White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda!

reply to post by neo96

I have never met a businessman ever that was happy about shelling out more money for whatever reason.

I guess you don't understand the concept of capital investment then.

The only thing it does it force the little guy out, and create more 'corporate' farming.

How so?

I would be in favor of giving a tax incentive towards ranchers whom choose this path. Then we can also add a small tax on beef and dairy products to compensate for the taxbreak on the ranchers..again, a few cents per burger to put another dent in pollution seems perfectly acceptable.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Because those things abused were deregulated.

So ?

That is why we have congressional 'oversight'.

Greenspan was a former chairman of the Federal Reserve and he doggedly held the belief that liberating derivatives to become a free market was the way to go.

A free market does not exist in this country, and has not since 1913.

With the creation of the federal reserve.

Banks deal in money. They don't pull it out of their butts like the fed does.

SaturnFX
I would be in favor of giving a tax incentive towards ranchers whom choose this path. Then we can also add a small tax on beef and dairy products to compensate for the taxbreak on the ranchers..again, a few cents per burger to put another dent in pollution seems perfectly acceptable.

No.

Enough subsidies go to farmers.

When we are paying farmers guaranteed prices, and not to produce that crap needs to end.

reply to post by neo96


If you deregulate something, you are freeing it from Congressional oversight....

Banks don't deal in money either. They deal in CDOs, credit swaps, and options--all derivatives. Derivatives are really kind of an amazing thing really. With derivatives, you can basically make a claim of buying something at a future date, make a profit off of that claim if the price does go up and never even have to buy the darn thing. It's just based on saying that you might buy it and entering into a derivatives based contract.

Go go arbitrage.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Compared to other sources, cattle seems like one of the smallest offenders and in a lot of ways, it could be seen as focusing on a smaller contributor over other sources of methane emissions. However, if you read that article, even though it acknowledges the relatively minor contribution, it also suggests that mitigation of cattle emissions are possible and desirable. That was suggested almost 20 years ago and it's taken this long, really, for that suggestion to actually be put into legislation because the situation is becoming such that we really need to start mitigating across the board and fast.

I think we probably do agree on a lot. We certainly agree on the direction needed and the overall, if not specific causes.

Now I think I made a pretty solid case for a source of methane that truly is new, global in scale for individual source points, and flowing night and day from each of them. We know just how much by the fact that a few landfills actually have energized their methane by capture and reuse of it. There is...ahem..THAT much of it. 24/7..and will be for longer than we really want to consider....and growing daily...by tons.

Cattle..yes, are in massive numbers. Are they dangerous numbers? No. That's absurd and requires thinking the world has always been as we see it now. Yes.. there are millions of cattle and they blow gas at a rate higher than many other critters. They are new for being here, and they are noticeable. (Oh....wow...are feed lots noticeable, right?).

So, it's easy to say "My GOODNESS! Cows...new element...Methane...climbing...must be related."

Check into how many million Bison are believed to have been here, and slaughtered in such quantity that multi-story stacks of their skulls are framed in photos at the Bass Pro Shops museum (or was a few years ago) out here. Buffalo Bill actually had a gunfight on the town square of the city in this area. (the trivia one learns in college..lol).

The point is...for all the Cattle added? Similar or larger animals have been run to near extinction before them. I'm willing to bet the net balance in the end for methane emissions of grazing animals hasn't changed that radically. Just, what is alive to make it.

reply to post by Phage

I guess you don't understand the concept of capital investment then.

You guessed wrong. I have.

If someone has the capitol they invest.

If they don't they won't.

Regulation takes the choice out of that equation.

If someone wants to stay in business they have to comply.

If not they close their doors.

Another word for that is extortion.

How so?

How so ?

Like the dairy farmer in this case is who shelling out thousands of dollars for land, buildings, equipment, feed, and veterinary care to keep their herds producing.

The added cost of the FDA, and EPA addes that takes away from the bottom line.

OF course dairy farmers have keep pace with the inflationary effects of the devaluation of the dollar.

Then they have to keep in mind how adverse weather effects their herd, and feed and grain that increases their operating costs that increase EACH AND EVERY YEAR.


That is how so.

Every GD dollar matters, and that is not counting labor costs.

neo96

SaturnFX
I would be in favor of giving a tax incentive towards ranchers whom choose this path. Then we can also add a small tax on beef and dairy products to compensate for the taxbreak on the ranchers..again, a few cents per burger to put another dent in pollution seems perfectly acceptable.

No.

Enough subsidies go to farmers.

When we are paying farmers guaranteed prices, and not to produce that crap needs to end.

The great thing about a republic is that you can say no, I can say yes, but ultimately its a vote that takes place and voila...laws get enacted. All we gotta do is discuss the wisdom for a up or down vote and see which side makes more sense.

And as you can see by this thread, you are most certainly on the losing argument. ATS is a conservative bastion, but even on this subject, only the truly far out fringe are seeking the anarchy you are demanding.
The liberal industry states would vote yes due to a care for the environmental issues
The conservative farmbelt would vote yes for being pro farming
and both sides do care about the environment.
It is only the fringe surburbian dwellers whom don't give a crap that would no vote em, and they don't have enough of a vote for it to matter, hense why the farm bill gets passed bipartisan with no real issues (except for when the tea party tries to flip out over food stamps).
Losing argument, no vision.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

If you deregulate something, you are freeing it from Congressional oversight....

No.

IF you deregulate something you take power away from the regulatory agencies.

Who aren't doing their effing jobs in the first place.

reply to post by SaturnFX

The great thing about a republic

Funny throwing out the word republic and supporting global warming.

In a republic this conversation wouldn't even exist.

And as you can see by this thread, you are most certainly on the losing argument.

Really ?

Anyone who supports using government power to this extent are the ones who 'lost' the argument.

neo96
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

If you deregulate something, you are freeing it from Congressional oversight....

No.

IF you deregulate something you take power away from the regulatory agencies.

Who aren't doing their effing jobs in the first place.

And those regulatory agencies were established to enforce legislation passed by Congress. While I'll agree that our regulatory agencies are not doing their "effing jobs" very well, I'd still rather clean house on those regulatory agencies than set the whole thing loose so companies like GE can start dumping crap in our waterways again. Some is better than none.

reply to post by neo96

If someone has the capitol they invest.

If they don't they won't.

Or they obtain a low cost loan. You don't have to have cash to make a good investment.

Regulation takes the choice out of that equation.

No regulation involved here.

Like the dairy farmer in this case is who shelling out thousands of dollars for land, buildings, equipment, feed, and veterinary care to keep their herds producing.

Except that this adds no regulation. Except that, even for small farms, biogas is a profitable capital investment, or, as a minimum, results in reduced operating costs. That's why dairy farmers are glad to see government "interference."

Here's a system that costs $19,275 for a farm of less than 100 cattle.

Based on this savings/income sources, the system can be paid off in five years with an internal rate of return of 20 percent.

Not a bad investment.
www.viogaz.com...

reply to post by WhiteAlice

I'd still rather clean house on those regulatory agencies

And i would clean house in congress in get back to why this country was founded.

With the emphasis on LIMITED government.

Instead of a fundamental lack of consistency we see today.

reply to post by Phage

Or they obtain a low cost loan. You don't have to have cash to make a good investment.

WHAT ?

Go to an evil banker an get a loan!

You must be kidding!.

No regulation involved here.

Yeah there is.

Except that this adds no regulation.

Regulation increases the cost of all of that.

Here's a system that costs $19,275 for a farm of less than 100 cattle.

Yeah everyone has 20 grand just laying around.

reply to post by neo96

Go to an evil banker an get a loan!

I never said bankers were evil, but sure. Why not? That's what they do. But I was thinking more in terms of FSA loans.

Yeah there is.

Can you show me those regulations? The ones requiring digesters?

Regulation increases the cost of all of that.

In this case, which regulations?

Yeah everyone has 20 grand just laying around.

Loans. But if you can't pay for a digester maybe you can sell your manure to someone who has a large operation and will be happy to be able to turn it into electricity.

neo96
reply to post by Phage

 

What regulation? This is talking about voluntary use of methane digesters. What $25/cow?

The average farmer can't afford a 'methane digester'.

They are already operating on small margins.

Quoted for truth. Because of ethanol production, among other things like draught, most farmers are already so heavily government subsidised, they are actually paid to farm, and many do not even turn a profit.

Interestingly, because of this, the government actually is actively seeking, and training farmers, because the family tradition of farming is seen as a failure system, and children are moving into other, more productive careers.

The government, read the taxpayers, support the farming industry, especially grains, but recently cattle, and pork, in the US.

Just this past year, the draught was so bad, farmers were slaughtering their cows early, to be rid of them, because they could not afford water. Crops had failed, and because of the increase in cost due to ethanol production, they could not afford to buy food. The only sollution was mass slaughtering, and we were warned that beef prices were going to drastically increase due to this. It was blamed on draught, but the underlying issues can be traced back to two causes, overregulation increasing farming costs, and ethanol production making grain prices nearly prohibitive for food for cattle.

The ethanol itself is a result of regulation, requiring gasoline to be a specific mix, which is also voiding warranties on many cars.

In the end, it always hes been, and always will be, the taxpayers that support and end up paying for it all.

IMHO, the general public should be studying the amount of putrid gas being spouted by every government on the planet. This is more likely the cause of increased methane emissions than millions of cows. Besides, if we really need to address the cattle situation, we could always eat them all. One problem solved any way.

reply to post by Phage

I never said bankers were evil, but sure. Why not? That's what they do. But I was thinking more in terms of FSA loans.

Because 'they caused the financial crisis' as someone said earlier.

Can you show me those regulations?

Sure thing

www.gpo.gov...

Pick your year.

Loans. But if you can't pay for a digester maybe you can sell your manure to someone who has a large operation.

And what if they already have a supplier ?

Since manure has high concentrations of salt only a certain amount can be used at any given time.

applied at a specific rate.

reply to post by Libertygal

The government, read the taxbpayers, support the farming industry, especially grains, but recently cattle, in the US.

Somewhat so, yes. Because, you know, we sort of need them.

It was blamed on draught, but the underlying issues can be traced back to two causes, overregulation increasing farming costs, and ethanol production making grain prices nearly prohibitive for food for cattle.

No. The underlying reason was the drought.

reply to post by neo96

Pick your year.

I meant the regulations about methane emissions from farms. You know, like your OP is talking about?

And what if they already have a supplier ?

Then I guess they'll keep doing what they're doing. But it seems like a large outfit could expand in order to increase its profits if there is an excess of manure.