Cows and pigs of the world listen up! Your ears must be ringing.
My grandma said if your ear is ringing, it means someone is talking about you.
There’s no doubt cows and pigs are the subjects of high-level discussions, and the news for them and their owners isn’t good. It’s bad news for people who enjoy the consumer products they contribute, mainly meat and dairy: read that, food.
Hundreds of environmental ministers from 187 nations met in Poland to thrash out another of those treaties that’s supposed to combat “global warming” and make this planet “safe” for all living things.
They’re especially concerned about plants and animals and the natural environment but also for human beings since they can’t get rid of us – yet.
It’s not that some of them wouldn’t like to see a planet without people, but that’s a subject for another day.
This crème de la crème of environmentalists produce classic guidance for the rest of us, and they’re paving the way for the “greening” of the home front. They want to cut agricultural “greenhouse gases.”
As a result, it’s clear agriculture is next in line, after oil and other industries, to take a hit from the environmental Nazis who are out to change things, whether or not wanted or needed.
With, I assume, a straight face, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri laments, “We haven’t come to grips with agricultural emissions.” He’s talking about cow and pig belches and flatulence and the gasses produced by their manure.
Dr. Pachauri is head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an outfit that won a Nobel Prize. I would be impressed if in fact there were any definitive proof that human activities are responsible for any climate change that may be going on.
His first solution is for Western nations to eat less red meat to reduce our carbon footprints. There don’t seem to be the same goals for developing countries even though they’ve all increased red meat consumption far beyond ours, and it’s expected to double again over the next two decades.
One goal is to label food so consumers can compare the “emissions” of poultry, beef and pork. The problem is there’s no way, right now, to calculate the carbon footprint of a steak or roast beef.
The New York Times reported that the Swedish group Lantmannen says that producing a pound of beef creates 100 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a pound of carrots.
Would you like your carrots medium rare? Uh, no.
The Times also reported that Dr. Pachauri said if everyone would just reduce meat consumption it would have more effect than switching to a hybrid car.
W-h-a-a-a-t?!
Does Washington know? Do the car companies? What about environmentalists? Do you sense that perhaps none of these people know what they’re talking about?
There are efforts to create new cattle feed so the animals belch less methane.
There are projects to capture manure methane and use it to generate electricity. Would it surprise anyone to know California is working on such projects?
Of course, the easiest tactic is to tax it. Politicians and bureaucrats always think taxes solve everything, and every level of government can impose them.
Don’t laugh. It’s on the way. The EPA has a lengthy report on air pollution regulation, which includes agriculture “pollution,” and held a lengthy public comment opportunity.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, varied state farm bureaus, ranch and farm organizations and individual farmers and ranchers are furious.
They calculate that operations with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would be taxed annually per animal: $175 for each cow, $87.50 for each beef animal and $20 per pig.
It’s estimated even modest ranchers would have to ante up $30-to $40-thousand a year for this tax alone. It would bankrupt most.
The EPA insists there’s no such proposal; however, the U.N. group is considering a variety of climate “fixes,”‘ and one of them is a sin tax on pork and beef.
It appears the right hand isn’t talking to the left.
It’s not surprising, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, supports the idea. It hopes it will force farms and ranches to switch to “healthier crops” and will recoup “environmental losses.”
Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation’s beef division told Associated Press, “It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms.”
He’s got that right.
What else is going on to undermine animal businesses?
In California, the Center for Biological Diversity and California Rural Legal Assistance sued the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, challenging the approval of a new, large dairy.
They charge the dairy won’t be required to convert manure methane into energy. They say the greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to health and violate the state’s Environmental Quality Act.
It’s another example of how U.N. “ideas” filter down to local levels.
Ranchers are already on the ropes with the bad economy – the market price of cattle has dropped drastically, and the cost of feed and water has skyrocketed. That doesn’t balance the books. Add to that the pressure of environmentalists to remove acreage from grazing, and the pressure is on.
I don’t even want to consider what will happen to food prices.
I sense it won’t be long before we look with nostalgia on Jimmy Carter’s advice to turn off lights and wear a sweater to save the planet. Not necessarily “the good old days,” but lots better than what’s in store for us starting next year.
