Prof downplays carbon tax’s farm impact

[chuckChuck]

https://www.producer.com/2018/11/prof-downplays-carbon-taxs-farm-impact/

Prof downplays carbon tax’s farm impact
By Karen Briere FOLLOW
Published: November 15, 2018

Tristan Skolrud says the ag sector contributes about 10 percent to national emissions and the vast majority of that is not carbon dioxide from fuel — it’s nitrous oxide and methane. “And all of those emissions are exempt under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”


U of S researcher says most agricultural emissions are nitrous oxide and methane, which are exempt from the new tax

Farmers are worrying more about the carbon tax than they should, says an agricultural economist, especially since they get a huge exemption that isn’t often discussed.

Tristan Skolrud from the University of Saskatchewan has been studying the issue for a couple of years and said farmers are right to be concerned about carbon, but they tend to overlook nitrous oxide and methane.

“The ag sector contributes about 10 percent to national emissions and the vast majority of that is not carbon dioxide from fuel — it’s nitrous oxide and methane,” he said.

“And all of those emissions are exempt under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”

Other industries also emit nitrous oxide and methane, but agricultural emissions are huge, he said.

“I’ve been working on designing an offset program that would allow farmers to get credit for the reductions they would take in nitrous oxide and methane emissions,” Skolrud said.

Farm groups have come out against the carbon tax, and opposition heightened after the federal announcement of a carbon-pricing plan for four provinces, including Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Farmers said they will have to pay the carbon tax on fertilizer production, off-farm trucking and rail transportation.

But Skolrud said there actually shouldn’t be a lot of impacts from fertilizer production.

“Most of the fertilizer production in Canada is going to be covered under output based pricing, so it’s not like the full carbon cost of production of fertilizer is going to be, first of all, incurred by the fertilizer producer and, second of all, passed on to the farmer,” Skolrud said.

“Each province has exemptions for the industries that produce a lot of emissions, and fertilizer production is definitely one of those.”

It’s difficult to calculate the impact of the tax at the railroad level because the railways will have to adjust as they go through each jurisdiction, he said.

Costs will be higher for off-farm trucking and, in a year like this, propane and natural gas to dry grain.

Skolrud said he doesn’t see the latter two fuels ever being added to the list of exemptions. Some farm organizations have asked for that.

Farmers also raise the fact that they should get credit for the carbon they sequester. Skolrud said the amount still pales in comparison to the amount of the other greenhouse gases emitted.

“It’s difficult to say, ‘we want credit for this,’ but ignore this other part.”

Canada has pledged under the Paris agreement to reduce emissions, and Skolrud said economists agree the carbon tax is the most efficient way to do that regardless of how much carbon dioxide has been sequestered elsewhere.

He is examining the least cost way to reduce emissions going forward. A well-designed offset program would be one way to do that, he added.

[TASFarms]

Tier 4 lowers nitrous oxide down to sweet tweet.
What to locomotives use for emission? Probably not much

[fjlip]

Great idea...shoot ourselves and accomplish NOTHING globally!

[macdon02]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-02/france-chaos-macron-considers-state-emergency-amid-yellow-jacket-protests-all

Higher fuel taxes seem to be going well in France .....

[chuckChuck]

Where is the scientific evidence that Canada is absorbing 20-30% more carbon than we emit?

For thousands of years the carbon cycle was more or less in equilibrium, a fancy word for emissions were equal to absorption. Forests, grasslands, and crops capture carbon but also release it through fires and decomposition.

Several things have changed. Landscape usage because of agriculture and deforestation and large amounts of ancient carbon being released through the burning of fossil fuels.

The natural carbon cycle doesn't stop cycling so where is this increased absorption capacity coming from?

[furrowtickler]

https://www.producer.com/2018/11/prof-downplays-carbon-taxs-farm-impact/

Prof downplays carbon tax’s farm impact
By Karen Briere FOLLOW
Published: November 15, 2018

Tristan Skolrud says the ag sector contributes about 10 percent to national emissions and the vast majority of that is not carbon dioxide from fuel — it’s nitrous oxide and methane. “And all of those emissions are exempt under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”


U of S researcher says most agricultural emissions are nitrous oxide and methane, which are exempt from the new tax

Farmers are worrying more about the carbon tax than they should, says an agricultural economist, especially since they get a huge exemption that isn’t often discussed.

Tristan Skolrud from the University of Saskatchewan has been studying the issue for a couple of years and said farmers are right to be concerned about carbon, but they tend to overlook nitrous oxide and methane.

“The ag sector contributes about 10 percent to national emissions and the vast majority of that is not carbon dioxide from fuel — it’s nitrous oxide and methane,” he said.

“And all of those emissions are exempt under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”

Other industries also emit nitrous oxide and methane, but agricultural emissions are huge, he said.

“I’ve been working on designing an offset program that would allow farmers to get credit for the reductions they would take in nitrous oxide and methane emissions,” Skolrud said.

Farm groups have come out against the carbon tax, and opposition heightened after the federal announcement of a carbon-pricing plan for four provinces, including Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Farmers said they will have to pay the carbon tax on fertilizer production, off-farm trucking and rail transportation.

But Skolrud said there actually shouldn’t be a lot of impacts from fertilizer production.

“Most of the fertilizer production in Canada is going to be covered under output based pricing, so it’s not like the full carbon cost of production of fertilizer is going to be, first of all, incurred by the fertilizer producer and, second of all, passed on to the farmer,” Skolrud said.

“Each province has exemptions for the industries that produce a lot of emissions, and fertilizer production is definitely one of those.”

It’s difficult to calculate the impact of the tax at the railroad level because the railways will have to adjust as they go through each jurisdiction, he said.

Costs will be higher for off-farm trucking and, in a year like this, propane and natural gas to dry grain.

Skolrud said he doesn’t see the latter two fuels ever being added to the list of exemptions. Some farm organizations have asked for that.

Farmers also raise the fact that they should get credit for the carbon they sequester. Skolrud said the amount still pales in comparison to the amount of the other greenhouse gases emitted.

“It’s difficult to say, ‘we want credit for this,’ but ignore this other part.”

Canada has pledged under the Paris agreement to reduce emissions, and Skolrud said economists agree the carbon tax is the most efficient way to do that regardless of how much carbon dioxide has been sequestered elsewhere.

He is examining the least cost way to reduce emissions going forward. A well-designed offset program would be one way to do that, he added.

So how do we emit huge amounts of nitrous oxide and methane ?? Where / what are the numbers ?

[chuckChuck]

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/climate-change-and-agriculture/greenhouse-gases/measuring-emissions/?id=1329321977257

"In 2009, Canada produced 690 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents (Mt CO2e) from all sources, mostly as CO2 from energy use. Agriculture accounted for about eight per cent of these emissions (56 Mt CO2e), largely as CH4 (about two-thirds) and N2O (about one-third). This value does not include emissions from energy use; if these are counted, then agriculture accounts for roughly 10 per cent of Canada's emissions.

As mentioned, farm soils remove substantial CO2 from the air when soils gain carbon under improved practices (about 12 Mt CO2e were removed in 2009). In fact, Canadian croplands have been a net sink for CO2 starting in about 1990. However, until recently the removals on croplands were offset by carbon losses from forests and grasslands recently converted to cropland. It is only since about 2000 that agricultural lands have been a net sink for CO2 when land use change is taken into account.

The annual total GHG emissions from farms in Canada have increased from 1990 to 2009 (See Figure below). The main driver is the increase in the beef and swine populations, although they have stabilized in recent years.

Since 2005, emissions from the agriculture sector have stabilized. Declines in emissions from livestock production are being offset by increases in emissions from crop production.

In 2009, a continued reduction in emissions from livestock production and a reduction in emissions from crop production resulted in an apparent decrease in emissions. However, this reduction may be insignificant in relation to inter-annual variability or climate variability from year to year.

Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions and removals from 1990 to 2009 for Canadian agriculture"

[fjlip]

Climatards need to PROVE nothing, just spew lies and the word SCIENTIFIC, and we all must bow down and kiss their feet!
insignificant in relation to inter-annual variability or climate variability from year to year.

Key word variability, random, chaos, ever changing, totally unpredictable just like 5 day forecasts...but believe them for 30-50-100 year forecasts! See how stupid that sounds? Use common sense, not blindly following a religion with an agenda!

[chuckChuck]

Interesting graph.

[chuckChuck]

Climatards need to PROVE nothing, just spew lies and the word SCIENTIFIC, and we all must bow down and kiss their feet!

Why don't you just bugger off with your obnoxious posts with no substance. If you don't have anything intelligent to add, find another site to spew your vomit.

[SASKFARMER3]

Chuck that report is so full of shit its not even funny.

This whole shit show is a joke.

[fjlip]

Truth hurts..