I couldn’t make this up if I wanted to…

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 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.

We have met the enemy… and it is cow gas. I’m mostly curious about what they hope to accomplish with a tax such as this, other than making gobs of money and applying it towards… cleaner farting cows? Hybrid cows? Hydrogen fuel cows? Of course, we know better - this has nothing to do with global warming or cow gas. It has everything to do with Kyoto providing a certain segment of politicians the cover they need to come up with innovative ways to seize their citizens’ money without having to justify what they’re going to spend it on.

Thank goodness we said no…

From the RGJ, Officials show tree cutters no tolerance:

Douglas Hoffman didn’t like trees blocking his view of the Las Vegas strip. Patricia Vincent was annoyed with some pines in her line of sight to scenic Lake Tahoe.

Both, prosecutors said, used a saw to solve their problem. Hoffman is serving a prison term of up to five years while Vincent, indicted in January by a federal grand jury, faces trial in April.

Both are part of a trend that has officials cracking down — with fines and prison terms — on people willing to cut trees to improve views from their homes or business, often boosting property values as a result.

[…]

On Jan. 25, Vincent pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Reno to charges she hired a company to cut down three old-growth trees, estimated at up to 100 years old, on U.S. Forest Service land to improve her view, said Natalie Collins, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada.

Vincent faces up to 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine if convicted, with trial set for April 29.

Vincent’s lawyer, Scott Freeman, called it “highly unusual” for a case like his client’s to be criminally prosecuted.

On the one hand, I can understand fines and jail time for damaging other people’s property, which some of these trees probably are. On the other hand, I do find it amazing that it’s possible to rack up $500,000 in fines for hiring someone to cut down some trees. I mean, the contractor she hired isn’t legally responsible for accepting the job? The trees are worth $500,000? Where does this number even come from?

The quote that really puts this into perspective, though, is here:

At Tahoe, some have been highly critical of government’s go-tough policies when it comes to cutting trees.

One was Melvin Laub, a Northern Nevada lawyer sued by TRPA in 2002 after he and a neighbor trimmed some pines to improve views, agency officials said.

Laub ultimately settled the case for $7,000 in an arrangement in which he did not admit liability. But before doing so, Laub attacked an agency he said “picked on me” because of his high profile.

Laub also attacked a regulatory approach he described as unnecessarily heavy-handed.

“It’s an offensive thing,” he said at the time. “All I’ve done is trim three small trees.”

Environmentalists counter that land-use regulators at the lake must be aggressive when it comes to anyone harming trees to better their view.

That’s particularly true at a time when some tree-cutting regulations are being relaxed to decrease fire danger around the lake, said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe. One practice is supportable, the other is not, she said.

“What we very much oppose is the removal of healthy trees solely for the purpose of opening up view corridors for homes,” Nason said.

When that occurs, Nason said, the rustic beauty of Tahoe that so many people enjoy is put at risk.

“The whole feel of the area changes,” Nason said. “People come to Tahoe to get away from urbanized areas. They don’t want that scenic beauty lost.”

It’s like the ultimate homeowners association run amok. I shudder to imagine what would happen if somebody painted their house one of the non-approved colors…

(Look, I’d be more sarcastic about this, but I just learned that the cappuccino I got from the gas station is nothing more than flavored water - there was no coffee in there. I’m barely seeing color at this point.)

I’m posting a lot because I called in sick for work today, and I have to kill my day somehow.

Let’s talk global warming.

Rule number one of talking about global warming is:

Don’t openly admit that you think that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

Rule number two of talking about global warming is:

Most people want to live. Consequently, if you start claiming that the Earth would be better off without us, you will be considered a lunatic. This is because nobody will care about the Earth if they’re not here to enjoy it. People care about themselves and their families a lot more than they care about a spheroid with a 25,000 mile diameter that was doing a wonderful job of killing our ancestors off until about 150 years ago.

Rule number three about talking about global warming is:

When humans talk, we exhale carbon dioxide, which is widely considered to be a greenhouse gas. When we travel, we usually travel in vehicles that produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Consequently, attempting to solve global warming by traveling to a set destination to talk about global warming is somewhat akin to attempting to solve unwanted teen pregnancies by sending teenagers to clubs and providing them with free alcohol.

Rule number four about talking about global warming is:

When you start making up random buzzwords to discuss your position, expect marketing departments to latch on to them like a rabid pit bull grabbing a six-year-old’s leg and start making up their own definitions.

Finally, rule number five about talking about global warming is:

No matter what you say, pro or con, somebody is going to argue with you about it.

That is all.

You have a mine site. It’s so dirty that it’s declared a Superfund site. There’s mercury and other heavy elements all over the place, they’re getting in the ground water, they’re getting people sick… clearly, something must be done. So, the EPA steps in and clears away all of the contaminated soil. Good job, right?

Not if you’re a Native American - courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle. According to the article:

For decades, young members of the Elem Pomo tribe have broken out in skin rashes and elders have suffered kidney failure.

The Elem Pomos’ 50-acre reservation is adjacent to the Sulphur Bank Mine, one of the nation’s most polluted sites, and some Pomos believe the tribe’s health problems may be related to the federal government’s use of the mine’s toxic tailings to build reservation roads and house foundation pads 37 years ago.

Last year, after more than a decade of regulatory delays, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaned the contaminated soil and rock from the reservation and stabilized the mine site.

Yet many of the tribe’s 300-plus members are dissatisfied with the $20 million cleanup project, saying the EPA’s excavations may have damaged archaeological sites in violation of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act.

The cleanup removed thousands of cubic yards of toxic waste, improved roads and water systems, provided five new homes and significantly reduced pollution from the mine site. But tribe members say the EPA ignored their demands to modify the work plan, exacerbating the archaeological damage.

Long story short, the EPA cleaned away the dirt that made it where the people would stop getting sick, thus making it possible for them to create new history, but, in the process of doing so, they may have cleared away some archaeological evidence of the tribe’s history… because, well, the open pit mine didn’t do that already. How much does the tribe want in compensation?

Parker said case law suggests a guideline for assessing damage to archaeological sites: $10,000 for every cubic meter of disturbed material.

“By my calculation, that amounts to about $70 million,” he said.

This brings up a wonderful quote from Atlas Shrugged that immediately pops into mind:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” (’Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)

Amusingly, the government is even fighting itself now - is environmentalism more important than preserving some arrowheads? Is the desire to preserve every last vestige of history more important than expediently removing toxic chemicals from your backyard? Which is more important - your past or your future?

I suppose when you have no future, you have to cling to the past.