Commentary: 'Cow tax' or hot air: It's time to focus on a solution

Issue Date: February 4, 2009

By Cynthia Cory

You may have seen recent news headlines reading things like "Cow tax uproar underscores greenhouse-gas divide," or "Plan for tax on cows stinks, US farmers say." These headlines originated from allegations that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal suggested that livestock be taxed because they emit greenhouse gases.

At the core of this issue is a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if it concludes they endanger public health. The EPA then published a very technical, 570-page notice that drew no conclusion on that question, but asked for comments and suggestions instead.

While much concern has been expressed in the agriculture community about this so-called "cow tax" rumor, it seems to have sidetracked us from providing suggestions on the question at hand. If the EPA regulates greenhouse gases, should it do so under a dated regulatory framework that was developed 40 years ago for an entirely different purpose?

A cow tax is clearly a bad idea and, if implemented, would have huge impacts on U.S. agriculture. But since no one proposed a cow tax, the question instead is: Should President Obama's administration use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?

If the administration is listening, the answer is, "No." The agricultural community in California has been at the forefront of being regulated under the Clean Air Act and has repeatedly proven the flaws in applying a regulatory framework to living ecosystems that was designed for major, industrial, stationary sources.

With the passage of Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California dairy farms are starting to become a poster child for regulatory train wrecks. While the state touted dairy digesters as a way to manage manure and reduce methane, one of the greenhouse gases, farmers are now finding that—despite significant investments—it is extremely difficult to obtain local air quality permits because of the minor nitrogen oxide emissions that occur during the digester process.

This is just one example where the effort to regulate traditional-criteria air pollutants (those now regulated under the Clean Air Act) runs contrary to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This conflict promises to get worse if we do not take this opportunity at the national level to develop a more refined system that reduces criteria pollutants while also reducing greenhouse gases.

It must be a whole-system approach where the entire operation is evaluated for all environmental factors, not just air quality. We are at a crucial time in history and EPA needs to begin the complex tax of designing a new regulatory oversight system that takes into account the net environmental benefit. It will take thinking outside the old regulatory framework box, but we need to start immediately. A national climate change policy is being developed as you read this and this approach needs to be built in from the beginning, not be an afterthought.

Air pollutants now regulated by the Clean Air Act are local in nature, and their emissions are localized. Greenhouse gases are global in nature and do not stay local, but are spread throughout the world. While the Clean Air Act has been an effective tool in cleaning the air, the control measures typically put into place to help an area reach an air quality goal will not work on greenhouse gases. Emissions reduced will be replaced by emissions coming from other parts of the world. The net result is that the American economy—including agriculture—will suffer, with little or no benefit.

A pilot project could be developed to provide an example of how to start rethinking environmental regulation. This can and must be done while insuring no backsliding in environmental protection. But if done right, it will support innovation and economic growth instead of creating regulatory inertia, which is where we are quickly headed.

The "green" technologies and jobs that are popular ideas for aiding the economic downturn will never come to fruition if EPA instead tries to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If the act is not significantly revised, it will only serve as a barrier to addressing climate change, which is an important goal of the new administration.

The California Farm Bureau has been very active in working with the California Air Resources Board and the agricultural, academic and environmental communities during AB 32 implementation. We plan to continue that involvement at the national level and look forward to working with EPA and all federal agencies that will be involved in this important undertaking, as they develop a national climate change policy.

(Cynthia Cory is director of environmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation. She may be contacted at ccory@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item. Top