For 33 years, Don Ranck only worried about two products from his cow herd: milk to sell and manure to dispose of.

But the owner of Verdant View Farm in Paradise Township fears that in the near future he and other farmers may have to worry about another emission from their animals — greenhouse gases.

Since July, the Environmental Protection Agency has been considering how to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Such regulation might take the form of an emissions tax. Preliminary figures indicate the tax could run as high as $175 a year per dairy cow.

Critics say the economic impact of such a move would be devastating.

Ranck said having to pay a tax on the 85 cows and 20 other animals on his farm, a 115-acre dairy and crop farm bisected by Strasburg Rail Road, would have a ruinous impact on his operation, creating an "untenable" situation for him and most farmers in the United States.

He said such a move could drive livestock agriculture out of the United States and into the Third World.

"It would seem to me that the unintended consequences of something like (the proposed regulations) would far outweigh — I mean far outweigh — any benefit," Ranck said.

The regulation

Agriculture organizations across the country have been raising red flags for more than a month about the EPA's issuance of an "advanced notice of proposed rulemaking," a preliminary step the agency is taking in preparation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

American Farm Bureau Federation Director of Regulatory Relations Rick Krause said the notice, a 200-page document that is part of the Federal Register, is not a specific regulatory proposal. Rather, it is the EPA's way of asking groups and individuals to weigh in on the pitfalls and benefits of regulating the gases.

"It's kind of flying under a lot of people's radar screens, but it's going to have huge impacts," Krause said.

The question of whether the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gases was resolved in an April 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA. The court ruled that EPA indeed has authority to regulate gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide under the Clean Air Act if the agency finds that such emissions could endanger public health and welfare.

Most environmental scientists agree that emissions are changing the global climate to some extent. Impacts are difficult to predict, but could include changing weather patterns, eroded coastlines, species extinction, more frequent droughts and severe storms.

Worldwide, animal agriculture causes 9 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions and 37 percent of the methane emissions that are due to human activity, according to the United Nations.

The EPA's notice touches on all sectors of the economy, including automobiles, heavy industry, power plants and agriculture. The document even considers greenhouse gas emissions from lawnmowers and speedboats.

Any entity that emits more than 100 tons of an EPA-regulated pollutant per year has to get a permit, Krause said.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a farm with just 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cows, or 200 hogs, sheep or goats exceeds the 100-ton minimum.

Nine out of 10 U.S. livestock and dairy operations are that big or bigger and would be regulated, Krause said.

The tax rate

The EPA has published a "presumptive minimum rate" as a ballpark figure for a carbon emissions tax. The 2008-09 "presumptive minimum rate" is $43.75 per ton of emissions. Taxes would be collected by each state's Department of Environmental Protection.

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau staff calculated that the proposed tax would work out to an annual assessment of $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 for each head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.

Krause said a typical dairy cow can produce up to 4 tons of greenhouse gases per year. A steer can produce 2 tons, and hogs, sheep and goats can produce a half ton apiece.

Farm Bureau Governmental Affairs Counsel John Bell agreed the EPA's proposal would subject the vast majority of livestock and dairy farms in Pennsylvania to fees and regulations.

Bell said the Clean Air Act was not written with the intent to classify greenhouse gases as a pollutant.

"It's just another dagger of cost that could be imposed on family farms and make it that much more onerous for average-sized Pennsylvania farms to stay in business," Bell said.

Environmental concerns

Environmental groups say EPA regulation would be an effective way to limit global warming.

David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said the main targets of the proposed regulations are motor vehicles and power plants.

Doniger said "farm sources of carbon dioxide or methane are not the primary focus" of the regulations. He said some farming organizations have been blowing the issue out of proportion.

Farmers have a stake in fighting global warming, Doniger argued. Climate change could lead to drought, unpredictable yields and unstable conditions for agriculture.

"Letting global warming go untreated or uncurbed, so to speak, is in the end a really bad deal for farmers," he said.

Some argue that the global-warming fight actually could give farmers an economic boost.

John Hanger, acting secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, said "global warming could be a big opportunity" for farmers if they look at carbon and methane as a "crop" instead of a waste product.

Hanger said farmers can capture greenhouse gases in ways other industries can't.

DEP is interested in developing ways for farmers to make money through good environmental practices, Hanger said. The agency has been trying to position Pennsylvania at the forefront in alternative energy, such as methane digesters to produce electricity and the biofuel industry.

"What Pennsylvania needs to do is focus on being ready to thrive in a world where carbon is regulated and where carbon dioxide is being reduced over time," Hanger said.

Skepticism

Not all scientists and farmers buy that argument.

John Comerford, associate professor of dairy and animal science at Penn State University, said if the calculations are right a tax on greenhouse gases could cost the state's dairy industry an extra $6 million to $7 million per year, and the beef industry could take a $2 million hit.

Comerford said the EPA needs to take a serious look at other major sources of greenhouse gases. He said 25 percent of methane comes from wetlands, which are protected by environmental laws.

That figure is consistent with findings by other researchers, such as the Goddard Institute of Space Studies' Institute on Climate and Planets.

"We keep finding ways not to produce food in this country," Comerford said. "Somewhere along the line somebody has to compromise on food production."

In Paradise Township, Ranck said a running joke going around the local farming community is that if the Clean Air Act regulations go through, farmers should give up farming and go out and get a job with the EPA because of the manpower it will take to enforce the law.

As a precaution, Ranck has diversified his operations by opening a bed and breakfast.

Guests will sometimes ask Ranck what he is doing to preserve his farm's environmental integrity.

Ranck said he enjoys showing visitors what environmental practices the farm employs, including no-till methods and stream bank reinforcement.

But when the talk goes to what gases his cows are emitting and their impact on global warming, Ranck said many people tell him it's "foolhardy" to believe they have a major impact on the climate.

"I just hope that common sense and reason prevail in this," Ranck said.

E-mail: myoder@lnpnews.com