Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

New Zealand Angers Its Farmers By Proposing Taxing Cow Burps (npr.org) 179

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
New Zealand's government on Tuesday proposed taxing the greenhouse gasses that farm animals make from burping and peeing as part of a plan to tackle climate change. From a report: The government said the farm levy would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products. But farmers quickly condemned the plan. Federated Farmers, the industry's main lobby group, said the plan would "rip the guts out of small-town New Zealand" and see farms replaced with trees. Federated Farmers President Andrew Hoggard said farmers had been trying to work with the government for more than two years on an emissions reduction plan that wouldn't decrease food production.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Zealand Angers Its Farmers By Proposing Taxing Cow Burps More

New Zealand Angers Its Farmers By Proposing Taxing Cow Burps

Comments Filter:

  • I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kwelch007 ( 197081 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @02:24PM (#62957333) Homepage

    How about you tax New Zealand lawmakers for farts, pee and burps. Let's see how that goes over.

    • Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @03:33PM (#62957605)
      If I took a bag of household rubbish and just dumped in on a farm ( pimples worth...or less) the farmer would be rightly upset and demand I clean my mess up, and if I did not/could not they would expect me to pay to have someone else clean it up for me, take me to court even.

      Well thats all farmers are being asked to do, pay for someone to clean their mess up, because they can't.

      That mess is ruining other peoples crops, causing slips, eroding the foreshore, damaging our native flora and fauna. And when that happens to them, blocking roads, floods, they expect the rest of us to pay to fix it. Likewise for droughts, they expect financial assistance. Global warming is going to make both of these situations worse.

      The argument of "I" should not be punished because "Someone else" is worse, is garbage.

      Should boy racers be "OK" because they are not ram raiding jewellery stores ?


      Having farmers held to the same standard as other polluters is fair and reasonable, they are NOT being picked on.

      Farming and tourism are at their peak, we need better, smarter, less invasive and more profitable options.

      In real, inflation adjusted terms "peak" export value for meat was in the early 1900s, ever since then $ per ton has fallen in real terms, its just that we have made more of it that it looks as though there has been real growth.

    • Or just for talking shit. That would make a fortune for the government.

    • Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @05:00PM (#62957945)

      How about you tax New Zealand lawmakers for farts, pee and burps. Let's see how that goes over.

      If people were a significant source of methane then I would agree that they should be taxed. However, since they are not a significant source of methane, there is no purpose in taxing them.

    • Because taxing something magically makes the problem go away. Green credits, total bullshit. The companies just go and pollute in a different spot on the same planet. But it sure gives the good feels and fee fees are more important than anything, right?

  • cow burp (Score:3)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @02:24PM (#62957335)
    If the cows burp for us do humans burp less ?

  • Do you get it yet? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Adjustinthings ( 8077400 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @02:24PM (#62957337)

    Anyone else starting to finally notice that all of these WEF associated countries are destroying themselves to hit imaginary carbon targets?

    • Re:Do you get it yet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @02:35PM (#62957369)
      It's as if destroying the food supply is the actual goal.
      • Yeah, everyone else knows that wrecking the climate & causing catastrophic changes in weather & sea levels is the actual goal. How stupid of those New Zealanders!
      • Don't worry, you can still eat bugs.
    • We see it, at least those paying attention. How do we get through to the those who aren't paying attention? As far as they're concerned if you're not for this, you don't care about the environment.

    • Re:Do you get it yet? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @03:30PM (#62957597)

      Anyone else starting to finally notice that all of these WEF associated countries are destroying themselves to hit imaginary carbon targets?

      Nope. They aren't destroying themselves. Costs are passed on as appropriate. People in China or other places which have no cows are not going out to the lowest bidder. People don't become vegan magically because meat gets a few cents more expensive. Food isn't so widely available on the global market as to be an infinite fungible resource where any change in market price results in a crash of demand.

      The tax here won't have any negative impact. It will however provide finance as well as motivation to solve the problem as well as companies who are offering solutions, like the Dutch biotech company offering certain food to reduce emissions.

      But you want to really destroy something, don't hit any environmental targets. After all, what has the environment ever done for us.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by VAElynx ( 2001046 )
        In other word, it generates a market to solve an artificial problem, and increases the barriers to entry in, among other things, farming. Classic late-capitalist rentseeking ploy, on multiple levels.

        • Re:Do you get it yet? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2022 @02:39AM (#62958949)

          By artificial problem you mean a problem we created, then sure. But just realise that most of our economic activity is the result of generating a market to solve an artificial problem.

          As for late-capitalist rentseeking, what you are describing is the general process of developed nations. Just think we live in a world with sewage systems and don't tolerate people just shitting in the street. Does that mean building codes requiring connections to sewage systems is "late-capitalist rentseeking"? Not at all. Welcome to a world of high standards. Enjoy the fresh air it created. If you don't like it, well you could move to some parts of the Niger delta where the rainforrest literally smells of oil.

          But me, I prefer the late-capitalist rentseeking that is environmental laws and economic pressure for companies to do better.

    • Unless you actually want Florida to be under water, we have to stop producing greenhouse gases. Beef farming is actually the worst 'optional' source, accounting for around 14% of emissions.

    • If you think carbon targets are 'imaginary', you're clueless.

  • Encouragement to mix seaweed (Score:5, Informative)

    by SciCom Luke ( 2739317 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @02:30PM (#62957351)
    Mixing a certain seaweed through the cowfood reduces methane exhaust by a vast amount: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    If that is cheaper than the tax reduction, it would be great.
    • I asked the cows, and they said they're not big fans of nori.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Arethan ( 223197 )

        They're probably not big fans of being consumed as a staple crop either, or at least they wouldn't if they knew that's what was happening.

        Well, I'm off to the store to pick up some steaks! Seeing all those bovinae made me hungry

        • That's why we need to genetically engineer cows that LIKE being eaten! (We miss you, Douglas Adams!)

  • sounds like an California idea! (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @02:33PM (#62957363)

    sounds like an California idea!

  • Doesn't that all come from organic sources that removed it from the atmosphere in the first place?

    • Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than C02.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        Sure, if we were spewing out as much methane as we do CO2. But methane emissions are a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        But it breaks down much faster.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than C02.

        Then why do environmental groups ignore it so much unless it comes from a cow? Why give fracking a pass which leaks absurd amounts of methane into the biosphere? Oh right, because natural gas is methane (mostly) and it is needed to make "renewables" viable. And looking like you are solving the problem is much more important than fixing the actual problem. PR (and fundraising) trumps engineering and science for these people. Fix the leaks on the gas wells first. After that, we can talk about things tha

        • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @03:18PM (#62957551)
          Agreed on fixing the gas wells first. It really used to annoy me that the El Segundo refinery (and presumably most refineries) just torched off the gas instead of capturing and selling it, since apparently just wasting it was cheaper. Do they still do that? You'd think someone would have passed a law against it by now.
          • I saw plenty of flares when I passed through the NW part of Colorado this spring. That being said, it's better than letting the methane into the atmosphere.
    • Noting a good epidemic wouldn't cure.

    • https://www.boredpanda.com/blo... [boredpanda.com]

      Plot twist: New Zealand uses the fact that it's in the Eastern hemisphere to its advantage, making sure that it always emits just slightly less than China so that people stay focused on comparisons with China in graphics like yours while ignoring that New Zealand is right behind the Big C.

      (not true, but it'd be hilarious and sad if it was)

      • Wut(lolz), you seem angry with facts. Cow farts are not the problem. But good on New Zealand to do something.

        How about that one place that is not doing anything.

        • Nah, not disagreeing with you at all. I fully agree with the point you're getting at (while likewise encouraging the rest of us to not let that become an excuse), but I was in a silly mood and the graphic only compared China against the Western hemisphere, neither of which pertains to NZ, so I thought I'd point out the silliness of an alternate reality in which NZ flies under the radar by simply emitting a bit less than the one country everyone is focused on: China.

          Probably should have self-edited and not b

    • https://www.boredpanda.com/blo... [boredpanda.com]

      Nice graphic. It's amazing how you can dishonestly lump one of the world's world's biggest emitters per capita along with a bunch of 3rd world countries with very limited emissions together and compare it to a country which has a population that exceeds that of the entire western hemisphere while also being the country most of that hemisphere has outsourced basically all production to.

      There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Infographics.

    • There's a problem with that, China makes a huge proportion of products that the western hemisphere uses, so you're simply shifting emissions for making Western products to China and blaming China for the emissions.

  • Cow burps seem even harder to meter than cow farts.

  • Quite a few of their MPs look pretty gassy to me.

  • Like a Monty Python sketch. Especially if you hook the cows up to some sort of meter.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ukoda ( 537183 )
      Actually they do, and it does look funny, worthy of Monty Python. However it is only done to gather data for different animal and feed stock combination, the average cow in the field does not need to wear such gear.
  • If I choose to build a factory that converts oxygen to methane, or if I choose to breed cattle that do the same, what is the difference?

    • I think the "difference" looks something like this:

      There are two broad kinds of chemical contaminants.

      One kind are our new chemical molecules we are making. The interact with plants, animals and ourselves in ways that we simply don't know and don't understand and are just starting to understand. They are "un-natrual" in the true sense. And while they are very useful, we in the past perhaps didn't spend enough time understand their impact. And now we need to find ways to ween ourselves from them and

      • I see. But in reality things are measurable, right? To posit that there are "lots of bugs...that like them", well, if the numbers don't work out then the numbers don't work out. You, as a human, can't exist in a real room of 99% CO2 or CH4 or whatever (extreme example), no matter how many bugs (or plants) in a hypothetical world *like* CO2 or CH4. We exist in a reality where the concentration of molecules are measurable.

        I doubt anyone wants the total elimination of anything. The goal is a healthy balance

    • Building a factory that converts oxygen to methane would be quite a trick, because methane is made from carbon and hydrogen. No oxygen involved.

      • Trickyfactory consumes oxygen with Acetalaldehyde to produce Acetic Acid and eventually methane.

        Cow has trouble producing anything without oxidative phosphorylation.

  • And if they (or any other wild animal) can we tax them directly? Bears as an example might be required to provide salmon to the tax authority. Bears seem like they would be pretty gassy with all the berries they eat.

  • sales will increase as farmers mix it into the feed.

  • Not reported (Score:5, Informative)

    by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @04:11PM (#62957779) Homepage
    If you only read the Slashdot summary you will miss the part about 100% of the tax going back into farm tech research to address the problem. Yes it going to hurt some farmers quite badly in the short term. From a marketing POV it is a good idea for exports. People outside NZ don't buy imported NZ meat because it is cheap, they buy it because it is safe, raised in a low pollution environment and they already pay extra for that. Knowing that the meat you chose had a lesser impact on the environment will appeal to many buyers, allowing to be sold at a high price that offsets the extra cost that an environmentally friendlier option cost to produce.

    There are no magic answers here and I'm sure there will be things they will get wrong but you have to start somewhere.

    • Knowing that the meat you chose had a lesser impact on the environment will appeal to many buyers, allowing to be sold at a high price that offsets the extra cost that an environmentally friendlier option cost to produce.

      Which sounds great until the boujie assholes order their steaks online to be delivered individually wrapped in plastic and exported on a fucking airplane. Which is what happens.

      Exporting beef from an island is one of the stupider things humans have thought up.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        If done right both transport and packaging can be fairly green and in some places if you want safe food you are going to need to import it. However right now you are right, those are both issues that need addressed. Packaging is likely to be the next thing as it is doable now. Air and sea transport are going to remain an issue for a while as it is going to take some new tech to sort them.

        Regardless this is a step in the right direction and longer term is likely to have flow on improvements for locally
  • Supposedly - adding a small amount of red seaweed reduced the methane by 50-90%... https://insideclimatenews.org/... [insideclimatenews.org] They should try this out on a national trial basis and see how it goes.
  • There is almost no reason there should ever be meat on the shelf. It's as simple as that.

    The one exception is at a well controlled butcher shop where there is a single display sample and the butcher cuts the meat on demand or gets it from the freezer.

    Meat is processed from the time of slaughter until it reaches the store shelf in a frozen state. Meat can remain frozen for months... especially in proper freezers that are maintained. There is absolutely no reason the meat should ever be defrosted for sale.

    The

  • Slashdot owes me a new keyboard after I spit out my coffee laughing at the summary.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close