Why a ‘fart tax’ might be just a load of hot air

In recent months rumors have been circulating that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a ‘fart tax’ for livestock as part of their new plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A similar proposal has outraged farmers in both New Zealand and Australia.

Why do we care about such obscure taxes becoming a reality? Is it possible that these 'fart taxes' are just a load of hot air? (See this blog for more)

Many years ago, I was up late watching the news and saw a story about a herd of sheep fitted with contraptions consisting of plastic trousers on their behinds and tubes in their mouths, among other things. It was a hilarious sight and I couldn’t help but wonder why these sheep were hooked up to these pieces of equipment. Not being a complete novice to the science surrounding climate change, the explanation was in fact quite plausible. They were using these devices to measure their methane emissions.

According to this article from the BBC, farting and burping by these farm animals are responsible for:

• 90% of the methane emissions in New Zealand,
• 70% of the methane emissions in Australia, and
• 15% of methane emissions worldwide.

So, you might be wondering why the sudden shift to talking about methane?

• Methane has 21 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide (EPA).

Why is this important?

In agrarian countries like New Zealand, it is estimated that over half the country’s greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the methane emitted by farm animals. This means that something like a ‘fart tax’ on farm animals could, in theory, help NZ meet their Kyoto Protocol targets. But, this is just in theory…

In reality, a ‘fart tax’ would do very little to curb emissions. The actual result of such a tax would be a huge loss in revenue for farmers while the overall emissions in the atmosphere would not be reduced unless farmers cut back on the numbers of sheep, cows, and hogs. Ultimately, we would just see dairy and meat prices rise to meet growing costs. In the current economic climate, adding financial pressure to farmers, especially in NZ whose economy depends on agriculture, does not seem to be the answer to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Luckily, the proposal was shot down in Australia, NZ, and the United States --- but not before widespread hysteria erupted among farmers.

Why do we regulate emissions using taxes and permits? To reduce emissions.

That being said, a ‘fart tax’ is not going to get the job done. The gas produced by these animals is a result of natural processes and is not going to be reduced by taxing farmers.

What is the solution then?

Methane gas emissions still need to be regulated and some scientists in Australia are now turning away from the old “plastic trousers” mechanism and are hooking sheep up to gas masks to measure their methane emissions from belching. It is supposedly much more effective and less cumbersome than previous methods --- though I can’t say that it would look any less ridiculous!

Other efforts to reduce methane emissions from farm animals include research on less “gassy” feed– a way to reduce emissions without reducing animal numbers. Or, maybe it is our own diets that need to change; kangaroo anyone?

Goats are on the Front Lines in the Battle Against Invasive Plants

A particularly rampant invasive plant species in the southern U.S. is Kudzu (Pueraria montana), a vine introduced from Asia and widely planted to combat soil erosion. Unfortunately, it now covers 7 million acres and has buried native vegetation under a thick coat of vines, choking off much-needed sunlight.

So what’s the newest way people are combating the spread of Kudzu?

The answer: Goats.

Goat herds have been brought in to eat the pesky kudzu in several southern states, including Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. In addition to removing the vine without the cost or risk of pesticides, the goats will eventually help fulfill the growing demand for goat meat. The profitability of the enterprise has even led a former Wall Street businessman to make goat farming a fulltime job.

Of course he wasn’t the only one to recognize the business potential here; even in the Triangle area you can hire a goat herd to take care of the weed problem in your backyard.

It isn’t often that the solution to a serious environmental threat is such a win-win situation. And it begs the question: Are there other creative, beneficial solutions to environmental problems out there just waiting to be discovered?

This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that breeds new innovation in science. Rather than trying to fully eradicate invasives, perhaps we should work to identify their benefits and then exploit them. In fact, fostering this kind of entrepreneurial thinking may the best way to deal with many of our biggest environmental challenges.

Live blogging at Sustainable Foods Seminar

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/students/orgs-farmhand-seminar.html

• Yay Deb Gallagher, oh matron saint of ENV 301.25! (Deb co-advises the seminar with UNC partners)
  
• Kudos to Nicholas MEM's Cassie Ann and Gretchen
  

7:00PM - SEED (Durham, NC) - Kavanah Ramsier

• They campaigned to allow chickens in the City of Durham!
• DIG encourages local youth to get into the whole of food process, from encouraging peer education on planting science, managing gardens, marketing produce, and ecology of farming. Big emphasis on pollination, beekeeping.
  
• Weekly meals with the food they grow!
• On food justice:

  "It's appealing to kids that 50 cent or Beyoncé drink Coke."

• "We need to be thinking of ways to turn more consumers into producers of food."

7:20pm - Carrboro Farmers Market (Carrboro, NC) - Sarah Blacklin, Manager

• Chapel Hill area had a ton of markets (at churches, etc.) back in the 70's!
• North Carolina Agricultural Marketing Project forms the Carrboro Farmers Market in 1979 (Ken Dawson).
  
• Farmer-run, farmer-owned; farmers form 7-member board.
• All farmers live within 50 mile radius - reduces fuel cost.
  
• They even work with food stamps and cost programs.
• Brewmasters: they do hops!
• Buffalo jerky! Liverwurst! Kimchi! Gluten-free pies!
• Rule: farmers must grow their own. No reselling.
• Farmers are mandated to be within 50-miles of market.
• Unique Rule: Require farmers to be at market -- they can't send reps or farmhands.

  "The best way to learn about your food is from your buyers."

• Obesity program, giving families a plot to grow own produce.
• Starting a new organization called Friends of the Market, to do more community outreach and farmer support. Goals: access for minorities; CSA's for families in need; Spanish translation; group health insurance plan for farmers! Also catastrophe relief fund for farmers; scholarships for minority/farmer families in need.

7:36pm - Chatham Marketplace (Pittsboro, NC) - Mary DeMare, General Manager

• A young co-op, founded in 2003
• Counts local as 250-mile radius, to include coast; majority of local food comes from within 50-miles.
  
• 120 local producers; works with Eastern Carolina Organics
• Local rice! (204 miles, just into SC border :))
• $2.6 million in sales last year!

(dah... battery running out... cutting off any moment!)

7:42pm - Open Questions

• Concern over buyers assuming that local farms = organic. Sarah Blacklin: "Some farmers get defensive, but we encourage farmers to say, 'ask me about my produce' to get more clarity and detail. But farm practices really change from year to year -- it's not that clear cut. And every shopper has unique preferences on organics/spraying etc. I would love suggestions on better communication of practices."
  
• How do you enter the market... of the farmer's market? Sarah Blacklin: "Mid-week test to see if they are viable. Seniority is set for someone who does at least 17 weeks, to prevent fair-weather friends. There is also limits on crafts booths, to prevent it from becoming a flea market. But we have recently allowed farmers to take sabbaticals -- without losing seniority."
  
• How does a cash-based market deal with debit and credit society? Kavanah/Sarah: Carrboro has applied for a EBT machine to accept food stamps... but complicated situation dealing with LeafLife(?)...also complicated to have one machine for market, having someone manage the machine, and having a swipe/token exchange.
• Decrease in African-American farmers? Kavanah: That's certainly a focus of DIG is to encourage more urban families to learn about farming and food. All three panelists: we want to bring in and support minority farmers, but don't have/know a specific strategy for African-American farmers specifically.
  
• Better consumer education? (sorry... tuned out...)
  
• Most pressing concern for sustainable local food systems? Collectively: wow, tough questions... um, everything? Cost for consumers; cost/time for farmers to produce for market and make profit to sustain farm; young farmers face high start-up costs; and more...
• Where will supply come from with increasing demand? What are incentives for farmers to stay/start farming? Sarah: Young farmers are crucial. Eastern NC and mountain NC are suffering though, being far from markets like Durham/Raleigh. Triangle/Piedmont benefits from being close to markets, and small farms are growing!
  
• Promo for Real Food, Real Medicine conference.
  

(Reception time... nummy foods.... Peace!)
8:20pm

Earth, Wind, and Fire: Creating True Multi-Use Landscapes

Despite recent winter congestion in my head, ideas about wind have been passing through on a regular basis. A proven technology with potential for exponential growth, wind power is an unobtrusive, clean energy source. And possibly a way to get more than just reductions in CO2 emissions.

Opponents of wind power have argued that it kills birds (true but unsubstantial, here, here, and here), degrades landscapes (a matter of opinion), or results in health problems like wind turbine syndrome (a possible reason for creating federal residential setback standards?). However, it seems increasingly clear that the benefits of wind power far outweigh its negatives. These many benefits and wind power’s increasing competitiveness with other forms of energy have led me to believe that on top of leading the charge of green energy, wind power will sustain it.

My mind conjures up images of a flat barren ground, wind whistling through the air, with turbine upon turbine stretching out over the horizon, supplying millions of kilowatts of clean energy. But recently I've realized that the barren ground in my vision could hold as much potential as the slow slinging blades above.

To get enough energy with wind power to meet growing demand will require the installation of large scale wind farms that cover vast areas. Many people have championed the idea that these wind farms be located in marginal areas, thus avoiding damage to sensitive ecosystems. That is smart planning, but can’t we do more? Even marginal lands can be used for more than just turbine installation sites.

A couple of potential land-use combinations spring to mind:

1) Biofuels and Wind - Much has been made about the potential to grow switchgrass, a source of cellulosic ethanol, on marginal lands. Why not combine wind and switchgrass production and get a two for one energy source?

2) Grazing and Wind - Picture vast herds of livestock under vast rows of wind turbines. Need I say more?

3) Prairies and Wind - Many conservationists have decried the loss of what were once two of the largest ecosystems in North America, native tall and short grass prairies. At first a marriage between wind farms and prairie restoration may seem like a stretch, but I think that with proper planning it holds a lot of potential.

4) Prairies, Bison, and Wind - Think idea number 2, but this time with herds of bison roaming through long stretches of restored native prairie. Food, biodiversity, and energy, all in one place.

So the next you think about wind energy, try to think beyond just the turbine.

What's on your dinner plate?

Which is worse for global warming-the fork or the SUV? To many the answer seems obvious—we all know how fuel efficient those Dodge Durango and GMC Yukons are.

But the answer is actually the fork, at least when that fork is being used to eat a big slab of meat. Our meat-heavy western diet is heating up our climate in a big way. A 2006 United Nations report that received little media attention, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” examined how the industry impacted land use, water pollution, air pollution, and biodiversity loss.

It concluded that worldwide livestock farming accounts for 18% of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 13% from all the planet’s cars, trains, planes and boats combined. The majority of emissions come from deforestation, since the constantly increasing demand for meat means clearing land to create pastures or farmland for growing animal feed.

In addition, every day factory farmed animals produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the U.S.—87,000 lbs. of waste per second! Much of this ends up in giant pits in the ground or on crops, which eventually pollutes the air and groundwater.

So now we know what comes out of this industry, but what goes in? According to an E Magazine article “The Case Against Meat,” 4.8 pounds of grain is needed to produce 1 pound of beef. With so many starving people in the world, is it ethical to feed our growing desire for meat instead of feeding people? The article’s author says that the next time you sit down for an 8 oz. steak, think about “the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of you.” Overly dramatic? Maybe. But perhaps we need some dramatic imagery these days.

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that if the U.S. reduced its meat production by just 10%, it would free up enough grain to feed 60 million people. And what do meat producing companies respond to? Customer demand.

So my question is why more environmental organizations aren’t advocating vegetarianism or even reduced meat consumption as an environmental solution to everything from local water pollution to global warming. Hopefully this will change soon. Even the head of the U.N.’s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, recently urged the world to cut back on meat in order to combat climate change.

I encourage you to start thinking more about what you’re eating and where it comes from. Even if you don’t give up meat completely, you can start by cutting out one or two meat meals a week. And next time you get a mailing or email from a major environmental organization, by all means support them, but also send them a note asking them why they’re missing out on such a huge opportunity to make a difference.