Cow tax unlikely

Schumer taking no chances

By FRITZ MAYER

REGION — It’s long been known that cows create a lot of methane; from 50 to more than 100 gallons per day according to some studies. And it’s also long been known to some that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming. Other farm animals also produce large amounts of methane. So the question is: should cows and other farm animals be taxed because of the green house gases they emit?

It was a question put forward by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it released an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in late July, which included many possible ways of dealing with greenhouse gasses, including a so-called cow tax.

Since then, the EPA has been bending over backwards to assure farmers and politicians the agency has no intention of forming such a policy, but instead the agency says it was simply raising the matter for comment. Some analysts say the agency raised the issue as a trial balloon with hopes that it would be shot down.

The shooting started in earnest when various groups and politicians learned about the proposal in later November.

The American Farm Bureau Federation put out a statement saying that the fees suggested by the EPA would mean annual charges of $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 for each head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.

Those were fighting words to folks who work in agriculture. Organizations like the New York Farm Bureau protested loudly, saying such fees would knock most dairy farmers in the state out of business.

Before long, politicians were weighing in from farming states around the country. In New York, Senator Charles Schumer held a conference call with reporters on December 9 to address the issue. Schumer said, “It impacts New York from one end to the other because it involves both dairy and cattle farming. We’re the nation’s third-largest producer of milk, and milk is half of our agricultural receipts. What’s less known is that we also have a lot of livestock. Sales from cattle and calves are about $150 million a year, and that’s good news, but the bad news is that this culture is being threatened.”

Schumer allowed as how the EPA was not actually forming a rule about the cow tax, but he said he wanted the whole thing taken completely off the table before it could gain any traction. He said, “This is such an absurd proposal that you’ve got to put a stake through its heart immediately.”

Most farmers would agree. But what about all that heat-trapping methane that cows are belching out every day? As it turns out, the future regarding methane pollution from animals may not be as bleak as it seems.

According to a study begun in July 2007 in Wales, the amount of methane produced by a dairy cow can be greatly reduced by adjusting the cow’s diet.

Initial results from a three-year study show that a diet laced with generous amounts of garlic can reduce the methane contained in cow burps and flatulence by as much as 50 percent.

Now the question to be studied is whether all that garlic might have an effect, positive or negative, on the taste of beef and milk.

Supervisor Linda Babicz, who spearheaded the project and has pushed the reluctant board to consider it, said that the project would cost the town nothing, and even if the price of the technology does come down in the future, the town will not have the grant in the future. Moreover, the $210,000 in New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) incentives may be reduced or disappear in the future.

Another objection from Bose was that in this tough economic environment, the state should not be giving away the grant and the NYSERDA incentives.

Babicz responded that the money was going to go somewhere and said, “Why does it not make sense to get that money for our town?” She further said the incentives from NYSERDA would come in exchange for providing data from the project and serving as a solar “laboratory” to help advance solar technology. On the other side of that issue Boze at one point said, “I was not elected to save the environment.”

At another point, Boze said that residents he talked to in the town about going solar, “roll their eyes and wonder why we are considering this at all.”

Council member Dave Kuebler sided with Bose, saying, “I’m in total agreement with Tom.”

Council member Howard Fuchs voiced the concern that a ball from the field near the town hall could hit the solar panels, and no one had adequately addressed this question.

The two bids for the project were rejected because they did not match the criteria put forth by the town, and they were over budget. The rejection came despite written assurances from town attorney Marvin Newburg that the board had the option to accept the bids anyway, or to renegotiate the bids, or to re-bid the project.

The board voted three to one not to re-bid the project. Council member Charles Schadt was not at the meeting.

One resident at the meeting, George Fulton, supported the position put forth by Bose that the town should wait to pursue solar until the cost of technology comes down.

However, most of the 20 or so residents at the meeting were more inclined to agree with resident Sonja Hedlund who said, “Someone has offered to give us $125,000 and you’re going to say no thank you? If our residents knew about it, they would be outraged.”

Babicz said the board was missing a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

The resolution said the board would “revisit the issue at some point in the future,” but setting no time frame, it is likely the grant money will be gone.

Gunther said, “I just think that the entire country is moving toward green technology to stop using fossil fuels, and we in Sullivan County want to keep pace with the entire country.”