NationStates Jolt Archive

Green House Gas Reduction Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses

How does eveyone feel about this resolution. I know it is unothadox, but it would help greatly.

Proposed by: The left foot

Description: Since green house gases porduced by boovine fatulence contribute a signifcant amount to Green House gas emmisions I purpose that all Cows and other fram animals like sheep be fitted with tanks to collect fatulence. This fatlence could then be used as an alternative to natural gas to help stem the depletion of fossil fuels specially natural gas.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Feb 5 2005

OOC: US EPA actually considered a similar idea of regulating flatulance by attaching regulators to the sphincters of Bovine animals.

IC: The stress caused by attaching such an apperatus would decrease milk production and increase costs.

Also, using Bovine flatulence as an energy source creates the byproduct Ammonia (NH4), a criteria 1 pollutant. Far worse than the green house gas emissions.

Oh I see thx. I'll be back ot get my next idea shot down soon :).

Is this really true? That's amazing! I never knew there was any good use for bovine flatulence besides entertainment value.

Yes, it was propsed in the mid to late ninteties under the Clinton administration. It was one of the items that lead to the creation of the USDA Air Quality Task Force.

Good start Left Foot.:) You used a possible solution to one problem to help alleviate another. Not only does such a method help garner greater support for a proposal, it is very difficult to do. Good luck on your next one!

Some Dairymen in CA have incorporated systems to use the emissions from their cattle to create energy and sell it to to consumers. Now some are being fined as an ammonia source. They were warned though, so I do not feel to sory for them.

I know htis is a big problem in New zealland. Do all animals produce amonia or just cows? Maby volunteer humnas?

OOC I guess:

Animals do produce trace amounts of amonia via flatulance. However, the impact of it would be marginal. It is when the methane is used as an alternative energy source via respirators and other apperatus that ammonia emissions become noticeable, and a problem.

Methane emissions from animals as a whole account for approximately 15% of world emissions (that includes farm and nonfarm). The worst emitter of methane gasses are wetland areas. However, competing interests collide when one recommends elliminating a giant methane emitter that is considered an ecological neccessity.

The problem with animals is that they produce gas no matter what we do, by nature of their ruminant system. Their impact would exists regardless of any tax or governmental measure short of a worldwide quota and extermination of those sheep and cattle that are non-farm.

New Zealand, I think (it has been awhile since I worked in AQ) has relatively good air quality due to its low population density, and geographic charecteristics. The urban area concentrations of air pollution are quite high when low wind conditions combine with high traffic density and open fires or wood burning for heat.(Much like other areas that are similar to a valley) Farm animals account for about 90% of methane emissions in the country/land mass. However, methane is not a health problem for the area. Now, if New Zealand signed onto the Kyoto protocal, then I would not be surprised if government actions will be taken at some detriment to lower green house gas emissions. However, if those actions are being taken against New Zealands agricultural industry I would be concerned, because it will have little to no worldwide impact on world wide methane emissions at great cost to the industry (depending on the tax).