The Environmental
Protection Agency’s
proposal to regulate
greenhouse gases under
the Clean Air Act could
wind up being
essentially a new tax on
agricultural operations
in Kansas and across
this country.
What's the story?
The EPA wants to
regulate automobile
emissions, but they
first have to
make a finding that
greenhouse gases
endanger public health
and safety and should be
classified as a
“pollutant.”
“Greenhouse gases”
are those alleged to
contribute to global
warming. The major
greenhouse gases are
carbon dioxide, methane
and nitrous oxides,
while hydroflorocarbons
comprise a smaller
amount.
The problem under
this plan?
Most livestock
and dairy farmers would
be impacted immediately
and would not be able to
pass along the costs
incurred. Steep fees
associated with this
action would force many
producers out of
business. The net result
would likely be higher
consumer costs for milk,
beef and pork.
According to
Agriculture Department
figures, any farm or
ranch with more than 25
dairy cows, 50 beef
cattle or 200 hogs emits
more than 100 tons of
carbon equivalent each
year. More than 90
percent of U.S. dairy,
beef and pork production
would be affected under
the EPA proposed rules.
Permit fees vary from
state to state but EPA
sets a presumptive
minimum rate for fees.
For 2008-2009, the rate
is $43.75 per ton of
emitted greenhouse
gases. This proposed fee
would mean annual
assessments of $175 for
each dairy cow, $87.50
for each head of beef
cattle and $20 for each
hog.
But it isn’t just
livestock producers who
face the uncertainty of
these proposed
regulations. Increased
costs in fuel,
fertilizer and
transportation are also
likely to occur if these
regulations are put in
place.
Agriculture is no
different than any other
industry in that it is
susceptible to potential
economic and social
changes. However it is
vastly different than
most other industries
because it has little or
no ability to pass
increased costs of doing
business to consumers.
“Agriculture
profitability is
dependent on today’s
global markets that are
controlled by
individuals and entities
completely outside of
agriculture,” says
Ottawa County producer
Steve Baccus. “With this
understanding, we are
concerned about the
proposed rulemaking and
its potential negative
impact on an industry
that consistently
struggles to stay
financially stable in a
highly volatile world
market.”
Baccus who also
serves as Kansas Farm
Bureau president made
these comments on behalf
of more than 40,000
farmers and ranchers in
a letter to EPA
Administrator Stephen
Johnson.
“The EPA is getting
ahead of its
headlights,” Baccus
says. “If the feds feel
compelled to regulate
greenhouse gases from
sources other than
combustion engines, they
should provide a new
regulatory framework and
rules first.”
Baccus is referring
to the ruling in
Massachusetts vs. EPA,
which specifically
addresses tailpipe
emissions from new
vehicles, but EPA has
considered this as a
potential launching pad
for regulations
pertaining to several
other mobile and
stationary sources of
greenhouse gases.
The proposed rules
would be ineffective
because of the global
nature of greenhouse
gases. Reducing a ton of
greenhouse gases
anywhere will make a
difference, but if a ton
is removed in Kansas and
replaced by a ton in
China, then no net
effect occurred.
An agricultural tax
and regulation of
greenhouse gases under
the Clean Air Act will
impose restrictions and
added costs on the U.S.
economy without reducing
greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, if the rest
of the world doesn’t
have to play by the same
rules.
Another aspect of the
EPA proposal that is
discussed briefly, but
really doesn’t
acknowledge the full
breadth in the notice is
the positive impact
agriculture may have on
greenhouse gas
emissions.
No-till farming
practices, methane
capture and
rangeland/grass
management has the
potential to store
millions of tons of
carbon annually. Given
the right market-driven
or voluntary,
incentive-driven
environment, agriculture
could hold at bay the
increases in greenhouse
gas emissions to the
atmosphere while
technology is developed
and made more affordable
to reduce or prevent
releases from industry.
Comments?