NFU joins carbon tax fight

[westernvicki]

Canada is a resource based exporting nation, when our main competitors buy in, and pay a carbon tax, in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, (and the smaller FSU nations gaining momentum). Australia, Brazil, Argentina and USA, and the table is level let us buy in, but not a tonne before.

Besides that Western Canadian farmers engage the sustainable practice for decades with reduced tillage, we use equipment which now comes with pollution controls, practice integrated production technology to grow the most units per acre, while sequestering carbon, how will a carbon tax encourage us to do better.

If we drive a gas burner car, we can buy a hybrid. We can move to a smaller home, we can buy less consumables as individuals to reduce our footprint. But what can we do in Ag to reduce our carbon footprint, pray tell? If there is a model, other than stopping planting, we should know: perennial wheat not invented. And, grazing will not work because that is beef and indeed the greens would say this is bad, beef is bad but alas dairy (high intensive dairy farms) are well worth defending. It seems necessary to ask, what is the road map, to green that a carbon tax will bring.

Surely the wise folk can tell us: Chuck Chuck? Anyone? Give me the map.

I like solutions, in ag we all seek them everyday, all the time but alas this is confusing, in today's competitive global market, the last thing we need is more tax, we have done our part and if we had a nation with a view of the future, then ag would have a full exemption not just fuel, and if a carbon tax, why are we not insisting on offsetting carbon tax credits?

Farm income dropped this year, & next year the carbon tax will take another bite. Its a risky business, made even riskier by made in Canada by a policy of increased taxation.

[westernvicki]

BTW who is the NDP?

Even Rachel must be asking.

[Oliver88]

Now the climate alarmist minister is using NFU quotes to promote their carbon tax.
Bunch of NDP backstabbers......

[Daylate]

NFU... never heard of it.

[chuckChuck]

Why are Canada’s oil patch CEOs changing their minds on carbon pricing?
Chris Turner
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published December 4, 2018
Updated 3 hours ago

If you’re used to hearing greenhouse gas pricing programs described as a “job-killing carbon tax," then it might surprise you to discover that the Business Council of Canada, whose members provide almost two million Canadians with jobs, was unqualified in its support for the federal government’s carbon price backstop when it was unveiled in October. “For many years,” the council announced in a press release, “we have advocated for carbon pricing as the most efficient means to contribute to achieving Canada’s climate change goals.”

Like many supporters of carbon pricing, the Business Council doesn't pick a favourite between the two most common approaches in Canada—a straight carbon tax like British Columbia's, which levies a flat rate by the tonne to all carbon dioxide emissions; or a cap-and-trade system like the one Quebec has joined. The Business Council simply accepts the argument made by many energy economists that putting a price on carbon is the most efficient first step in reducing emissions.

This enthusiastic support for carbon pricing—and action on climate change in general—echoes that of the business sector most often targeted by environmentalists as the country's greatest climate villain: the oil sands industry. Indeed, the Business Council's endorsement was a bit tepid by comparison.

Perhaps in part because they have been targets in the climate change debate for so long, oil sands executives have become some of the most vehement business voices in favour of emissions-reducing mechanisms such as carbon pricing. CEOs from several major oil sands producers crowded the podium in Edmonton back in 2015 when Alberta Premier Rachel Notley rolled out her carbon-pricing climate plan. At the biannual Globe conference in Vancouver—among the biggest events on the calendar for Canada's growing cleantech sector—oil sands execs are as common a sight as electric cars on the trade show floor; this year's instalment of the conference featured Shell Canada country chair Michael Crothers on the marquee opening panel, discussing clean energy policy alongside green power advocates and climate scientists.

Suncor CEO Steve Williams, meanwhile, has emerged as one of the most ardent critics of climate-policy foot-dragging you’ll find anywhere. “It is a matter of profound disappointment to me,” Williams told a Calgary crowd recently, “that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership—why the science of the left wing is different than the science of the right wing.” You could be forgiven for thinking he was directing his ire at opponents of his industry, but his actual target was the political right and its refusal to give a fair hearing to economists arguing that carbon pricing represents the most efficient way to take action. It was, in essence, an established oil sands CEO dressing down his most vocal boosters—telling them it’s time to get with the program on climate change.

This is where a decade at the roiling centre of the global debate about climate change has brought Canada’s oil sands industry. It might be tempting to dismiss it all as a cynical airbrushing of the industry’s corporate image while the oil patch continues to reap profits from pushing Canada’s emissions steadily higher—and certainly there’s some of that going on. (Oil sands emissions are up from 8% to 9% of Canada’s total since 2009, although emissions per barrel are down by more than 20%.) But there’s a deeper lesson here—one that the oil sands learned the hard way, by spending more than a decade as an international symbol of environmental destruction. And it’s a lesson that every executive boardroom in Canada would do well to heed.

That lesson is that climate change is not another environmental issue alongside the rest. It is an emerging catastrophe affecting every aspect of human society—which by extension will have consequences for nearly every business in any sector. Climate change won’t be contained, and it’s no longer enough to delegate it to the corporate social responsibility department or give it passing lip service in a sustainability report. It’s a C-suite issue, a bottom-line question. Those businesses it hasn’t hit yet should count themselves lucky—there’s still a chance to get out ahead of the issue before they wind up, as the oil sands has, the subject of damning headlines.

This is a lesson that extends far beyond public image. Oil sands companies have embraced the need to act on climate change not because it might make them look better, but because the risk of not acting has proven to be so great—a fact made clear to the industry almost daily since the name “Keystone XL” first hit the international political radar. Oil sands companies know they have no viable future unless they can find a way to be welcome and profitable in a low-carbon economy.

The other critical lesson oil sands companies have learned is that there is opportunity in taking action. For many, this has meant obsessive efficiency improvements. By consuming less fossil fuel in the digging and processing of bitumen, they have cut costs and boosted profits, even as they’ve shrunk the carbon footprint of each barrel of oil. It’s mainly a question of competitiveness, but also an opportunity to develop pollution-reducing technologies that may one day be of enormous value in the marketplace. For the business world beyond the oil sands, the opportunities are even greater. Building the infrastructure of a low-carbon world is already a multitrillion-dollar project, and it is growing bigger all the time. The rest of this century belongs to the companies—and economies—that corner this market.

It still might be possible to mint political capital by fear-mongering about the cost of taking climate change action, but there’s less financial capital to be made every day. The smart money’s in embracing it—just ask an oil sands executive.

[SASKFARMER3]

The answer is real simple chuck like you there not.

[chuckChuck]

Canada is a resource based exporting nation, when our main competitors buy in, and pay a carbon tax, in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, (and the smaller FSU nations gaining momentum). Australia, Brazil, Argentina and USA, and the table is level let us buy in, but not a tonne before.

Besides that Western Canadian farmers engage the sustainable practice for decades with reduced tillage, we use equipment which now comes with pollution controls, practice integrated production technology to grow the most units per acre, while sequestering carbon, how will a carbon tax encourage us to do better.

If we drive a gas burner car, we can buy a hybrid. We can move to a smaller home, we can buy less consumables as individuals to reduce our footprint. But what can we do in Ag to reduce our carbon footprint, pray tell? If there is a model, other than stopping planting, we should know: perennial wheat not invented. And, grazing will not work because that is beef and indeed the greens would say this is bad, beef is bad but alas dairy (high intensive dairy farms) are well worth defending. It seems necessary to ask, what is the road map, to green that a carbon tax will bring.

Surely the wise folk can tell us: Chuck Chuck? Anyone? Give me the map.

I like solutions, in ag we all seek them everyday, all the time but alas this is confusing, in today's competitive global market, the last thing we need is more tax, we have done our part and if we had a nation with a view of the future, then ag would have a full exemption not just fuel, and if a carbon tax, why are we not insisting on offsetting carbon tax credits?

Farm income dropped this year, & next year the carbon tax will take another bite. Its a risky business, made even riskier by made in Canada by a policy of increased taxation.

Taxation is not the reason farmers are not making money. This site is full of complaints about low prices and marketing issues. It is also full of complaints about the high cost of inputs. This is what happens when you let the input and marketing sector dominate agriculture at the expense of farmers.

The seed and chemical companies are making sure that the cost of seed will go up. They're excuse is we need to invest more. The real reason is they want to make more profit.

It's hard to get innovation when agronomic improvements that could reduce input costs never get researched because there is no profit for input suppliers.

The chemical companies are not interested in intercropping research that reduces the need for fungicides. Derek Axten and Colin Rosengren have developed intercropping that does just that.

To assume that agriculture has reached its peak of efficiency and innovation is wrong. There is more that can be done. Autonomous diesel electric prototype systems to handle seeding etc. are already here. The next generation may be fuel cell electric. Most manufacturers have been working on this already.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Taxation is not the reason farmers are not making money. This site is full of complaints about low prices and marketing issues. It is also full of complaints about the high cost of inputs. This is what happens when you let the input and marketing sector dominate agriculture at the expense of farmers.

The seed and chemical companies are making sure that the cost of seed will go up. They're excuse is we need to invest more. The real reason is they want to make more profit.

It's hard to get innovation when agronomic improvements that could reduce input costs never get researched because there is no profit for input suppliers.

The chemical companies are not interested in intercropping research that reduces the need for fungicides. Derek Axten and Colin Rosengren have developed intercropping that does just that.

To assume that agriculture has reached its peak of efficiency and innovation is wrong. There is more that can be done. Autonomous diesel electric prototype systems to handle seeding etc. are already here. The next generation may be fuel cell electric. Most manufacturers have been working on this already.

And how would either of those technologies reduce emissions of your dreaded CO2? I'm sure you believe all the hype and believe that fuel cells are a form of energy generation, and that electricity all comes from green sources.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And the reason why oil CEO's are jumping on the CO2 bandwagon, is the myth called social license. Same way the Alberta NDP gutted our economy in the name of social license, because that was the only thing stopping pipelines. Trouble is, the lack of support for pipelines had nothing to do with social license and everything to do with money from those who stand to gain by us not exporting, so no amount of social license is going to rectify that, as should be obvious by now and the complete lack of progress or support in spite of all of the virtue signalling Alberta has done.

[wd9]

The chemical companies are not interested in intercropping research that reduces the need for fungicides. Derek Axten and Colin Rosengren have developed intercropping that does just that.

The latest foolish religion. Regen and intercropping.