Breaking . . . More on U.S. EPA Cow Gas Tax: Leave My Cows Behind

The Flat (ulence) Tax

Hot Air Balloons Over Washington, DC

Hot Air Balloons Over Washington, DC

The latest federal actions that could effectively “tax” cows is much to do about nothing–that is, launching another attack against cows with a trivial pursuit: global warming. It may lead some to conclude it is another assault on food and the family farm and more specifically on the rapidly growing movement of sustainable agriculture and naturally grown foods, small herds and the family cow– but I think it is incorrect to draw a direct link. However, our story covers 400 scientists who “Just Say No” to the business of global warming in general, let alone the cows.

The Journal is a bit slow covering this story on the race to save the planet. It is now certain that a Cow Tax is the latest remedy to change weather patterns, although some have said it is already too late.  On the other hand, we are offered some hope by at least one insider: it may be too soon to panic over cow emissions.

As you may recall, Alabama was the first in the nation to propose a $175 per year tax on every cow to help limit methane emissions late last year. There is now wider concern over cattle exhaust (front end and back end) and I am not so sure it includes emissions from the cow pies.

But now, the feds are involved. EPA, according to a volume of news articles throughout the U.S. this month, gave notice in the Federal Register, to take comments on possible rules that could regulate emissions from many sources–including cows, making it what some have called a “national cow tax”. It was as if hot air balloons were released above Washington, fueled not only by the Alabama winds, but also Nobel Prize Winner Captain Planet himself, only to be shot down by the free subject Report.

(Actually, EPA could likely regulate emissions on larger CAFOs, which has stirred up the mustard. Smaller herds are not likely to be impacted. The Farm Bureau issued a hot air ballon of their own, an exxagerated news release, that started all this Cow Tax talk. This is a common strategy: blowing something out of proportion in order to create alot of noise to stop possible new rules.) Before we break wind and release the report today, I would like Journal readers to understand and appreciate some background on the Cow Tax.  You can find this information nowhere else but here:

Taxing a cow to reduce earth’s warming is nothing new. New Zealand tried to pass legislation two years back and found the proposal would not pass gas.

Capturing cow farts and belches for energy production is not a new concept either. Back in the early 1990s, EPA funded a study by Penn State to determine the economic feasibility. The conclusions: the cost of energy is not high enough yet to make it worthwhile. It wouldn’t surprise me that EPA and the Department of Energy might have a standing committee on the topic.

The 233-page report by the U.S. Senate Public Works and Environment Committee quotes over 400 scientists refuting the claims of man-made climate change and points out that the globe has been in a cooling cycle for a few years. If that it not enough, the upper echelons of the global warming enthusiasts, countered this month and admitted the cooling phase as proof that man-made warming is occurring! We now know that the term “global warming” was switched to “climate change” to accommodate the potential for cooling. The Report is an easy,hilarious read and written for general consumption, especially those that have been greenwashed by the constant barrage of fear. (Some of my favorite quotes are below!)

Over my ten years of tracking the man-made global warming/climate change theory, including the money, politics and fraudulent science behind it, I have written and spoken on the topic, but not near as much as other colleagues with more superior credentials. For many years, I have wanted to prepare a compendium something like the Report. I did not as I felt it would fall on deaf ears. I was delighted to see that the Report was completed with none of my time and at no charge and most honored when a hard copy was handed to me by a close associate on the day it was published, December 11.

I have always leaned toward the views of earth and atmospheric scientists that are not on government payroll or grants (or taking hidden funds from the many organizations that are) or who stand to profit from the new industry. Although I know it will be called biased, I tend to respect the integrity of those that have an opposing opinion on the subject and do not publicly humiliate, discredit and ruin the careers of those who disagree with “the inconvenient truth”.

In sum, as in Raw Milk is Like Toxic Waste and its current six comments, we all must be very thankful that we have once again proven Albert Einstein’s hypotheses, I refer to it as the second corollary to the General Theory of Relativity, when he stated:

“There are only two things that are infinite; the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I am not certain of the former.”

It is too soon to speculate, but it would not surprise me that Big Beef could find a way to use the crisis to take more market share and profits from the family farmers. Just what do our readers think?

Home Page with Link to Read or Skim the U.S. Senate Report

A hint of what the report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology  and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.  # #

Read or Skim the U.S. Senate Report Cover Page with more Information

3 responses to “Breaking . . . More on U.S. EPA Cow Gas Tax: Leave My Cows Behind

  1. What a crock….the EPA is really going overboard now. What about all the gas passed by wild animals, people and especially all of
    the politicians and EPA workers in Washington and else where!!!! Are they proposing a tax on them too????
    A concerned cowman.

  2. Are you screening what one writes? I have said nothing that is not true.

  3. They know it is a crock they just want tax dollars. This is not about the planet we know that already. It is social engineering, by taxing our choices they financially force our decisions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s