Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on June 17, 2009 at 5:24

A little grouchy Jim?

Considering that together it was about three times more than the Federal governemnt.....not to shabby in my book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandstone on June 18, 2009 at 0:08

I sure hope none of that $800,000,000 was used to harness or eliminate cow farts; that's best left to our geniuses in govt. LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 18, 2009 at 3:48

Sandstone - The topic sentence states ...

"invested $132.9 billion in greenhouse gas-mitigating technologies"

I'd love to see draft plans of that "cow fart collecting" technology. ha, ha Don't want to be the one doing the demo part of RD&D, though. :-P

Here's a list of some of the funding that is/was available. When you find the "Cow Fart Collection Agency Project" send me a heads up. I'd like to go find their data and see how it's going. :0)

http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/solicitations/index.html#42677

best - sesport

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandstone on June 18, 2009 at 7:59

Sesport - YOU would want the smelly details!:) I think the first research was done by the WHO and I can't find the pictures but I remember seeing on the news, a man with a facemask walking around in a barnyard with his arm extended, with a white funnel looking thing attached to a cannister. No Joke!!


Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars -
The American Farm Bureau is strenuously opposing a U.S. EPA greenhouse gas proposal that would tax livestock producers for their animals’ emissions. AFB says it doesn’t even pass the smell test, let alone the straight face test.
But EPA is considering steep fees based on animal emissions that Farm Bureau says would force many livestock producers out of business. American Farm Bureau lobbyist Rick Krause says it’s no laughing matter.
“We’ve already heard from one of President-elect Obama’s senior environmental advisers that they intend to take up this regulation early next year, when they come in, Krause said. “The only saving grace that I think that we might have, in stalling this, is the state of the economy.”

Danes Get Ready to Tax Cow Farts
by April Streeter, Gothenburg, Sweden on 02.12.09
The Danish Tax Commission figured that the new greenhouse gas tax on farmers could raise about 400 million Danish crowns of revenue each year. Far better to spend that money on devising methods to better utilize poo power or for cows and pigs to release less gas through their burps and farts. Currently Danish researchers are studying kangaroos, which have lower "emissions" to see if they can find any clues - they already believe it may have to do with the microflora in cows stomachs and a particular brand of flora called Archea

Maybe we can start raising kangaroos to eat.

Estonian farmers face flatulence tax on cattle
15:4808/05/2008
TALLINN, May 8 (RIA Novosti) - Estonian farmers have received tax notices for methane emissions from their cattle, the country's opposition party, the People's Union of Estonia, said on Thursday.
Ruminants produce large quantities of methane gas through belching and flatulence when they digest grass, which accounts for about 15-25% of overall gas emissions, according to different estimates.
A single cow produces on average 350 liters of methane and 1,500 liters of carbon dioxide per day.
"For Copa-Cogeca, an organization that unites farmers of the European Union, the information received from Estonian farmers came as a huge surprise, and they could not recall a similar precedent in any EU country," said the party's spokesman, Jaanus Marrandi.
No other EU country imposes a flatulence tax on farmers.
A year after joining the Kyoto protocol, authorities in New Zealand proposed introducing a flatulence tax saying that New Zealand cattle are responsible for 90% of the country's methane emissions and 43% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nebraska senator looks to exempt 'naturally occurring' livestock emissions containing methane and carbon dioxide from Clean Air Act. Legislation, he says, would protect his state, which ranks first in nation in commercial red meat production, from 'cow tax.' And: As meat consumption increases, scrutiny grows over emissions



The latest on this subject:
GOP congressman warns against 'cow fart tax'
@ 11:32 am by Michael O'Brien June 9, 2009

A tax on bovine emissions could hurt American farmers and consumers, House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee Ranking Member James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) warned Tuesday.

Sensenbrenner condemned a proposed tax from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cattle and some pigs on the basis of those animals' methane emissions, which contribute in part to global climate change.

"This cow fart tax shows how outrageous the whole global warming and climate change debate is," Sensenbrenner said during an appearance on Fox News. "It might be more civilized. The EPA calls it digestive gases. We all call those farts."

The Wisconsin lawmaker, who leads Republicans on the committee overseeing the effects of global warming, said the taxes would be passed on to consumers who buy animal products.

"Well, the average Joe, when he goes to the supermarket and buys any kind of dairy product or beef or pork is going to end up paying through the nose to pay for the cow fart tax," Sensenbrenner said.

He said the issue was "no laughing matter," and blamed a Supreme Court decision giving the EPA wide leverage for regulate greenhouse gases and emissions for leading to the current situtation.

"Now, you know, I wonder if the EPA is going to say you can get an exemption from this tax if you put a catalytic converter on each end of the cow," he said. "I wonder what the Humane Society would say about that."
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06/09/gop-congressman-warns-ag...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 18, 2009 at 9:50

You refer to proposed legislation & projects outside the US. I'm asking you to show me where, in the US with US taxpayers' money, allocations were already made/spent on such a project. This topic is about accounting for money that was spent from 2000 - 2008.

Thanks for all that work - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on June 19, 2009 at 4:43

As far as raising kangaroos to eat, Austrailians say they are hard to round up and drive. They are as hard to herd as cats.

Do the "Kangaroo-boys" herding them ride horses or kangaroos?

Can you invisionize a massive kangaroo drive of several thousand kangroos hopping every which aways?

Like cattle, the ranchers would need to brand them. Think of how much fun it would be after roping one, to have to jump off to tie its legs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on June 18, 2009 at 3:46

Maybe you should sell your car and stop buying products made from foriegn oil.

And selling foreign oil and gasoline in the US is not the majors only agenda, their agenda is to make a profit for their shareholders. Just so happens that most oil is not in the US, and much of the oil in the US is off limits or expensive to produce.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 19, 2009 at 4:04

Jim, the US majors have no interest in Iraq so it has no impact on their profitability. Most of their money is invested in Qatar, UAE and Saudi which do not require any intervention.

When the American public decides NG & electricity are better sources of transportation fuel - it will happen without any involvement by the major oil & gas companies. Just looked what happened when the public decided to begin buying imported vehicles. It certainly didn't depend on Detroit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 18, 2009 at 3:48

Jim, majors probably make far more money from natural gas than oil. As far as gasoline, I am not sure there is really much profit generated from that segment. Gasoline brands for the majors are more of an ego trip.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 18, 2009 at 4:17

Somebody check my math because, hey, I'm no math genius.

I found on the IRS website that there were 143 million individual tax returns for 2007. I'll just use that figure to apply to the government $ total.
When I averaged that $19.2 billion for the 143 million individuals, I get an average of $134 dollars kicked in by individuals from 2000-2008. That's an average of $16.75 per year? Am I doing the math correctly?

Huh, if that's correct, that's all it's costing me per year to fund RD&D to get our gas produced or develop GHG technologies, to include those ng vehicles? Let me write a check! :0)

Thanks for all the help explaining this & best - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on June 19, 2009 at 3:55

Jim, after nationalization that occurred a few years ago most of the oil in the Mideast is owned by the National Oil Companies (NOC's) rather than the International Oil Companies (IOC's). In many cases they are only purchasing oil from the NOC's for supply to the refineries. A lot of the gasoline sales are in non-US markets such as Asia & Europe. In US they probably make more money from sale of other goods than gasoline at the filling stations.

Recent quote by ExxonMobil emphasized future for the company is in LNG, Canadian gas production, Alaskan Pipeline and Rockies tight gas sands.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on June 18, 2009 at 3:05

I find it humorous, thinking of those arguing, "They're digging in our pockets," that the government's share is about 14% of that total, while O&G has kicked in about 44%, or about 3 times as much. Wonder what result we'd get if that government total were calculated to reflect the average cost to Joe Taxpayer? Hmmmm.....

Thanks for this tidbit - :0)

• ▶ Reply