When U.S. Senator Charles Schumer came out against the idea of a cow tax in December, he explained that though there was no formal proposal, his opposition was an attempt to squash the idea in its infancy. The tax idea was a part of the Environmental Protection Agency's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in July 2008.
When U.S. Senator Charles Schumer came out against the idea of a cow tax in December, he explained that though there was no formal proposal, his opposition was an attempt to squash the idea in its infancy.
The tax idea was a part of the Environmental Protection Agency's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in July 2008.
A rundown of regulations the agency issues when considering new ways to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's purpose is to solicit comments according to the EPA.
Citing analyses done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Farm Bureau Federation, Schumer provided estimates of how much such a tax would cost farmers - averaging $18,375,000 in fees annually for Southern Tier farmers alone.
In its position statement on the issue, the EPA states that it ''is not proposing a cow tax'' and reiterates that the purpose of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking document was ''to solicit comments about a number of options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act.'' The period to submit comments ended Nov. 28.
Schumer, however, took issue that the idea was even being discussed - calling for it to be removed from the table altogether.
!ADVERTISEMENT!
According to the EPA, 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 steps to address greenhouse gases.
''The ANPR provides a comprehensive, in-depth exploration of the opportunities and challenges that the application of Clean Air Act authorities would present,'' the statement says. ''It examines the interconnections among Clean Air Act provisions and the implications of applying particular Clean Air Act authorities to reduce greenhouse gases.''
The EPA is currently reviewing the public comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and does not yet have a time frame for its next steps.
Farmers locally are not, as of yet, up-in-arms about the idea, as it is understood there is little chance of such a tax becoming a reality.
''If I thought this had the chance of the proverbial snowball in a warm place of ever reaching enactment, I would be most disturbed,'' said Sinclairville farmer Nate Wilson in December, ''but as of this a.m., I'm still on a pretty even keel. ... It's a long, long way short of becoming policy.''
Trade publications too are not yet worried the EPA's idea will become policy. In the December issue of The Milkweed, a monthly dairy marketing report based in Wisconsin, Editor Peter Hardin questioned why the New York Farm Bureau began ''ill-conceived agitation'' nearly four months after the EPA published its notice - stating that ''Obviously, the EPA is not proposing any new 'cow tax.' EPA, if anything, is trying to find an excuse for continuing to do nothing.''
Also in the December issue, Hardin says the U.S. dairy industry needs to address the facts regarding animal agriculture's role in greenhouse gas issues. - and calls for a reasoned study.
''Maybe some feeding practices can reduce the cow's flatulence and indigestion,'' Hardin writes. ''But I suspect dairy's greatest improvement in the coming global warming debate can come from how we manage and handle the dairy cow's manure, once she has entrusted this wonderful, fertile material to us.''
Article Source:Â http://post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/520471.html?nav=5004
