his instructions.
Imagine this “Congress’” poll numbers when the idiots in this country figure out that the politicians just created a tax on farts. LOL! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!!!
Oh this stupid story. I thought this was about Rosie or Oprah.
Posted, and debunked several times.
The real problem here is not that the cost of food will go up. It will be the initial affect on a farmer who has to come up with a large chunk of money to pay his tax. I can’t imagine small farmers paying more in tax then they can hope to make in the next year in profit (since the price of product won’t rise until later, perhaps a year maybe two). That won’t happen. Instead they will sell off their animals for whatever a flooded market will pay.
The large farming corp will profit...the small farmers will go out of business.
The real cost of this will show up in a year or two down the road, when the number of livestock in the US is greatly diminished. The final affect will be massively higher food prices coupled with a less efficient farming system (small farmers replaced by corporations).
Yeah but why not have fun with it. Anytime I can make fun of ‘RAT bureaucrats, I’m going to do it.
It ia an absolutely nonsensical idea. We could ask what the tax would be on other animals, (like bison for one)and what formula would be applied to determine this. Will the states that hold buffalo have to spend tax dollars to pay this new kind of gas tax? Actually it is as sinister as it is nonsensical. It is nothing but anothe mechanism to bleed American business.
The EPA should be abolished. Radical environmentalist in that agency use its power to advance their cause. The Endangered Species Act serves the same purpose.
With the election of Barack Obama the majority of voters decided that he will be good for America. In fact he is committred to stripping the wealth of this nation from its citizens and stripping the right to own property from the American people.
It is going to happen and we have a nation full of dumbed down nitwits who will blindly allow freedom to become a thing of the past. It has been a gradual process and the educational systems have had decades to produce citizens stupid enough to be swindled this way.
When was it debunked? Who debunked it? Where can I find the debunkers?
I hope Dear Leader will allow us to raise a couple of rabbits for food.
Certainly!
The day they tax my animals, or come to tag or micro-ship them, immediately becomes, ‘Butcherin’ Day.’
I’ll even kill ‘em in front of the sonsabitches. That should be good for a laugh, LOL! Livestock? WHAT livestock? Alls I’ve got is these dead chickens, Officer!
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. (That’ll keep my freezer full!)
This is just bizarre. How will taxing livestock reduce these emissions? It is not like we can trade a high methane cow in for one that has lower emissions. Even if we could, it does not appear that the EPA cares.
Of course, it also destroys privacy because now we must have compliance reporting by each livestock owner.
I think you’re right about losing farmers if an idea like this actually gets written into the rules.
I envisioned large farms — like the huge 5,000-head Horizon Organic factory type herds — on paper breaking their herds down into smaller units.
Two points bother me. How will it affect our farm? And, if we put all of our local US dairy farmers out of business, we’ll have to import milk. From China, for instance. And we know what high-quality producers THEY are.
but,but,but, my farts don’t stink
First they came for the cows; next they’ll come for the pigs.
Thanks. It certainly does sound like some kind of joke, but when it comes to radical environmentalists in government agencies I have to wonder.
A couple of years ago I had occasion to interview a member of the Forest Service who was involved in public relations for the agency. I asked whether she thought that the Endangered Species Act had ever been abused. She cocceded that it has.
I then asked whether she believed that a weed or plant that had not been seen before would be sufficient cause to tie up thousands of acres of private land based on the POSSIBILITY that it might have some medicinal application in the future. I asked the question because I had heard something to that effect and I couldn’t really believe it.
I thought it was too goofy to be true. She straightened me out. Her answer was YES. In her view a previously unknown weed with no current medicinal use did warrent limiting a property owners use of their property.
She then ended the conversation and stalked away in a huff. I learned later that she had the reputation of being a far left radical environmentalist. She was also involved in decision making in her agency. That experience leaves me hoping that there is no move afoot to impose a flatulence tax on ranchers or farmers. I guess time will tell.
Goverment just taxes the crap out of everything!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.