Farm Lobby’s Straw-Man Threat May Become Real
Despite the multitude of news articles and opinion pieces in recent months published in opposition to a livestock emissions fee from the EPA, that agency has never proposed such a fee and (at least under this administration) says that it lacks the authority to even do so.
From Factcheck.org:
“This one is a case study in how lobbyists sometimes justify their own salaries by loudly fighting against hypothetical but non-existent threats from Washington.
“The source of this hokum is a misleading news release put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation on Nov. 20. The highly inaccurate headline read: “AFBF Opposes EPA-Proposed Tax on Livestock.” In truth, however, the Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t proposed any tax on livestock. In fact, the Farm Bureau’s own documentation admitted as much.
“Along with its news release, the Farm Bureau issued a backup document titled “How EPA Regulation Could Lead to a ‘Cow Tax.’ ” Note the word “could,” indicating a possibility, not a certainty. The document said: “We do not know what direction EPA might take in any final proposal.” It said a tax on livestock might be among “potential consequences” of an EPA attempt to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, as authorized by the Supreme Court. Livestock, of course, naturally produce methane, a greenhouse gas.
“What prompted all this is an “advance notice of proposed rulemaking” that EPA published July 30. This was far from a proposal to tax. In a preface, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson stated: “None of the views or alternatives raised in this notice represents Agency decisions or policy recommendations. It is premature to do so.” Rather, the EPA sought public comment on “potential regulatory approaches” to regulating greenhouse gases. As the Farm Bureau backup document itself put it: “The lengthy ANPR was not a proposed regulation but a preliminary notice seeking informed comments from affected parties on what the impacts of such a comprehensive regulatory approach might be.” Nowhere in the long document is any call for a fee or a tax on livestock or the methane they naturally produce….
“EPA issued a statement saying it isn’t proposing a tax and doesn’t have legal authority to impose one anyway:
EPA, Dec. 10: EPA is not proposing a cow tax. The CAA (Clean Air Act) does not include a broad grant of authority for EPA to impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges specifically for GHGs (greenhouse gases) and, therefore, additional legislative authority may be required if EPA were to administer such charges.
“But just because a proposal doesn’t exist doesn’t stop lobbyists from lobbying against it, or politicians from publicly denouncing it, or newspapers from covering it.”
And it would seem that although the farm lobby was successful at getting this issue into the public consciousness, there is always the chance for unintended consequences. By loudly sounding the alarm for a threat that was not apparent, the Farm Bureau may have unintentionally awakened a pro-regulation group.
In fact, it wasn’t until the flurry of opinion pieces (and politicians) coming out against the nonexistent proposal, that we at ForceChange really began covering the issue. Now, our readers are well informed of the situation, including the fact that according to the UN, activities relating to the production of livestock account for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions– which is more than that released by cars, buses, and airplanes.
Hat-tip: DailyGreen
- Similar Posts:
- Will Schumer be the Dingell of the farm industry?
- California vs. the federal governement, Revisited.
- Farm lobby picks up efforts to oppose regulation of cattle emissions
Comments
One Comment on Farm Lobby’s Straw-Man Threat May Become Real
-
Jerry on
Mon, 5th Jan 2009 11:18 am
Highlighting the author’s point that the farm lobby has created widespread opposition to a proposal that doesn’t even exist is this opinion I saw today against regulating emissions:
“Do we really need to regulate cow farts? What is the EPA’s objective? To decrease the meet [sic] supply by taxing it, thus forcing more of us to be vegetarians? Isn’t this a free country? Can’t we just eat what we want?”
Please contribute to the discussion by leaving a comment below. No need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
