Navigate to « Extension Update | Main | Does The Public Get Its Money's Worth From Crop Insurance Subsidies? »
April 27, 2009
Is EPA's "Cow Tax" Real Or Just A Good Rumor?
We’ve all heard the coffee shop rumors that EPA will impose a cow gas tax on every livestock producer to reverse global warming. That is great fodder to chew, but what are the real proposals, what would they do, and who would be affected? Once those issues are clear, agriculture can make an appropriate response.
The issue involves greenhouse gases, abbreviated as GHG, and there are many, but for the purposes of livestock producers, the major ones are carbon dioxide and methane. Agricultural and Biological Engineers Ted Funk and Randy Fonner at the University of Illinois offer their analysis, saying the US EPA proposes a reporting requirement of facilities with manure management systems that have annual emissions exceeding 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Funk and Fonner say, “No other GHG emission source associated with agriculture is proposed to be covered.” Frankly, few farmers have the knowledge and equipment to have calculated GHG emissions at their facility. Funk and Fonner say EPA’s method of calculations indicates, “that 40 to 50 of the largest livestock facilities would be required to report at the 25,000 mtCO2e per year threshold level.”
If you are not managing one of the 40 to 50 largest livestock facilities, you probably are going to quit reading and think it does not concern you. However, this issue is like any dairy herd, and once the gate is open, the other cows will follow the leader through the open gate. In other words, all livestock producers may want to become familiar with the issue, since there may be subsequent regulations that would impact their operation.
Funk and Fonner believe the EPA regulations stopped where they do because of the challenges to estimate GHG emissions. They say measurements with current technology produce uncertain results at smaller facilities. At this point, the only gas being measured for reporting requirement is carbon dioxide; and methane produced in the digestive process is not included. That will upset some of the late night TV comedians.
According to the proposed EPA rule, the reporting requirement is applied to a “manure management system or facility.” Funk and Fonner list those as:
· Digesters
· Storage pits
· Liquid/slurry systems
· Uncovered anaerobic lagoons
· Feedlots and other drylots
· Manure composting
· Solid manure storage
· Other poultry production with litter
· High-rise houses for poultry production
· Deep bedding systems for cattle and swine
Such facilities include “physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or stationary equipment. Even if an access lane or even a township road separates them, the issue is who controls it and does it emit any GHG.
If you have no livestock, you are exempt from the reporting requirement. So if you are burning off crop residue, composting, or raising row crops you are not covered by the rule. If you have a large incinerator for some reason on your farm, and produce more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, you would have to fill out the require paperwork. Funk and Fonner compare that level of emission to 2,200 homes, or burning either 58,000 barrels of oil or 131 railcars of coal.
So if you are one of those that have to comply with the reporting requirement, what has to be done in addition to paperwork? Funk and Fonner say there are no taxes or fees proposed at this time. Anyone uncertain if they are producing more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year is required to obtain the measuring equipment and determine if they must comply, which would cost about $900 per facility. The ag engineers also indicate there are ways of estimating, based on calculations that the EPA can provide, before having to spend the money. Data collection would begin next January, and the annual report would be due in March of 2011.
Summary:
Proposed regulations by the EPA would impact the largest 40 to 50 livestock operations by requiring them to annually report emissions of more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Taxes and fees are not proposed, however there would be a cost of data collection. Smaller livestock facilities and crop agriculture are not included in the reporting requirement. The specific point of carbon dioxide emissions would be manure management facilities, not individual animals.
Posted by Stu Ellis at April 27, 2009 12:56 AM | Permalink
Comments
Daydreaming of Green-House Grasses
Are we sure it is a problem? Someone once had a story that went something like this, “The Ozone experts claim the ozone hole is get better. They say, “We have concerns but the real problem is global warming, water quality and the rain forest.” The Rain Forest expert states; “He has concerns too but the real problem is the ozone, water quality and global warming.” The water quality expert expects continued water quality issues but the big concerns are ozone, rain forest and global warming. The global warming expert says, “Yeah we need to monitor global warming but the real trouble will come from ozone, rain forest and water quality.” The point of the story was the experts in each field did not want to give up their own funding but thought the “big” problem was in the area they had marginal exposure, away from their expertise. These “fringe experts” are the ones quoted on the seriousness of an issue. (This explanation makes sense to us for we are experts at nothing and claim the “sky is falling” about everything.) And then there is Al Gore . . . nothing more needs to be said. (Oh come on you Democrats you had your fun with Dan Quail or is it Dan Quayle.)
The US and maybe to a larger extent Europe has done quite a bit for pollution control. Each dollar (Euro) that is now spent on the environment is seeing a lower marginal return. Beings how we all live on the same planet and air quality in one area impacts the whole world (at least in the term of global warming), instead of increase mandates and spending here (US and Europe), wouldn’t we be better severed just given those dollars to high polluting, developing countries instead. A dollar spent there would do more to increase air quality than here. Yeah, make it part of the WTO membership requirements; pollution levels need to be under X level to be a member. We, the importers, would end up paying for it in higher prices but our pollution dollar would have a much higher marginal return. Or is pollution a growth industry (Big Business) here that needs mandates to grow and survival?
Did Maslow’s hierarchy of needs fall short of the last level? Maslow’s theory is general shown as the triangle with the most basic human needs at the bottom; Physiological (breathing, food, water, clothing, shelter, sex, sleep, homeostasis (maintain internal stability) and excretion). The theory indicates the bottom needs are the most basic need and must be fulfilled prior to the seeking or development of the next. After physiological needs come Safety-Security (personal security, financial security, health and well-being), Social Needs (need of friendship, family, sexual intimacy), Esteem (self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, respect by others) and his top level in Self-actualization (the need of creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice and acceptance of facts). We have envisioned a new top level. This new level is generally seen as a plank that must be balanced across the top of the triangle. Balance is needed to keep from tipping off resulting in the requirement of establishing one’s basic needs all over again. This top level seems to occur more often with the very affluent. It may help explain the down fall of to many actors and athletes. (Examples: Britney Spears, Mike Tyson and Darryl Strawberry (Jib, we had to throw out June Lockhart. We are not sure how she fits in here. Sorry.)) This top level has the need to find and cause trouble without regard for the pain and loss it causes to those around them. We do not think one hast to loss balance and fall from this top level. It is believed one can maintain some balance and be a trouble maker for some time. We have coined this last need “Trouble Maker/Do Gooder”. It is only with this last level of need, are we able to understand some of the attacks agriculture has sustained this last year or so. The people leveling these attacks have met all their other needs: have more than enough to eat (there are very few people at this top level in developing countries), good and improving health, a network of friends, they are confident, problem solvers that are “rebels without a cause” and need to find one; cause trouble. (We are not saying agriculture is pure clean. We need outsiders reviewing the industry, just like any other industry. It just seems that because we are part of the fulfillment of the “Basic Needs” we come under attack to a great extent from the “Trouble Maker/Do Gooder” need.) Wikipedia, the source for information on Maslow’s hierarchy, quotes critics of theory as saying; ”The hierarchy of needs is nothing more than a fool’s daydream; there is no possible way to classify ever-changing needs as society changes.” Well we have tried to improve it by adding a plank; hoping our detractors tip off. (Is that us trying to fulfill our Trouble Maker/Do Gooder need?)
What these daydreaming fools really need is some drying weather!
Posted by: Freeport, IL at April 27, 2009 1:14 PM
Whoa! Dr. Wuebbles; we are sorry! Our comments were not meant to be a personal attack, but rereading them from your point of view we can see how one may view them as so. Our discontent is with the implementation of policy not the research of the basic concerns. We didn’t know of you or U of I Department of Atmospheric Studies prior to today.
In our simplistic view, pre-Industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm is equivalent to one bushel of corn mixed in a rail car load of soybeans (about 3 stubby corn ears per acre of soybeans). The current level of 387 ppm is like 1.3 bushels of corn per car load of beans (about 4 stubby ears per acre). (If we had not of planted roundup ready corn we would not be have this discussion.) That 0.3 bushel increase or 1 ear per acre might be measurable but appears too small to have the impact that is indicated; world floods and the like. Especially when water vapor, a green house gas, receives 3-4 times the credit for global warming as carbon dioxide (Kiehl, J. T.: Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) and fossil fuel emissions are 3.5% of the 1980’s carbon cycle (Center for climatic research, Institute for environmental studies, University of Wisconsin at Madison).
When we have a problem with the livestock getting out, we fix the “big” holes in the fence first. Those holes need to be fixed and fixed right or the same problem will occur again down the road. Agriculture (in our “know nothing” opinion) seems to work pretty well in the carbon cycle. The grain takes CO2 from the air and the livestock puts it back in the air to be used again by the crops. Folks are looking at paying one group to have the other pay up. That is gaining nothing in terms of CO2 reduction. If CO2 is the problem, we have two solutions or a combination of the two: quit burning and/or locking it up.
A good wildfire can burn the equivalent of 40% of the annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Let’s start logging to reduce fuel for fires, lock the CO2 in the wood and reduce transpiration of water into the air (a green house gas).
Ps Jib missed the line in the last comment that he was to pull out prior to sending. We apologize for any confusion that may have caused. He still contends June had a turbulent family live, if not we apologize to June. The person or person’s calling Jib and hanging up; he is wondering how you got his number and is still willing to talk to you. He thinks it might be June.
Posted by: Freeport, IL at May 1, 2009 9:32 PM
Post a comment
