Our Pm has a plan and its a Bad Bad Plan!

[checking]

24/7 gasfarmer's emissions are methane belching and CO2 farting.

His business is spreading BS, but he will not admit his income is derived from the greenhouse gas positive producer category.

[Oliver88]

THE LIBERALS JUST FLEW 225 DELEGATES TO MOROCCO TO DISCUSS THE WEATHER. NOW WHAT WILL THE CARBON FOOTPRINT BE AT THIS CONFERENCE??
We can't use Skype for these meetings I guess. 😂


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-when-225-canadians-jet-to-morocco-to-fight-climate-change-they-emit-clouds-of-hypocrisy


In a gratuitously spectacular display of counterproductive hypocrisy, an anticipated 225 Canadians will jet to Morocco to denounce the use of fossil fuels.
Canada’s catalogue of participants is so large it takes up the better part of eight pages in the United Nations list of attendees. Australia’s delegation can fit on two pages, as can China’s, which has 38 times Canada’s population and immensely greater emissions issues to deal with. France, which hosted last year’s conference, has five pages of names. While some Canadian delegates are footing their own bills, federal, provincial and municipal governments will pay the lion’s share of costs.
The bloated size of the crowd extends a tradition started last year, when 335 Canadians attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is not attending the follow-up event in Marrakech. It may be that that gathering was worth attending, as it supposedly set out a bold new direction for combating man-made climate change and signalled a global commitment to take decisive action. Optics aside, they weren’t there to do serious work.
The details of a major international agreement, on climate change or anything else, are too complex to be solved in 10 days. The hard work is done well ahead of time, to avoid embarrassing national leaders in front of the cameras, either by problems that have not been resolved or because in the warm glow of the moment they make promises that contradict official policy or ignore the limits of the politically or physically possible.
The real issues are best solved by small gatherings of major players and senior aides. In the globalized era of the Internet, expertise can quickly be obtained by phone, email or live chat, a consideration that should have been front and centre given delegates’ professed concern about mankind’s “carbon footprint”.
The Marrakech summit is intended as a follow-up to last year’s meeting, to begin to “operationalize” the Paris accord. Does that really require the presence of a small army of bureaucrats, activists, provincial and municipal representatives and security personnel, not to mention labour bosses from Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers?
If these people are seized by the crucial matter of climate change, why are they not doing the hard unglamorous work of implementation, drinking bad coffee under depressing fluorescent lights in offices back in Canada?
We have seen grandiose pledges of environmental action at previous conferences going back to “Rio” (the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro) in 1992 and “Kyoto” in 1997. But governments, including our own, have consistently failed to deliver, and it is not a service to the Earth or taxpayers to pile new pledges on the heap instead of grinding out practical action plans at home. Especially given the self-indulgent atmosphere of UN conferences, which bear a greater resemblance to glittery film festivals than a grim struggle to save the planet. Why is it they always seem to occur in glamorous tourist destinations like Paris or Marrakech rather than, say, Birmingham or Lille?
To be sure, the $1 million Canada’s government spent on Paris, including $130,000 for meals and $350,000 for hotels, is a drop in the $300 billion bucket of federal spending, even if it’s a worrying reminder of the disconnect between the public and private sectors, and the gap separating the privileged class from the rest of us, who lack the opportunity to blow thousands of dollars of someone else’s cash on a jaunt to Morocco. But the hypocrisy cuts deeper here.
Nobody, except, oddly, the participants, could overlook the damage to the planet caused by hordes of hangers-on jetting across oceans and continents to preach restraint. It is just too easy for critics to jeer at this hypocrisy as proof that the alarmists don’t really take global warming seriously. Why would any working Canadian leave their car at home and crowd onto a bus for the bleak commute through a wintery morning, knowing environmental evangelists think it’s fine to fly 255 Canadians to Morocco for a week in the sun?
Donald Trump was elected president because of disgust at displays like this. Next time, send 20 people. Practise what you preach.

National Post

[grassfarmer]

And you're doing that without generating any carbon emissions? Please share.

No absolutely not - not zero emission but we try to be as low as we can make them. We have work to do also in this regard, its an ongoing process.

[stonepicker]

No, we're turning 3% or 4% OM to 6% or 7% OM - no one is doing that with conventional (crop) farming.
You can't buy OM at the input dealers, only things that further deplete it. Watched a video tonight of a guy in Georgia that turned 0.5% OM to 5% in 15 years. That's the future and it's addressing climate change in the process.
You are not going to beat mother nature so the sooner to try working with her instead the easier everything becomes.

Got my soil tests back the other week. Organic matter in my fields range from 4.4%-7.3%. I would say that's pretty darn good by your standards. P.S. i farm conventionly, cultivation, spraying, etc. A person doesn't need to no-till to improve the land. Contrary to what you say, i guess some farmers are doing that with conventional farming.

[grassfarmer]

Got my soil tests back the other week. Organic matter in my fields range from 4.4%-7.3%. I would say that's pretty darn good by your standards. P.S. i farm conventionly, cultivation, spraying, etc. A person doesn't need to no-till to improve the land. Contrary to what you say, i guess some farmers are doing that with conventional farming.

Good for you Stonepicker, those are decent figures. Meaningless though posting one set of figures - have you soil tests from 10 years ago to compare them to? are you gaining or losing OM, are you improving the land?
I think it would be fair to say OM levels pre settlement on the prairies would be around 10 on average but obviously varied from location to location. How high can we go? we had one small piece of pasture in AB that was a huge producer of forage - soil tested it to find OM of 15.9%, N was 139lb, P >120lb, K >1200lb. That tells me there is huge potential to improve things on the average soil.

[tweety]

No absolutely not - not zero emission but we try to be as low as we can make them. We have work to do also in this regard, its an ongoing process.

So you have no answers then. Awesome. Just when i had my hopes up you were doing something special. So in the mean time i'll farm just like in the USA except i pay more for it for no reason or benefit whatsoever.

BTW, it doesn't take a carbon tax to become more efficient. Good farmers do that anyways.

[checking]

Do you get the feeling, stonepicker, that the only improvements that have merit are the ones indulged in on gasfarmer's ranch?

It must be a terrible worry to realize that all that effort to improve OM on a ranch in Alberta is now under the ownership of a lesser rancher. Or perhaps he could look at it like this:

Building company products are engineered to meet present day code standards. The minimal structural design to maintain its form and function is all that is required. ie. the snow load of your area will not collapse this roof.

Individuals, not being structural engineers, may multiple times exceed such standards. No problem for an individual with deep pockets, or a gasfarmer, but it is a critical offence if an engineer were to do it, and take down a company.

No, stike that. It couldn't happen in agriculture.

[stonepicker]

Do you get the feeling, stonepicker, that the only improvements that have merit are the ones indulged in on gasfarmer's ranch?

It must be a terrible worry to realize that all that effort to improve OM on a ranch in Alberta is now under the ownership of a lesser rancher. Or perhaps he could look at it like this:

Building company products are engineered to meet present day code standards. The minimal structural design to maintain its form and function is all that is required. ie. the snow load of your area will not collapse this roof.

Individuals, not being structural engineers, may multiple times exceed such standards. No problem for an individual with deep pockets, or a gasfarmer, but it is a critical offence if an engineer were to do it, and take down a company.

No, stike that. It couldn't happen in agriculture.

Yep i agree.

[seabass]

Those are the comments of someone who lives in lala land. Just keep telling yourself the same thing and it will come true Grass. Koo koo

[grassfarmer]

Those are the comments of someone who lives in lala land. Just keep telling yourself the same thing and it will come true Grass. Koo koo

Those last 3 from tweety, checking and stonepicker? I agree. Really scraping the barrel for ridiculous replies. But which comments of mine were koo koo seabass? the fact you can increase OM? the fact that raising OM is a desirable thing?

[tweety]

Its only worth mentioning grassy if you're creating carbon by not emitting more carbon. Otherwise you're the problem just like the rest of us. Only difference is we know we're not sustainable. Ag today is not in any way sustainable.

[grassfarmer]

Its only worth mentioning grassy if you're creating carbon by not emitting more carbon. Otherwise you're the problem just like the rest of us. Only difference is we know we're not sustainable. Ag today is not in any way sustainable.

It's worth mentioning if your farm can sequester more than it emits, then you are part of the solution not the problem. I agree with your comment that most ag today is not in any way sustainable - that's why we need to change.

[tweety]

You in no way, not even close do that. So here we are full circle grassy, while i may pay my carbon tax, and since i have no other ways to reduce carbon, out of ideas, pushed as far as possible, i'm not reducing carbon. I'm just less competitive against those that have thought this through.

Show me a single news link that says what will happen with the carbon tax proceeds. anything at all.

[grassfarmer]

You in no way, not even close do that. So here we are full circle grassy, while i may pay my carbon tax, and since i have no other ways to reduce carbon, out of ideas, pushed as far as possible, i'm not reducing carbon. I'm just less competitive against those that have thought this through.

Show me a single news link that says what will happen with the carbon tax proceeds. anything at all.

How do you know the numbers for my farm tweety? you don't. The figures out of SK that show 17-39kgs of CO2 sequestered for every kg emitted by the cattle are encouraging.
The objective is not to reduce carbon, its to increase carbon in the soil, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Have you thought of growing more of your own N through legumes incorporated in your rotations? Factory N production is a huge source of CO2 emissions.
I posted some suggestions that are circulating as to how the carbon tax may be implemented and the proceeds used a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem firm decisions have been made by Governments on this yet - this is the chance to be involved in influencing these decisions.We've all got a voice.

[seabass]

U talk like your the only jesus christ superstar that can increase organic matter in a koombaya world. Wake up man there a plenty of people I know that grain farm conventionally that are holding the O.M. or increasing it with big crops. Feeding alot more people than some hocus pocus method your playing around with. What the hell would u want 15% O.M for any way. Sounds like pure shit for dirt. My old manure piles are like that. Try and grow alfalfa in that and it wont do so good.