December 15, 2008, - 10:12 am

Hey, Here’s an Idea to Solve “Global Warming”: Obama May Tax Cow Farts

By Debbie Schlussel
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 . . .


13 Responses

As a means of destroying the American economy, taxing carbon dioxide emissions is hard to beat. It’s insanity!
In 2002, the City of Chicago set a goal of using 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources. 5 years later, the effort has been a total flop.
Dr. Robert Zubrin author of the book “Energy Victory” puts the plan of reducing CO2 like this:
>The craziness gets worse when the [O’Bama energy] plan veers from its practical goal of addressing oil prices to its ideological one of trying to change the weather. Global warming can be stopped, says the plan, by cutting Americaís carbon utilization to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050. This is a very radical proposal, as it requires reducing the nationís total carbon use to about the level it was in 1932. In 2050, the USA is expected to have a population of over 450 million people, or roughly quadruple that of the early 1930s. Under the Obama plan, therefore, it is required that Americansí per capita use of fossil energy in the mid 21st century will have to be reduced to one-quarter of Depression levels. How this is to be done is not explained, but it may be observed that a sustained negative economic growth rate of 4 percent per year for the next 42 years would be sufficient to do the trick.<

There is NO Santa Claus on December 15, 2008 at 11:01 am

Unfortunately, this is a real tax being discussed by the global warming crew. Another nail in the coffin for Michigan. The CFU graphic is great!I’ll cross post this to my site Debbie — thanks and Cheers!

ob3 on December 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

1 Kyoto? That’s hilarious!!! The problem is that there are currently 534 Kyotos in Congress.
Jimmy Lewis
SCS, Michigan

Jimmy on December 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

….aaaaand, Debbie gets the laughter trifecta for the day! This is the silliest government program I’ve ever heard about, and that’s saying something.
The price of Beano is going to go through the roof.

mplumb on December 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Those anal retentive waifish looking vegans must have dreamed up this tax. They are so obsessed with changing other people’s behavior they dream up some stupid tax. I swear they are going to dream up some muffler or catalytic convertor to reduce the emissions coming out of ass of these cows. They are taking their obsessive compulsive behavior and making it legislation.
Just one step toward banning meat consumption in this country. Their ultimate goal.

californiascreaming on December 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm

The American people have been lead by the MSM like sheep to the slaughter. Global Warming is becoming an American mass psychosis.

arius on December 15, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I know this is going to sound ridiculous, but in all seriousness, if cow farts do impose a cost on society, it would be right to tax them.
Most economists believe that companies should be taxed in order to cover the costs of externalities. An externality is (I am taking this from Wikipedia) “an externality is an impact on any party not directly involved in an economic decision”.
Pollution (and cow farts increase pollution) is one of the best examples of an externality.

i_am_me on December 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Until the late 1870s, the American bison roamed the plains in the millions, and in colonial times these great beasts ranged as far east as Western New York – that’s how the city of Buffalo got its name. It’s possible that there were more bison (before wholesale slaughter brought them to the brink of extinction) than there are cattle today. Can you imagine anyone in 1850 complaining about how the buffalo were fouling the air, and how large a carbon footprint they were leaving? Madness.

commonsense on December 15, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Instead of the “gas” tax on cows – let’s just tax the Bullshit that streams from the mouths of the Obama bunch – there would be enough money to do anything!

Firestorm on December 16, 2008 at 7:25 am

Green Companies Awash in Red Ink
Interesting story in Newsweek, and it’s not in the magazine because they want people to see it; it’s on their website. It’s by Anna Kuchment. Here’s the subheadline: “‘Despite all their promise, green companies are awash in red ink.’ — First there was the dotcom bust of the late 1990s, then came the real-estate bubble that’s deflating before our eyes. Next up: the green bubble. Alternative energy ventures have received a lot of great press, heavy investment and lip service from politicians in the last couple of years, but many of the nascent green industry’s balance sheets are beginning to bleed red. Among the hardest hit is T. Boone Pickens and his alternative energy hedge fund BP Capital, which has reportedly lost some $2 billion. The Oklahoma oil tycoon who leased hundreds of thousands of acres in West Texas for a giant wind farm, has put that project on hold, saying he’ll have to wait for fossil-fuel prices to rise again in order to make the project economically viable. Oil was at $48 a barrel this week–” What is it now? I think it’s $45. Let me check here real quick, folks. I happen to have the website where I get this price almost immediately. It is at $44.56 a barrel right now, down from $48 last week. It’s been fluctuating a little bit.
But, you know, Nancy Pelosi and her husband invested a hundred grand with T. Boone’s company, and this is a little bit of a conflict because gasoline, oil prices have to stay high for any alternative energy program to work. Unless, of course, somebody is trying to help us from the government just forces it on us. Among the industries really being hurt: the electric car. The electric car is in huge trouble in Europe. It is losing big time and there are people very much concerned. Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to downplay how badly it is, but we have the stats and numbers for you in the UK. They’ve sold something like 153 electric cars this year. What, Snerdley? No, the Europeans don’t want it either. People don’t want to drive them. They don’t. We’re not there yet. We simply aren’t there yet.
NewsWeek Story

Johnny V on December 16, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Test comment

crazycatkids on December 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

ìHypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging.î ó Alexander Theroux
Smart people continue to do stupid stuffÖpersonifying the Metcalf bromide about ìsome people donít want to be confused with facts that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices.î
Notwithstanding the Nobel Prize, Oscar, and ubiquitous fawning of the limousine liberal legions, the empirical reality is Global Warming is an urban legend/myth.
Over 650 international scientists are out of the closet and articulating their dissent over the folly of man-made global warming bull excrement.
Submit Story
Contact NWV
Donate to NWV
About NWV
NWV Home
By Geoff Metcalf
December 16, 2008
ìHypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging.î ó Alexander Theroux
Smart people continue to do stupid stuffÖpersonifying the Metcalf bromide about ìsome people donít want to be confused with facts that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices.î
Notwithstanding the Nobel Prize, Oscar, and ubiquitous fawning of the limousine liberal legions, the empirical reality is Global Warming is an urban legend/myth.
Over 650 international scientists are out of the closet and articulating their dissent over the folly of man-made global warming bull excrement.
Here is a link to the Intro and full Senate report
My chronic criticisms (of over a decade) are insignificant. However, others (far more credentialed and knowledgeable) are finally being heard.
ï ìIt is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who donít buy into anthropogenic global warming.î – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
ï ìWarming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the historyÖWhen people come to know what the truth is; they will feel deceived by science and scientists.î – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
ï Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, says,ìÖGlobal warming has become a new religion.î
The list is long and growing.
What remains amazing is that smart people (who ought to know better) continue to enable a scientifically discredited, overwhelmingly expensive, junk science boondoggle.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger remains captive of liberal lieutenants to feed the Hollywood myopics fueling the gospel according to Al Gore. President-elect Barack Obama seems intent on placating his disgruntled liberal base with the way expensive bone of global warming fanaticism.
Meanwhile, ìrealî threats from Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and wildcard terrorists are only exacerbated by the begrudging acknowledgement that terrorists have a major ìJonesî to deploy biological weapons of mass destruction. States, national and global economies are lower than whale poop and bailout mania inevitably will spark big-time inflation.
Why do the nattering nabobs continue to feed the fictional global warming beast?
Global warming is bogusÖto throw billions of dollars that donít exist after a media enabled liberal dream quest is counterintuitive and a cancer that needs to be surgically and finally removed from the body politic.
By Geoff Metcalf
December 16, 2008

Johnny V on December 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm

It is time to implement the provisions of the second amendment since the Congress seems to refuse to do its job and is occupied by criminals not statesman.
About 90% of them have never read the Constitution or remember they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal Government the power to do anything like this, yet, here is another Rockefeller founded UN proposal being considered to be passed into law.
We need to start forming the militias in the various states then go to capitol hill and arrest the criminals since the DOJ has no clue and is occupied by the same vermin.

ScottyDog on December 16, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field