Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dairy farmers and farms could be highly taxed
#1
http://blog.syracuse.com/farms/2008/11/n...rt_da.html

In this economy do we need this tax on our farmers?

----- November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008

New EPA standard could hurt dairy farmers
Posted by Debbie Groom/The Post-Standard November 26, 2008 1:37PM
This in today from the New York Farm Bureau:

New York Farm Bureau President John Lincoln today said farmers will fight a proposed new permit requirement by the Environmental Protection Agency that would regulate greenhouse gases, including those emitted by dairy and livestock farms.

The new permits would cost New York farmers more than $110 million per year, a staggering amount that would have a dramatic impact on the rural economy and the agricultural sector. It would surely force countless family farms out of business, Lincoln said.


The proposed EPA initiative would force family farmers in New York to pay a permit fee in order to continue to operate, claiming that farm animals are emitting massive amounts greenhouse gases.

"We know that the industrial and transportation sectors emit an overwhelmingly large percentage of greenhouse gases when compared to livestock farms, but farms are being painted with the same broad brush," said Lincoln.

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. Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.

This would cover about 99 percent of dairy production, more than 90 percent of beef production, and more than 95 percent of all hog production in New York, according to USDA statistics.

"The permit would effectively be a massive new tax on our farm animals," said Lincoln. "The country is facing considerable economic challenges. We cannot believe that they would even consider this, given the impact it will have on the Upstate rural economy. This is not the way to ensure that New Yorkers have food on their table."

The EPA would force small mom-and-pop dairy operations to seek a permit similar in class to municipal waste incinerators, chemical manufacturers and cement factories.

"Farm animals simply don't contribute greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a higher rate than any other living thing. However, in this case, farmers would be forced to gain a permit," said Lincoln.

"If you place these requirements on New York farmers, you will make it virtually impossible to run a viable farm operation. Then, unregulated, large agriculture from China and other countries will step in to fill the void. Regulating New York farms without addressing equal emissions in China and other nations will do little to address the global issue, and only penalize the New York producer," said Lincoln.


Print This Page | Send To A Friend | Permalink (Learn More)
Share: Reddit | Digg | del.icio
Reply
#2
http://blog.syracuse.com/farms/2008/11/n...rt_da.html
Reply
#3
We should just get rid of the agricultural subsidies and call it even.

From 1995-2006, Riceland Foods Inc. based in Stuttgart Arkansas received $554, 343,039 in USDA subsidies.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=total
Reply
#4
Sorry, I can only find two mentions of this on private blogs-- would appreciate any other references. Sounds made-up to me.
Reply
#5
I noticed that the article seems to apply to those in the state of New York. There's something about this sounding familiar, but I don't have time to research it from the local perspective. I know contamination by animal waste has been addressed here in Washington, but I don't remember to what extent or by whom. It really is a problem in a number of areas, as the manure is washed into the ground and gets then gets into the ground water system. There's also a problem with it getting into lakes and streams, which effects the fish. I think part of the issue is the rise in the nitrogen levels in water, which fishies don't like at all.
Reply
#6
Tell the cows to stop farting so much.
Reply
#7
Bill in NC wrote:
Tell the cows to stop farting so much.

Actually it's burping.
Reply
#8
Without going into all of the details, PGE here in CA uses the indirect methane from cow's backsides to create power. A quick Google search will turn up many articles if anyone is interested.

Also, vegetarian groups have long known about the horrible impact that animal farming have had on the environment and use it as part of their argument to convince people to either eat less meat or quit altogether. It's probably one of the worst things for the environment that we as humans have our hands in.
Reply
#9
'Anybody got a real authority to cite on this one?

I notice that it's called a proposal... Proposals are submitted to the EPA all the time. That doesn't mean they're about to submit legislation.

So far as I know, the gov't is giving subsidies to help abate methane pollution and make energy from it, not adding compulsory fees.

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/index.html

The AgSTAR Program is a voluntary effort jointly sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Energy. The program encourages the use of methane recovery (biogas) technologies at the confined animal feeding operations that manage manure as liquids or slurries. These technologies reduce methane emissions while achieving other environmental benefits.
Reply
#10
(vikm) wrote:

Also, vegetarian groups have long known about the horrible impact that animal farming have had on the environment and use it as part of their argument to convince people to either eat less meat or quit altogether. It's probably one of the worst things for the environment that we as humans have our hands in.

And applied physics tells us that eating meat is a terribly inefficient way of using solar power. :-) It's a matter of entropy... of the solar energy stored in plants in the form of chemical energy from the products of photosynthesis, each step up the food chain "loses" about 90% of that energy primarily as heat. So if people were to eat the corn fed to cattle rather than eat the cattle fed the corn there would be a several-fold more efficient use of solar energy. The exception to this would be range fed cattle who eat range plants whose chemical energy would not otherwise be as readily available for human use.

Essentially, the same thing applies to all domesticated animals we eat - hogs, chickens, sheep. And it applies to dairy products and eggs as well.

There are lots of good reasons to cut down on eating animal products. A nice side-effect is that if it is done right it could very well end up benefitting your health as well.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)