UN wants livestock taxed for greenhouse gas

[MoGal]

Uhhh how can they call it anthropegenic global warming when its due to bovine flatulence?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38154ea0-1cb2-11df-8d8e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Livestock should be taxed to reduce the contribution made by their flatulence to greenhouse gas emissions, the United Nations said on Thursday in a report that will give fresh ammunition to campaigners against the preponderance of meat in the foodchain.

The novel suggestion by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation to use taxation comes as campaigners focus on the impact on climate change of emissions of methane from cattle, sheep and pigs.

"Market-based policies, such as taxes and fees for natural resource use, should cause [livestock] producers to internalise the costs of environmental damages," the FAO said in its annual report, The State of Food and Agriculture .

 

[MoGal]

If livestock producers don't jump on this and let their congressional leaders know we want no part of this taxation then this may become a reality for a lot of folks (or who knows maybe this is part of the plan):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6680989/Meat-grown-in-laboratory-in-world-first.html


I've looked at that article for several months now, and I keep wondering who on earth would want to eat meat grown in a laboratory?

 

[MoGal]

here's a different link for the UN article (as you have to sign up for the financial times one )

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2258187/cow-fart-tax-help-reduce

 

[Broke Cowboy]

When they hit India and China - I believe they have much larger herds of cattle overall - then I will be worried - until then it is simply goofball politics.

I will wait for those two countries to start paying before I get excited.

India and China might try the "cannot afford it due to third world status" however they each happen to have a space program, nuke weapons program, nuke power program, huge and modern army, navy and air force - and economies that are broadly based - so they CAN afford to pay.

Also - U of Manitoba has - not kidding on this - done a study that indicates cattle in colder climates emit less methane than cattle in warmer climates.

So the Canucks and northern based Americans should be OK.

BC

 

[PORKER]

What are they going to do when 1.5 billion farmers use animals that are packanimals and work animals to produce and grow Food.

http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Commerce/agri-buffalo.html

 

[MoGal]

The thing about this is that the US financially supports the UN ... 35% of their budget is paid by the USA and yet we only have one vote. 50% of their military budget is paid by the USA and we bend over and do everything the UN suggests and that is what I don't like. Why isn't China, India, and the EU paying more of the UN budget? They should be.

IF we sit back and do nothing, its very easy to email your congressional leaders and let them know, then we'll have a tax. They've not passed the Senate Bill to exempt cattle from greenhouse gas emissions..... why??
They should have jumped on that long ago.

 

[Broke Cowboy]

Tempest in a tea pot - not going to happen - but it is a fun topic

BC

 

[lonewolvie]

Do these UN (junk)scientists realize how much methane eminates from cities? Let's take into acount the miles and miles of sanitary sewer pipes, the thousands of vent pipes and let's look at the landfill. There is more methane coming from city living than cows. How will the UN (United abomiNations) tax that?

 

[P.A.L]

Don't worry, UN will pay us someday for reducing carbon from air to soil..

"n the UK, grasslands and mixed farming systems also have a vital role to play, and soil carbon may go a long way to offsetting the methane emissions from grass-fed cattle and sheep."

http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Climatefriendlyfoodandfarming/Soilcarbon/tabid/574/Default.aspx

 

[Sandhusker]

Don't worry, UN will pay us someday for reducing carbon from air to soil..

"n the UK, grasslands and mixed farming systems also have a vital role to play, and soil carbon may go a long way to offsetting the methane emissions from grass-fed cattle and sheep."

http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Climatefriendlyfoodandfarming/Soilcarbon/tabid/574/Default.aspx

And the UN gets their money from what? I've got a better idea; How about we not even acknowledge this carbon nonsense? How about everybody keeps their money and we get out of the UN and tell them they need to get their HQ out of our country?

 

[MoGal]

And the UN gets their money from what? I've got a better idea; How about we not even acknowledge this carbon nonsense? How about everybody keeps their money and we get out of the UN and tell them they need to get their HQ out of our country?

And that's what it is .... nonsense..... a way to tax this nation to support other underprivileged countries who are run by dictatorships and crooked leaders. I totally agree we need to get out of the communistic UN and tell them to get out of the US.

The last article I saw (a couple months ago) is that Iraq (isn't Dubai in Iraq) did offer them some ground to build their new headquarters in and that was the first time I had heard of them even considering moving. So they do plan to move.
http://www.tejkohli.com/dubai-host-un-headquarters.html

edited to add this link as this is the one I saw a couple months ago:
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/government/dubai-invites-united-nations-to-set-up-headquarters-1.568038

We just need to make sure the US isn't paying for it either.

 

[hypocritexposer]

"Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO's, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

"The group's conclusions is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong (Secretary General of the United Nations at the time), 1990

 

[mrj]

Isn't Dubai a nation in itself? Maybe a city-nation? My geography/civics interest in that part of the world isn't that great, but belive that is somewhat close to accurate.

The sooner it moves, and the farther away for the HQ, the better, IMO, with total dissolution of the UN being the preferred action. Paying back what the USA has contributed would be even better!

mrj