Not to pander to the lowest common denominator, but like I tell my son, "Farting is always funny." Writing about farts is also pretty funny, so to honor fellow Greenius Pat, I'll link to an article that discusses how the Denmark tax commission is considering a greenhouse "gas" emissions tax on farmers. They estimate that a cow's carbon "output" is almost double that of a passenger car (which sounds absurdly high, but I have no idea about such things). Is this is a government's misdirected attempt to raise taxes under the cloak of environmentalism? Or is it the greatest idea ever? I guess if the farmers could actually do something about the "emissions" of the cows, I could "get behind" this. Thoughts? Sorry for the pun overload. It was necessary.
Remember this gem from Dubya...
According to this article, he may be right about something (finally). These guys have figured out a way to feed fish with the byproduct of brewing beer. So, in effect, the more beer we drink the more fish we feed. I loved the suggestion that their research must have been pouring beer into their fish tanks in college.
Remember in school, when you learned about native Americans and how they used every part of the animals that they killed. It's almost like our society is coming full-circle from those days to the wasteful years in between and now we may actually use our brains to reduce our impact on this world. And in doing so, we'll end up more efficient and wealthier. Have a great weekend, and do your part to save the fish.
Cow Farts & Beer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks for the funny and positive post to end the week Trevor.
Okay, there is evidence to support the idea that cows fart out quite a bit of CO2. That being said, I'm not sure how taxing the farmers is going to help that. Where is that money going to go? Sure, there will be some story about the funds generated from the new taxes will be used to "reduce the output of CO2 from cows", but how exactly? Altering the chemical composition of the cows' stomachs could be an incredibly dangerous and harmful idea. I'm all for genetically engineering the things we depend on for food, but changing the microflora via man-driven science isn't changing the cow it's changing the little nasties in it's stomach. We start creating or genetically altering bacteria on a scale as massive as this would have to be to have an impact, and there could be serious consequences down the road. This idea has promise, but I want to see how exactly they are going use the new funds to help with the problem the farmers are being taxed for. Otherwise, it's just another backdoor shot at agriculture a.k.a. Government's Punching Bag.
Nice post Pat. Way to use that masters. Looking at this from an economic perspective, I would say that by taxing the farmers you are going to raise their costs, which will lead to them cutting supply, which naturally by the laws of supply and demand will raise beef prices. This will cut consumer demand, hence reducing the amount of cows needed to satisfy them.
Of course I'm a vegetarian and biased, but are consumers really hurt if they don't eat as much red meat?
Ultimately if the tax is not to severe, things will equalize and the farmers will make the same profits (lower supply but higher price), the government will increase tax revenues (which hopefully they will put to further green uses), and the atmosphere will have a few less cow farts floating around.
I was watching a hunting show on tv last week and the host of the show was talking about bovine emissions. His solution was for more people to hunt for the flourishing white-tail deer. His argument was that the meat is lean, organic and the development of wild game is much less taxing on the environment than huge ranches. He recognized that while venison could never replace beef as the staple of America's diet, hunting could help take some demand away from beef ranches and possibly cut down on some of the toxic farts.
(is it okay to talk about hunting here??)
Oh lord Ryno, of course you can talk about hunting or whatever you like here. As a vegetarian, I'm actually much more in favor of hunting then of big agribusiness. With hunting the animal at least leads a happy life before it is shot, whereas a mega-farmed animal has a horrible and unnatural life before being slaughtered. As a greenius, I'm for hunting because it requires the preservation of vast amounts of wild areas. The hunting and licensing system is one area that the conservatives have gotten right. Ryno, perhaps a guest post by you going over the green virtues of hunting?
Well Matt, you're certainly right about the inhumane way most mass-farmed animals are treated. If you haven't already read it, I recommend you read the book Dominion. I forget who the author is, but it's right up your alley. Cows, on the other hand, actually lead very happy lives (up until the time they're herded into the slaughter chutes). And I'm still not buying your explanation for how that tax is a good idea. Your family was in agriculture, remember when they changed the tax laws concerning oranges and all the major grove owners went into fits? I do b/c my dad was the judge overseeing the case and he was pissed at the situation he was in b/c he had to rule the way he did, but he didn't want to b/c he knew what it would do to the citrus industry. This cow fart thing isn't exactly the same, but it's comparable and I just don't think it's a good idea.
Healthwise, everyone would probably be better if we all stopped eating red meat. But with people like me in the world, that just won't happen. Be like trying to tell me I couldn't say GD anymore.
Pat, of course I remember that my family is in the citrus business. I also remember though that relatively small growers like my family where practically put out of business by the large and powerful mega-businesses.
I don't know why you don't buy my tax/economics argument. As I said, if the tax is not too severe things will reach an equilibrium. We put limits and scrubber, etc requirements on coal power plants, which raised the cost of power. Are you saying power companies aren't profitable because my understanding is while they don't grow tremendously they do have positive profit margins most of the time. And this is with government imposed price ceilings!
Cow farts are a pollutant (much like Lombard's) and should be limited. Since consumers have tons of alternatives for protein then so be it if steak becomes an expensive luxury item again.
Finally, you are right that beef cows don't have it so bad. Chickens, dairy cows, veal cows, turkeys, and sows on the other hand do. I will admit I consume dairy, although I do buy small farmed organic milk always and similar cheese when I can find it.
I'm not sure why my "emissions" are being brought up in the comments section, but I also agree that we eat way too much meat in this country (red or otherwise).
As always, I'm more in favor of government using the carrot instead of the stick. By that, I mean I'd rather see tax breaks for companies producing sustainable products than additional taxation for companies producing unsustainable products.
Of course, there are situations where government should use the stick. But the stick I would rather them use is regulation as opposed to additional taxation.
Post a Comment