|
|
|
A gas tax... for livestock?Audio Update on VeraSunThe proposal is finally out there that will regulate all emissions of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, even if they are the bodily functions of livestock. Ridiculousness aside, the goal of curbing the release of carbon and hydrogen into the air is going to reach all the way to the rangeland of Kansas, the hog lots of Iowa and the front yard of the American home. Don't over-react or under-react to the desire of the public to control global warming. Don't deny the volume of methane that a cow can generate on a good day of grazing. There is a method to all of this that Al Gore uttered to me in 1999. He said, in response to a question about regulating the emissions of agriculture, that, "Everyone has to come to the table." He did not give the politically expedient answer that others must comply with regulations while farmers do not. His answer was in line with environmental activists from the early 1960s who kept repeating: "If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the pollution." I realized over a year ago (Root Zone May 7, 2007, "A global warming front just passed through") that the concept of global warming has been accepted by our government, present and future. Whether it is real is now past political debate. How to reduce pollutants is the next step and, in the coming administration, the clean air act will come into its own. Proposals to curb greenhouse gases will be put into the rulemaking process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a breadth that will go from lawn mowers to bovine flatulence (not to be confused with the flat tax). The case against livestock is that they contribute 20 percent of all global methane emissions. What to do? Tax it. The current EPA proposal is rumored to have put a dollar amount on how much a producer might have to pay per animal. The figures offered by Rick Krause, American Farm Bureau Federation Director of Regulatory Relations, are $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow and $20 per pig. All of this goes back to the Kyoto Protocol of the Clinton era. We didn't sign it but a lot of other countries did and they've had to deal with the requirement to curb emissions that contribute to global warming. New Zealand had a big uproar over an agricultural emissions research levy, which immediately took on four-letter status. Political opposition was strong enough in a rural country to hold it at bay; but, how it will fare in an urbanized society like ours is yet to be determined. It appears that there will be tradeoffs where farmers will be paid for no-till agriculture and taxed for livestock production. Dairies may be able to install methane generators and use or sell the gas. Businesses will be incentivized to "go green" and taxed for carbon emissions. Even homeowners may be taxed for owning a lawn mower with an internal combustion engine, but might be able to offset by utilizing landscaping that does not require power tools for manicuring. Enforcement is as easy as pulling up a picture from "Google Earth" and clicking a calculator. Just add it to your property taxes and the behavior change begins. No matter what happens in the regulatory process, the world (in human terms) will change forever. The results may not be seen for hundreds of years and those who started the movement will either be viewed as fools or prophets. The transition will be painful but must be persistent if it is to actually change behavior of civilized society. If no one gets a free ride, then the process can work. Remember, we removed lead from the environment and we eliminated Chlorofluorohydrocarbons (CFC's) because science showed the need and politicians adopted the cause. We are an evolving society. That is what we really want to be, if you get down to our true beings. We want to have less of an impact on the landscape and we want to know that our actions are not causing irreversible damage for our descendants. When I look back at that washed away farm in Oklahoma where I grew up, I'd give a great deal to have stopped the settlers from plowing those sandy hillsides. I'd welcome any means to send information about soil and wildlife conservation to our ancestors so they wouldn't disrupt nature's rhythm on the plains. We can't undo what was done in the name of exploration and progress but we can examine whether a modification of our existence can mitigate a pending environmental disaster. That's the debate we should have in the years ahead rather than isolating and destroying a single sector of our economy. As much as I hate to agree with Eco Al on anything, we all need to come to the table together and talk about our shared future. Editor's Note: This is Ken Root's 34th year as an agricultural reporter. He grew up on a small farm in central Oklahoma and started his career as a vocational agriculture teacher. He worked in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri as a broadcaster and was the original host of AgriTalk. He has also been the executive director of the National AgriChemical Retailers Association in Washington, D.C. and the National Association of Farm Broadcasters in Kansas City. Ken is now the lead farm broadcaster at WHO and WMT Radio based in Des Moines, Iowa. He has been a columnist for HPJ and Midwest Ag Journal for seven years.
12/1/08 Date: 11/26/08 Advertisement
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
