Cows burp and pass methane. So the Obama Administration wants to take action:
In June, in partnership with the dairy industry, the USDA, EPA and DOE will jointly release a “Biogas Roadmap” outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters and other cost-effective technologies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
Methane digesters mean you have to gather all the cow manure you produce and put it in an enclosed building until it can be loaded into your machine.
How is that going to stop the cows from belching methane? Since you can’t shovel flatulence into a machine, that form of methane release will continue.
If the EPA really thinks that the release of methane is so harmful to the global climate, then it ought to eliminate wetlands. A cow’s stomach is not the only place where plants can be broken down by fermentation.
And in what universe are methane digesters “cost-effective.” How is the EPA even calculating that number? Nothing about global warming is cost-effective.
The Obama Administration is regulating methane from other sources besides cows. None of it makes sense since we are already producing less methane now than the EPA expected.
According to the Daily Caller,
Methane emissions have largely been reduced because of the incentive for companies to capture it and sell it for monetary gain. Oil and gas companies, for example, have been looking for ways to increasingly capture methane leaked from drilling operations which they can then sell.
“The industry has led efforts to reduce emissions of methane by developing new technologies and equipment, and recent studies show emissions are far lower than EPA projected just a few years ago,” said Howard Feldman, head of scientific and regulatory affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. “Additional regulations are not necessary and could have a chilling effect on the American energy renaissance, our economy, and our national security.”
“Methane is natural gas that operators can bring to the market,” he added. “There is a built-in incentive to capture these emissions.”
This incentive is what allows a person to decide if a technology for capturing methane is “cost-effective.” Without an idea of the benefit from selling methane, there is no way to compare costs to benefits.
Neither Obama nor the EPA feel the pain of any of the costs they want to impose on other people. On the contrary, they get the psychological, political, and economic benefits of imposing their will on others and those others also bear the costs.
All this for a claim about man-made climate change when there has been no global warming, predictions of global warming have proven completely exaggerated, and reputable climate scientists believe the claim to be baseless.
Thanks to climatedepot.com for the pic!