Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall stands alone against federal carbon-pricing plan

[chuckChuck]

Parsley this thread is about a carbon price and brad wall. Stick to the discussion. Find another thread if you want to go on about Merkel, immigration, etc.

The numbers you requested are in the link above. Get your pencil out!

Where is your answer on Brad Wall and 50% renewables by 2030? Still waiting! Are you going to avoid it for ever?

[chuckChuck]

Furrow it is obvious that agriculture will need more time to adjust. No one is suggesting a huge quick changeover in agriculture.

But we can be much more efficient with our resource use, whether it be with crop rotations, nitrogen fertilizers, fuel, or electricity. Higher prices will drive change and efficiency. Agriculture will be come more efficient. Technology will change as it becomes available.

The biggest changes will apply to consumers. Renewable electricity. Electric cars. Fuel Cells. Did you know Toyota says it will be emission free by 2050 with its production and all its vehicles using hydrogen fuel cells. That is hard to believe, but if they come anywhere close it is a game changer to be sure.

There will still be a need for fossil energy in many industries for a long while.

[chuckChuck]

COMPARISON OF ELECTRICITY PRICES
IN MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN CITIES
http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/docs/comparaison-electricity-prices/comp_2015_en.pdf

You will note that in all the complaining about Ontario electricity prices it looks like Regina, Ottawa, Toronto residential prices were about the same between 14-15 cents per kwh in 2015.

The problem in Rural Ontario is that they charge very high delivery charges which drives up rural costs. This was a mistake and should have been corrected with averaging out the costs of delivery for all residents.

[parsley]

Parsley this thread is about a carbon price and brad wall. Stick to the discussion. Find another thread if you want to go on about Merkel, immigration, etc.

The numbers you requested are in the link above. Get your pencil out!

Where is your answer on Brad Wall and 50% renewables by 2030? Still waiting! Are you going to avoid it for ever?

Carbon pricing is a direct offshoot from climate change.

Canada cannot afford to embrace climate change taxes or replace oil with new, untested, unrefined sources of energy.

We are already an overly-indebted nation.

I'll leave you with that thought for a few days. It seems to take people awhile to absorb, "We can't afford it". After all, it's 2016.

Parsley.

[checking]

Do as I say, not as I do.

You are not a hypocrite, are you chuckChuck?

Promoters/leaders are ahead of the curve. Your expertise appears to be dovetailing agriculture with reduced GHG emitting technologies. I think that should require your on farm test.

Care to share your reduced carbon footprint that causes you to believe your posted years to decades energy shifts?

[chuckChuck]

Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems

J.W. Hoeppner (a1), M.H. Entz (a1), B.G. McConkey (a2), R.P. Zentner (a2) ...
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/RAF2005118
Published online: 01 February 2007

Abstract

A goal in sustainable agriculture is to use fossil fuel energy more efficiently in crop production. This 12-year study investigated effects of two crop rotations and two crop production systems (organic versus conventional management) on energy use, energy output and energy-use efficiency. The grain-based rotation included wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–pea (Pisum sativum L.)–wheat–flax (Linum usitatissimum L.), while the integrated rotation included wheat–alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)–alfalfa–flax. Energy use was 50% lower with organic than with conventional management, and approximately 40% lower with integrated than with the grain-based rotation. Energy use across all treatments averaged 3420 MJ ha−1 yr−1. Energy output (grain and alfalfa herbage only) across treatments averaged 49,947 MJ ha−1 yr−1 and was affected independently by production system and crop rotation. Energy output in the integrated rotation was three times that of the grain-based rotation; however, this difference was largely due to differences in crop type (whole plant alfalfa compared with grain seed). Energy output was 30% lower with organic than with conventional management. Energy efficiency (output energy/input energy) averaged to 17.4 and was highest in the organic and integrated rotations. A significant rotation by production system interaction (P<0.05) indicated that energy efficiency increases due to crop input reduction (i.e., shift from conventional to organic management) were greater in the integrated than in the grain-based rotation. Greater energy efficiency in the integrated rotation under organic management was attributed to the fact that the forage component was less sensitive to chemical input removal than grain crops.

[furrowtickler]

Reminds me of all the facts presented of Iraq having WMD's , or the MSM stating all the polls had Hillary ahead by miles....
All B/S based on some deeper agenda.

[checking]

Goodness me, chuckChuck.

Nothing current.

I mean this is like comparing encyclopedia technology to the internet, and we know which one won out.

I take from this that you are in no way against the use of fossil fuels, only that they be used efficiently on our farms. I see all hands go up.

If you are messaging that organics is the only efficient use, then you've been consuming too many alfalfa sprouts!

[chuckChuck]

2007 is relatively current research. Unless your eyesight is failing and you read 1907?

Most of your current farming is based on older research results.

If you have a counter argument present it. Lets see the science that you use to base your enlightened views on.

Or you seem to prefer personal attacks which is usually an indicator that you have little to add to the discussion.

[checking]

Testy, testy. Don't get your tit in a knot, chuckChuck.

Here I was being civil with your old study because it would have taken two years to compile, evaluate, and then publish 1993 to 2005 data. It is old and out of date by anyone's standard (including Statistics Canada).

Go back to your bowl of sprouts, or answer my original query, properly, not some irrelevant study pulled out of your encylopedia.

[parsley]

Testy, testy. Don't get your tit in a knot, chuckChuck.

Here I was being civil with your old study because it would have taken two years to compile, evaluate, and then publish 1993 to 2005 data. It is old and out of date by anyone's standard (including Statistics Canada).

Go back to your bowl of sprouts, or answer my original query, properly, not some irrelevant study pulled out of your encylopedia.

Ouch.

[chuckChuck]

Parsley why aren't you standing up for organic farming? He is taking a chunk out of all your hardwork! LOL

Checking is checking his facts and you are egging him on?

Checking already has made up his mind about just about everything, so there is not much use in presenting fresh or dated evidence as it won't do anything to change his mind anyway.

Oh well,might as well sip my organic latte and go back to reading Das Kapital under my off grid LED lights.