Livestock Tax - Is B.S. really the cause?
Recently, I was told about a proposal by the EPA for what is essentially a livestock tax. The rough proposal would apparently require farm operations of both modest and large scale size to obtain permits because of the amount of methane gases produced by their herds. The goal is to reduce air pollution.
I am not, by any measure, an expert on either air pollution or farming. Some would say I am an expert on bulls***t.
But a brief time of thinking about this proposal leads one to the conclusion that it is either a poorly thought out idea born of the elitist belief that government can solve complex problems with the wave of a law making pen or a governmental money grab.
The different articles I have read on the story indicate that a farm with more than 25 dairy cows would be subject to the penalty/permit requirement. Estimates I have seen are $175 per dairy cow, or $4375 for the smallest effected operations. Beef cattle ranches of more than 50 head would be hit with the same fees, or $87.50 per animal. I have been talking with one of my co-workers about purchasing an interest in a calf he is raising. He told me that I could expect the animal to weigh about 800 pounds at the time of slaughter, and that 75% of the weight should be in food grade product.
Ok, so adding fifteen cents/pound to the overhead of raising the animals doesn't sound so bad. But you can be sure that it won't be only fifteen cents when it hits the shelves of the local grocer. But the federal government would only get the benefit of that $87.50 per animal. If you are like me, you think, why would the government be that concerned with getting paid like that? Let's take it to scale to see the motivation for that.
A few years ago, I worked for a tannery. We sold leather to shoe and furniture manufacturers both domestically and globally. Some of the leather was "finished" in Maine. Much of it was exported to other finishing operations around the world. US leather is a prized commodity for people that make leather because of its quality. I was stunned to learn that our initial processing plant in Saint Jo, MO. was processing (at the time) 50,000 hides per week! Much of the beef production was going to fast food producers but even still.....
Let's do some math now... (Rat, I know you already have finished this calculation)... 50,000 times $87.50 equals $4,375,000. A WEEK. $227,500,000 in new annual revenue for the federal government, disguised as an environmental action step to improve air quality.
And that is just for the beef cattle. We haven't touched the dairies, hog farms and chicken operations.
I realize this is just a drop in the bucket for monies the Feds need now, after all these bailouts. Heck, this doesn't even pay for one AIG executive seminar weekend! But it will impact many small producers and ultimately do nothing to improve the quality of our air.
If greenhouse gases were controllable and regional, there might be some logic behind the action. But by moving production to another location in the world (you don't seriously think McDonald's is going to stop selling hamburgers, do you?), we increase the costs and INCREASE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT of the hamburger by making it necessary to transport the beef greater distances. I'm sure there will not be a requirement for all transported food products to be moved via hybrid vehicles!
I want my legislators to be looking for ways to encourage more local food production, looking for ways to get Americans off our couches and exercising (remember The President's Council on Physical Fitness?) and leave the meat alone.
I am not, by any measure, an expert on either air pollution or farming. Some would say I am an expert on bulls***t.
But a brief time of thinking about this proposal leads one to the conclusion that it is either a poorly thought out idea born of the elitist belief that government can solve complex problems with the wave of a law making pen or a governmental money grab.
The different articles I have read on the story indicate that a farm with more than 25 dairy cows would be subject to the penalty/permit requirement. Estimates I have seen are $175 per dairy cow, or $4375 for the smallest effected operations. Beef cattle ranches of more than 50 head would be hit with the same fees, or $87.50 per animal. I have been talking with one of my co-workers about purchasing an interest in a calf he is raising. He told me that I could expect the animal to weigh about 800 pounds at the time of slaughter, and that 75% of the weight should be in food grade product.
Ok, so adding fifteen cents/pound to the overhead of raising the animals doesn't sound so bad. But you can be sure that it won't be only fifteen cents when it hits the shelves of the local grocer. But the federal government would only get the benefit of that $87.50 per animal. If you are like me, you think, why would the government be that concerned with getting paid like that? Let's take it to scale to see the motivation for that.
A few years ago, I worked for a tannery. We sold leather to shoe and furniture manufacturers both domestically and globally. Some of the leather was "finished" in Maine. Much of it was exported to other finishing operations around the world. US leather is a prized commodity for people that make leather because of its quality. I was stunned to learn that our initial processing plant in Saint Jo, MO. was processing (at the time) 50,000 hides per week! Much of the beef production was going to fast food producers but even still.....
Let's do some math now... (Rat, I know you already have finished this calculation)... 50,000 times $87.50 equals $4,375,000. A WEEK. $227,500,000 in new annual revenue for the federal government, disguised as an environmental action step to improve air quality.
And that is just for the beef cattle. We haven't touched the dairies, hog farms and chicken operations.
I realize this is just a drop in the bucket for monies the Feds need now, after all these bailouts. Heck, this doesn't even pay for one AIG executive seminar weekend! But it will impact many small producers and ultimately do nothing to improve the quality of our air.
If greenhouse gases were controllable and regional, there might be some logic behind the action. But by moving production to another location in the world (you don't seriously think McDonald's is going to stop selling hamburgers, do you?), we increase the costs and INCREASE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT of the hamburger by making it necessary to transport the beef greater distances. I'm sure there will not be a requirement for all transported food products to be moved via hybrid vehicles!
I want my legislators to be looking for ways to encourage more local food production, looking for ways to get Americans off our couches and exercising (remember The President's Council on Physical Fitness?) and leave the meat alone.
posted by Kurt at 11:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home