Debbie Schlussel: Hey, Here's an Idea to Solve "Global Warming": Obama May Tax Cow Farts
As I've noted over the past decade, a few bright scientists--and a U.N. report--have admitted that you can't stop so-called "greenhouse" gas emissions from "polluting" the environment because a good deal of the "toxic" fumes doesn't come from manmade enterprises, but from the flatulence of cows and other livestock.
But, now, some "global warming" nuts in government--specifically, the EPA--have caught on. And guess what? I kid you not. Under Obama, they may tax cow farts, and farmers are justifiably worried. It's not just hot air they're expending on this possibility of Obama passing taxes on passing gas.
Is the Environmental Protection Agency preparing to slap a "cow tax" on bovines for their contribution to global warming?[I]n recent weeks, farmers and livestock ranchers have flooded the EPA with letters warning of catastrophic consequences if such a tax was imposed.
"If President-elect [Barack] Obama tries to include farmers in some kind of livestock assessment based on greenhouse-gas emissions, I want my Iowans to know that I'm going to stand beside the producers and fight," Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) said this week.The idea of a so-called cow tax might seem far-fetched. But the uproar highlights a serious policy decision awaiting Mr. Obama's administration: whether to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions -- effectively branding as harmful pollutants carbon dioxide and other gases generated both by industry, as well as by the digestive processes of livestock.
Many environmental groups want the Clean Air Act used to control greenhouses gases. But business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are resisting. They argue such use of the Clean Air Act would lead to a cascade of unintended regulatory consequences, with regulations covering schools, hospitals, breweries, bakeries and farms.
At the core of the battle is a Supreme Court ruling last year that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if it concludes they endanger public health or welfare. In response, the EPA published a 570-page notice in July that drew no conclusion on that question, but instead solicited comment on options for controlling emissions of heat-trapping gases.
The EPA document only briefly suggested that livestock could be subject to regulation. But the document went too far for the Bush administration, which -- in an unusual step -- published comments from four federal agencies slamming the EPA's work. The Agriculture Department said regulating emissions from agriculture could subject "numerous farming operations" -- including "dairy facilities with over 25 cows" -- to the "costly and time-consuming process" of getting permits to operate. The American Farm Bureau Federation alerted its members that the EPA was on course to saddle them with "costly and burdensome permits," costing as much as $175 per cow per year for dairy cattle, enough "to force many producers to go out of business."
Just what we need in this already sputtering economy. Don't they get that America can't afford to go green? Apparently not.
But the idea that Mr. Obama's administration might try to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions isn't far-fetched. Environmental groups such as [lawyer David] Bookbinder's group [The Sierra Club] are pressing him to do so, on the grounds that the U.S. cannot credibly participate in climate talks with other nations aimed at forcing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change until it passes climate legislation or begins regulating such emissions.Talks aimed at forging such an agreement are scheduled to begin in December 2009 in Copenhagen, and it isn't clear Congress will be able to pass climate legislation by then. Mr. Obama's administration could move to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions without waiting for comprehensive legislation. Many Democrats expect one of the new administration's first acts will be granting California's request for a waiver from the law, so it can regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles -- an authority it was denied under the Bush administration.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama's transition team said the president-elect "believes a comprehensive federal approach" to regulating greenhouse-gas emissions is "far preferable" to using the Clean Air Act to regulating, but that he "intends to follow the law."
You know what "comprehensive" means. It's the same code word used for amnesty for illegal aliens as a "solution" to the illegal alien invasion. It's also now apparently the code word for regulating cow farts.
Is this a sign that the apocalypse may be upon us? Hard to tell. That may come when they start taxing human, um, "emissions," and we can no longer eat Mexican food. No more twice-baked potatoes (or even those once-baked).
From The People's Cube . . .
Posted by Debbie on December 15, 2008 10:12 AM to Debbie Schlussel