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

reply to post by neo96

No it did not.

Really? Then what was stopping it while Glass Stegall was in effect?

NO IT DOESN'T.

To make sure we're following the chain of thought: I said this:

Right. But it cuts the numbers of those who do down by a whole lot and insures that those who do get caught are dealt with.

Yes, it does. No need to shout about it.

reply to post by ketsuko

This is just another way to kill off the family farm. They'll "regulate" methane emissions from cows by slapping a yearly per head tax on them. It's been floated before. Sure, $25/cow doesn't sound like much, but when you start to think about the size of your average family farm herd ... that adds up pretty quickly and gets onerous.

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

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Environmentalists are not that different from survivalists Neo - they're just less selfish

No they are More selfish.

Survivalists try to survive the world.

Environmentalists want to control it.

neo96
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The purpose of the regulations is to improve the quality of air (and thereby the health) for the citizens in our country. I think the regulations have served their purpose pretty well so far.

IF they did China would not have pollution 'problems'.

So, are you saying then you are in favor of a global government and universal regulations then?

That's an interesting change.

reply to post by Phage

Really? Then what was stopping it while Glass Stegall was in effect?

Clintons own words there said regulation wasn't stopping it.

Yes, it does. No need to shout about it.

Once again no it doesn't.

The only thing regulation does is increase the amount of money 'lobbyists' throw at politicians.

reply to post by Phage


It was what was proposed once before and never went into effect. They may do something different to regulate methane from cows and other livestock. The previous idea was a $25/per head tax on cattle or something similar. It was in the planning stages a while ago and never got far. They were still looking more closely at CO2.

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.

reply to post by SaturnFX

So, are you saying then you are in favor of a global government and universal regulations then?

After 9 pages of comments I thought I was abundently clear that I am not a globalist neocon.

Trying to rule the world.

Unlike the pushers of global warming.

If its a 25$ per cow cost, then its not a big deal
The average cow costs anywhere between 100 to 2k $usd. adding 25 on top of that isn't a big deal. it will ripple through the chain and you may end up paying an extra penny or two for a hamburger. I think its a fair tradeoff. make the environment a bit more stable for the odd penny here and there.

neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So, are you saying then you are in favor of a global government and universal regulations then?

After 9 pages of comments I thought I was abundently clear that I am not a globalist neocon.

Trying to rule the world.

Unlike the pushers of global warming.

So consider this
You say these anti-pollution measures wont work because parts of the world aren't onboard.
You also don't believe in any sort of global community to push this cleanup effort
meaning then the only possible avenue left is to do nothing, not bother cleaning up, because someone else wont...

What then will be your vision of the future given these dynamics. what will this world look like in say, 100 years with china and india's exploding population as they move more into industry, when America remains the biggest consumer on earth with no change, or even a reduction in quality...tell me how your dystopia looks like in a hundred years without consideration for environment.

I don't know about you, but I personally prefer the future visions of star trek over mad max.

reply to post by SaturnFX

The average cow costs anywhere between 100 to 2k $usd. adding 25 on top of that isn't a big deal

What ?

Not a big deal ?

50 head thats $1250 bucks.

100 head thats $2500 bucks.

Every dollar counts for dairy farmers, and farmers in general.

reply to post by Phage

Bejing looks like a nice place to
live. Doesn't it?

Yeah. Sure it does.

Wish my city looked like that on a bright, sunny day. Fantabulous.

time.com...

On Wednesday morning in Beijing,
we fitted our two boys with their
mini-masks and sent them off to
school. Air pollution, according to
the U.S. embassy index, had hit a
dangerous particulate
concentration of 497. (The World
Health Organization warns against
daily exposure to PM2.5 fine
particulates above 25.) At 500 on
the Beijing scale—which the U.S.
embassy has dryly dubbed
“beyond index” because who
would think air pollution could
climb so high?—school would be
shuttered. Three index points
were all that were keeping our
kids in class.

By the time our children, ages 6
and 4, were starting school, the
U.S. air-quality index had hit 512.
By 11:00 am, it had reached 537.
The air is off-the-charts bad.

Another
scientist compared the smog
blanket to living through a
“nuclear winter” because the air is
so impenetrable that crops are not
getting enough light and becoming
stunted, threatening disaster for
many farmers.

Yep. Beijing looks like a great place to live. Face masks when you go outside, and you worry about your daughter? And you wish your city was this "clean"? Are we talking about the same Beijing, here?

This image is from February 2014. With no end in sight, people living in what scientists are calling "similar to a nuclear winter", and this is a great place to live? Where their very government warns them to not go outside? Where the air quality is so bad, they have to close schools? Where crops are failing due to lack of sun. Materialistic much? Just, wow.

I just can't get past that statement. Not even a little bit.

It's really bad when the government warns the air pollution is so bad, that humans, pets, animals, and even growing food is endangered because the sun rarely even shines anymore. And this, this, looks like a great place to live.

Smh. You continue to astound me with your statements.

reply to post by neo96

Clintons own words there said regulation wasn't stopping it.

Not exactly, he said that banks may have been finding ways around it. He's pretty non-specific. Is your point that laws are pointless because people find ways around them, because people will still break them?

The only thing regulation does is increase the amount of money 'lobbyists' throw at politicians.

No. Environmental regulations have helped quite a bit.
www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk...

reply to post by SaturnFX

You say these anti-pollution measures wont work because parts of the world aren't onboard.

What I have said is they are not working.

You also don't believe in any sort of global community

That is right.

I am not a GD world citizen because the GD world hasn't done jacksnip.

What then will be your vision of the future given these dynamics

The future I see is more of the same.

Only with the shots in this country being called from elsewhere in the world.

The end of national 'sovereignty'.

I was under the impression the US constitution was meant to be a check to the absolute power governments just loves to think it has.

The world I see is more poor, more war, more destitution, more poverty.

Championed by 'citizens of the world must save the planet'.

A fascist world the likes that has never been seen before in mankinds history.

Unless it wakes up from the global warming stupidity.

Probably issue everyone with cow, plug it's arse into your house and charge you double for "Clean, free range enviromentally green super gas".

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks for clarifying, wrabbit. I was actually rather surprised by what I thought you were saying so I am really grateful for your clarification. I also understand your frustration very well. I get kind of irritated as well by the marketing and usage of "green" to say "this is the way to go". A lot of times, on products, it's really meaningless. Yeah something might have less phosphate in it and be labeled as "environmentally friendly" because it takes out that one noxious bit but it's still chock full of things that wouldn't be normally be put into a water supply. It's annoying. I could go on at length about problems related to the use of wind energy that is also heavily touted as being "green". Those big ole turbines are killing bats, who are already in serious trouble from white nose syndrome, at a pretty incredible rate and in a really disturbing way--their internal organs are exploding without contact with the blades. Real green, eh?

That said, cattle and methane are actually a big problem. As you know, I was a double science major. I've actually gone out into the field and seen firsthand the damage from cattle just in terms of just an overgrazing, desertification, and soil erosion perspective. As far as the methane goes, it's long been known within the sciences that cattle has become a serious greenhouse gas producer. Twenty years ago, I was looking at measures of methane production from cattle alone. Just so you can be certain that I'm not fibbing about that, here's a scholarly article on the discussion of cattle and methane production in relation to greenhouse gas emissions from 1995: www.journalofanimalscience.org...

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.

Is it the only thing that's being focused on? Nope. Not long ago, I received a call for a "White House poll" that was asking me questions about whether or not I was planning on acquiring a hybrid, flex fuel or electric car, what was prohibiting me from doing so, would a federal incentive make me more likely to buy one and more. They aren't just looking at cattle. Like I said, I'm pretty darn sure that there's a bit of a panic going on.

reply to post by Phage

Not exactly, he said that banks may have been finding ways around it. He's pretty non-specific. Is your point that laws are pointless because people find ways around them, because people will still break them?

Yep people don't give a crap about laws.

They always find ways around them.

No. Environmental regulations have helped quite a bit.

Yeah those shills on capitol hill campaign bank accounts.

reply to post by neo96

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

I guess that would depend on how you define average but no one is being required to do anything. Seems the dairy industry is pretty happy about it though.

“This announcement validates the path the dairy industry is on – one focused on proactive incentives that can increase farm income, not punitive regulations that would add more costs,” said Jim Mulhern, president and chief executive officer of the National Milk Producers Federation, which develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of dairy farmers and the cooperatives they own. “Because of our recent efforts and farmers’ long-standing environmental stewardship, the White House strategy for agriculture includes a commitment to cost-effective, voluntary actions to reduce methane emissions through partnerships and programs.”

“This is great news for America’s dairy farm families of all sizes across the country,” said Tom Gallagher, chief executive officer of the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, which brings together leaders of dairy farmer organizations, cooperatives, processors, manufacturers, and brands to foster innovation. “For decades, dairy farmers have demonstrated a commitment to environmental stewardship, and adopting new practices and technologies along the path to continuous improvement. Our work continues.”

feedstuffs.com...

reply to post by Phage

I guess that would depend on how you define average but no one is being required to do anything. Seems the dairy industry is pretty happy about it though.

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

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

reply to post by neo96


Because those things abused were deregulated. Like I said, see Alan Greenspan and the deregulation of the derivatives market. 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.

“Clearly, derivatives are a centerpiece of the crisis, and he was the leading proponent of the deregulation of derivatives,” said Frank Partnoy, a law professor at the University of San Diego and an expert on financial regulation.

www.nytimes.com...

And actually I accidentally grossly underestimated the derivatives market. It was over $400 trillion, not $4 trillion. Probably was trying to protect my own psyche, lol. I believe it's actually in the quadrillions now because it still is largely deregulated.

And to be clear--deregulation is not regulation.

Deregulation: n. The process of removing constraints, especially government-imposed economic regulation.

www.wordnik.com...