Where are our farm groups?

[mustardman]

Hydro would be easy for Saskatchewan and Alberta. ...there are many sites to reuse the same water downstream to produce power but the environmentalists won't let a dam be built.

I think buying hydro from Manitoba would be more Cost Effective

[bucket]

Mustard

I agree....but it seems that the water from the mountains could produce 5 times the power cascaded thru the north and south Saskatchewan rivers.


Lakes and power plants rather than flowing it thru without any value.

[mustardman]

Mustard

I agree....but it seems that the water from the mountains could produce 5 times the power cascaded thru the north and south Saskatchewan rivers.


Lakes and power plants rather than flowing it thru without any value.

A few years ago a panel on South Sask River Valley (with one woman From IPCC on it) told a group of us that with climate change the river Flows would become Very inconsistent. little to no sno pack for one thing

[Hamloc]

About a month ago listening to talk radio and they are discussing a recent discovery where C02 can be turned into ethanol,www.energy.gov>articles>scientists-accidentally-turned-C02-into-ethanol. Imagine the market if Canadians could perfect scrubbing C02 from coal plant emissions and then turn that into marketable ethanol. Imagine with all the coal plants in the world what a positive effect this would have on the environment. Then look at what Canada is doing, we're shutting it all down and buying made in China solar panels and bird and bat killers made the USA and Europe. If you had ethanol to sell instead of pumping C02 into the ground it should help the cost of coal generation.

Chuck2 as for your assertion that carbon pricing is the most efficient way to lower carbon, that is true if you let carbon pricing do the work. But Alberta's and the federal government's legislation to shutter coal plants is one example of getting away from letting the tax do the work. If government directs through legislation what changes are made instead of letting the tax and the markets make the choice the cost to consumers is much higher and the tax is much less effective.

[agstar77]

Nikola

Interesting long haul truck, all electric hydrogen fuel cell. Could be the future of ag power units. Nikolaone goes 1200 miles on a fill. Carbon tax money should go towards this type of power for ag.

[tweety]

Stats Can: Realized net farm income rose 9.2% from 2014 to $8.1 billion in 2015, following a 19.1% rise the previous year. The gain in 2015 was the fifth in six years. Add to that insane land value increases.

So in other words, you've been getting raises like a senator and equity increases for years while lots have lost their jobs and line up at food banks, now be happy and celebrate all your wealth while you fly to that warm destination once again for a few months.

Or just keep whining like a school girl. Probably the latter.

[biglentil]

Interesting long haul truck, all electric hydrogen fuel cell. Could be the future of ag power units. Nikolaone goes 1200 miles on a fill. Carbon tax money should go towards this type of power for ag.

They have been saying hydrogen fuel cell tech is 10 years out for 30 years now. Truth is its an inefficient dud. No sense throwing good money after bad.

[Oliver88]

Stats Can: Realized net farm income rose 9.2% from 2014 to $8.1 billion in 2015, following a 19.1% rise the previous year. The gain in 2015 was the fifth in six years. Add to that insane land value increases.

So in other words, you've been getting raises like a senator and equity increases for years while lots have lost their jobs and line up at food banks, now be happy and celebrate all your wealth while you fly to that warm destination once again for a few months.

Or just keep whining like a school girl. Probably the latter.

Why would any industry want to throw away $12/acre of profit that will benefit NOBODY?

[tweety]

Why would any industry want to throw away $12/acre of profit that will benefit NOBODY?

and that's the whole fundamental problem, no one knows what the money will be used for. Nobody!

Try and find it, i dare ya.

Sask here has green fund legislation from 09, but it isn't proclaimed.

We could get all the money back, who knows. Again, nobody. That's the real crime here. Come up with a plan, then implement the tax people can get behind. This is stupid from that standpoint.

[furrowtickler]

Your fight tweety , that's what irks me as well

[Oliver88]

and that's the whole fundamental problem, no one knows what the money will be used for. Nobody!

Try and find it, i dare ya.

Sask here has green fund legislation from 09, but it isn't proclaimed.

We could get all the money back, who knows. Again, nobody. That's the real crime here. Come up with a plan, then implement the tax people can get behind. This is stupid from that standpoint.

The issue is, what will the carbon tax of $50/tonne actually achieve?
What measurable impact will be made other than taxpayers having lighter wallets and lower numbers on their chequing account?

BC has a carbon tax already, their GHG emissions are increasing after implementing the carbon tax.
Australia has deemed their carbon tax a failure and have cancelled it.
Ontario is experiencing increases in their power generation costs after "going green". (Maybe Burnt can fill us in?)

There is no need to pay tax, hire a bureaucracy (which other taxes subsidize) to collect and distribute the same amount of money back to the "favoured" groups if there is no net benefit. This just leads to hiring more government employees who we will have to pay a salary, pension and benefits to.

[Wheatking]

Perhaps this has been done, but I would like to see what our actual carbon emissions are based on actual farming practices, are we carbon neutral, or are we sequestering carbon with zero till. Until we get some basic numbers, how are they to determine what they are going to tax. I say if we are sequestering carbon we should be being paid for it, say $50/tonne.

[grassfarmer]

We could get all the money back, who knows. Again, nobody. That's the real crime here. Come up with a plan, then implement the tax people can get behind. This is stupid from that standpoint.

This is your chance to get involved - Governments are struggling to come up with how to implement a carbon tax. The farm groups chuckchuck mentioned have adopted a position on the carbon tax, if you agree with them get behind them. If you don't get behind some group that holds your views. We all have a voice in a democracy - use it where it will be heard by people in positions of influence. Seems like some of you will have to decide what your views are though - claiming climate change isn't happening and there is no need to do anything and simultaneously arguing that you want to be getting paid for your CO2 sequestration isn't going to fly.

[tweety]

My chance to get involved, no. Its not my job to be the government, its the people we have elected. Like everything in both provincial and federal, your involvement is merely a rubber stamp on what they were going to do anyway.

Except in this case, what they plan on doing isn't even being said.

[grassfarmer]

It's your job to make your views and opinions known to the people we have elected - whether that be a farm organisation, provincial or federal officials. Democracy doesn't just happen on election day, its an ongoing process that we have to work at.
.....Or as you said we can just keep whining like a school girl.