Chuck's Biofuel Strategy??

[chuckChuck]

The Conservatives are about to subsidize the Bio-Fuel industry? I thought Conservatives were opossed to Government subsidies and interference in the market place? If Bio-Fuels are such a good idea then one has to ask why do we need to subsidize them? What's wrong with letting the market decide the future of bio-fuel? Meanwhile, Harper and Strahl are killing the Wheat Board based on the ideological principle that an openmarket should be the mechanism that determines how farmers sell their grain? Ironically Harper and Strahl say they support support supply managed monopoly marketing boards for dairy and poultry farmers? Conservatives must be having an identity crisis over all this confusion.

[FarmRanger]

Is it acting like a Liberal when you subsidize a sector until it becomes viable and contributing to the economy?

The oilsands were "subsidized" for how many years until they became a huge engine in the Alberta and Canadian economy?

I'm not saying biofuel will be anything even remotely as big as oilsands. Potential new industries might need a kickstart from the taxpayer to get started?

[just_wondering]

Farmranger
I believe that biofuels will have a greater effect on farm commodittee prices than the tar sands ever could. It is a function of supplly and demand internationally with govt around the world getting into the green fuels movement the days of oversupply every year are over. If Harper/Strahl get on board to support farm prices this way, then the days of waiting by the mailbox for subsidy cheques are over.
I need policy that alows me to thrive rather than this mentality of the gov't owes me a living.
As a side note these subsidies are designed to be short term to get the industry on its feet.

[Zaphod]

If they are trying to keep up with US subsidies on biofuel, you'd better expect to be in it for the long haul. There is no sign that they will be scaling back any time soon, despite the profits being made in ethanol. If you want to subsidize farming with biofuel, that's fine, but we're fooling ourselves to think that biodiesel is viable on its own unless crude goes back to $75 and stays there.

[charliep]

Likely also need to be cautious about the impact on other sectors. Increasing ethanol will have an impact on the livestock sector. Increased competition for feedgrains is a good thing. If you are subsidizing ethanol production, shouldn't the livestock industry have equal access to support?

I will also note the 2 new crushing plants in Saskatchewan (don't know if both will get built) main target oil market will be human consumption. Vegetable oil is still worth far more than biodiesel.

Finally, I think as farmers everyone needs to be watch the consumer demand side. Demand pull based on environmental issues will move this industry far faster than strictly concentrating on benefits to the farm community. As a question, how many of you would spend a nickel a litre more for bio diesel/ethanol blend than you would for regular farm fuel?

[chuckChuck]

The oil industry has huge had huge subsidies/incentives that have cost taxpayers alot of money. Many jobs in this country are the result of subsidies and incentives that have continued under various governments of all stripes. The US has strong political reasons for subsidizing bio-fuel because they are very vulnerable, being totally dependent upon imported oil. They also have strong political reasons for subsidizing agriculture at a much higher level than we do. Those subsidies will continue as long as farm state votes are dependent upon subsidies. Interestingly Norway is investing almost all government oil revenues outside of the country in an endowment fund that reduces the inflationary effect of the oil boom and will pay dividends for generations down the road. Thanks to King Ralph and company the Alberta model is spend it now and forget about a long term strategy.

[cowman]

chuckchuck: A lot of what you say is true. However...very few fledgling industries get off the ground without some assistance? I would suggest to you that bio fuel serves a deeper purpose than just the "profit and loss" market?
This bio fuel market will never replace the petroleum industry? But it sure as hell could make agriculture more viable in this country? And Lord knows...we sure need something?
It won't replace food production but will remove a lot of the bottom end of product and therefore push up prices? Is that a bad thing?
Hugh Segal stated in his report on the senate that without doing "something", agriculture will cease to exist in this country! Does it make sense to throw a few pennies to save it?
There is a lot of money out there and the environment is becoming a concern for just about anyone who is ALIVE?
Canada needs to step up to the plate, with every other developed nation, and do what they can do? Why not a win-win solution?

[chuckChuck]

Cowman, I agree many sectors need incentives to get going but unless the Conservatives are serious about assisting farmers in building a stake in the industry the benefits may not accrue to farmers. We may see a temporary boost to prices for some grains and oilseeds but it is not clear whether these will be lasting increases or just another flash in the pan. The removal of the Crow was supposed to revolutionize western agriculture but the pork and cattle industries are facing alot of pressure and an uncertain future because of FX rates and increasing feed prices. Prairie governments have also invested heavily with incentives and subsidies to attract investment in livestock. What I find ironic is that it's okay to subsidize grain farmers with a 5% ethanol and 2% bio-diesel regulation but it's not okay to support the Wheat Board's monopoly selling position even when the majority of farmers support it. The Conservatives seem willing to interfere in the marketplace on one hand but are not willing to allow farmers to operate their own marketing board.

[silverback]

Blah, blah

It is not ok for some farmers to force their neighbors to market their grain the same way they think it should be done!

How can it be that we can't decide on the definition of marriage because it would infringe on the rights of a same sex group, but it's ok for the CWB to allow 40-50% of farmers to submit to the will of the balance?

What is it going to be? Either the majority cannot impose it's will on a minority or it can. Pick.

[Lifer]

Is not the biofuel strategy at this time more of a domestic development and use issue.

The Wheat Board is working with a commodity that is primarily export at this time.

[chuckChuck]

SilverBack. Obviously a majority can and does impose on the minority when it comes to economic issues. Economic rights are not protected by the Charter, basic human rights are. Even Harper and Strahl support the supply management monopoly boards for dairy and poultry. Why the special treatment from Strahl and Harper for these Boards and not the Wheat Board? Either they support marketing boards or they don't. Which is it?

[lesm]

chuck chuck. i don't ever recall hearing minister strahl saying that he won't allow you to operate your own marketing board.in fact ,I believe he said he would help you set up a better board for those who wanted it. for the life of me, i can't figure out why you pro board people are so adament about forcing your ideologies upon me.is it the fear that i may make more money than you? or what? please explain so as i could sleep better at nites.

[chuckChuck]

lesm. A wheat board without a monopoly is useless. No elevators and no terminals and having to rely on competitors in an open market to handle the grain with no guaranteed supply?? Please explain how this might work because even the Strahl friendly Task Force put the idea of a dual market to rest. It is either an open market or the CWB monopoly. Choose one but not both. Trying to pretend that anything close to what the CWB offers now will be available under an open market scenario is unrealistic. As far as imposing an ideology, that is exactly what Chuck Strahl is doing against the choice of the majority. If you hadn't noticed, 60% of farmers voted in favour of single desk Wheat Board directors. 8 out of 10 elected directors currently support the single desk. You either believe in democracy or you don't.

[silverback]

How do the grain brokers, who have no elevators, railroads, or guaranteed supply, survive to feed their children Chuck?

They provide a service of marketing - for a fee. Mine charges $.05. Sometimes they have a good price, sometimes they don't. I get to choose if they sell it for me. Pretty hard to figure out. What do you think the board has been doing for seventy years? They had that long to come up with a better way to do things other than forced pooling and they didn't.

Does the Ontario Wheat Board operate their own elevator system? Their own milling system? Their own railway? What about Australia? They ran a real clean ship hey?

Don't tell me that it is ok to stomp my "economic" freedom into the ground just so your communist ideology can survive. What I grow on my land is just that - mine, and I should never be forced to mix it with yours or anyone else's unless I choose to do that. If the product you produce is not good enough without needing help from your neighbors then I am really sorry.

If the CWB cannot cope with allowing producers to use their brokering service , or not, then I am sure someone else will step up and do it for them. Let's open the books and find out how good they are doing.

[AdamSmith]

Actually chuck, 30% voted in favour of the single desk candidates for director, 20% voted for other candidates for director, and 50% shrugged their shoulders and said "whatever".
--------------------------------------
The following are some great Thomas Jefferson Quotes,

They all aptly apply to the CWB, and the debate surrounding it.

Read and enjoy


A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Agriculture, manufacturers, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are then most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.