By DOUG GRAVES
Ohio Correspondent WASHINGTON, D.C. — Receiving a fine for car emissions is one thing, but imagine being charged a fee for having air-polluting animals.
Sounds insane, and farmers everywhere are up in arms and a bit disturbed at the idea, which they contend is a possible consequence of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases from motor vehicles amounts to air pollution.
“Tax on cows? Let’s hope not,” said Mark Maslyn, American Farm Bureau Federation executive director of public policy. “most livestock and dairy farmers would not be able to pass along the costs incurred under this plan. Steep fees associated with this action would force many producers out of business. The net result would likely be higher consumer costs for milk, beef and pork.”
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture figures, any farm or ranch with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs emits more than 100 tons of carbon equivalent per year, and thus would need to obtain a permit under the proposed rules. More than 90 percent of U.S. dairy, beef and pork production would be affected by the proposal.
“Some in Congress believe we should use the Clean Air Act to regulate substances that contribute to global warming and climate change,” Maslyn said. “The EPA says it didn’t have the authority to use the Clean Air Act in this way, but the Supreme Court said they did. So far the past year Congress has been pushing the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to address climate change. But farmers shouldn’t be alarmed just yet as what was released was an advanced notice, not a proposal.”
Dale Kemery, press officer at the EPA released a statement, which he says the EPA is not proposing a cow tax.
“In response to the April 2007 finding in the Supreme Court case Massachusetts versus EPA that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in July of 2008 to solicit comments about a number of options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. The advanced notice of proposed rulemaking does not recommend the use of any particular Clean Air Act authority to regulate any emissions, nor does it commit to specific next steps to address greenhouse gases.”
The chief greenhouse gases that invade the atmosphere because of human activities are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and flourinated gases. Farmers are worried that emissions brought about by their animals may be added to that list.
“What the EPA has is not a formal proposal, rather a way for them to solicit input,” Maslyn said. “It is, however, one step before a proposed rule. They didn’t come right out and say they’re going to tax cows and pigs, but should it become ruled upon it would eventually require those who emit such substances to get permits and that will have an impact on livestock.”
Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations, agreed, saying “it was an advanced notice rather than a proposal.” And that sentiment was echoed by John Millett, spokesman for the EPA’s air and radiation division.
“The EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock,” Millett said. “There has been an oversimplification of the EPA’s document to the point of distortion.”
Agriculture proponents hope it’s just nothing more than an advanced notice. For 2008-2009 the presumptive minimum rate for fees is $43.75 per ton of emitted greenhouse gases. And according to Maslyn, that would mean annual assessments of $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 for each head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.
“This could be the tip of the iceberg, though,” Krause said. “This whole thing could have something in it for everyone in terms of regulation. It’ll affect industries, planes, boats, lawn mowers and even farmers.
I would tell people that this is something that could happen should the EPA move forward. It’s safe to say it could happen, but people shouldn’t get so excited right away. We need to keep a watchful eye on the situation and hope it’s not a proposed rule.”
"There will be more developments down the road for sure," Krause said. December 31, 2008 |
