Prof downplays carbon tax’s farm impact

[SASKFARMER3]

Grass your funny. Bragging you purchased a tractor cash!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Good for you.

[sumdumguy]

Interesting graph.
[ATTACH]3692[/ATTACH]

Who the f can’t make a fictional “graph” like that Idiotchuck? Get lost!

[bucket]

Right answer but wrong reasons. Besides there not being the kind of money in cattle production to justify purchase of $200,000 tractors I also realize that the embodied emissions taken to produce a new tractor typically rival the exhaust emissions over its entire lifetime. For that reason, with our low usage, it is more environmentally friendly to stick with the one already in existence. Oh and by the way we did buy our tractor with our own money - cash. By your logic the majority of farmers buying the big new fancy tractors must be the socialists as they are using the banks, or leasing companies money.

I usually don't engage is this but you made an interesting comment that I have to highlight...""""with our low usage , it is more environmentally friendly to stick with the one already in existence...."""

Exactly, and the same goes to minimum till farming....hours have been reduced on equipment...

If someone would study the reduction in hours on equipment on any farm....they would realize the largest reduction in emissions has come from not operating ...A tractor at rest doesn't pollute...

As a matter of fact...all the emission garbage on equipment hasn't reduced pollution anywhere near the fact of reduced hours on a machine...

Dad's farm was farmed 50/50 until the mid 90s. Our 4wd tractors easily had 5000 hours on them in 5 years...

I farm as much as that farm did and it would take nearly triple the years to put those hours on ...

Sumerfallow kept me busy but also polluting...now its like 300 hours on tractor seeding and some tillage...and 100 hours on the sprayer...

If I add in the sprayer and seeding time on tractors back in dad's era ...hours would be even higher....

[chuckChuck]

Michael Chong who ran for the Leadership of the Conservative Party and is a sitting Conservative MP supports a carbon tax as do many business leaders including several representing the oil industry. Also Preston Manning.

Chong and Manning are socialists? I don't think so.

There is support in the conservative movement because a carbon tax is a market based approach that lets consumers and industry decide how best to reduce emissions instead of governments telling them what to do.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/19/china-aims-to-drastically-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-through-trading-scheme

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-02/china-s-carbon-emissions-may-have-peaked-as-climate-policy-bites

[FarmJunkie]

Follow the money! Nets your answer damn near every time. Common sense tells me 99% of us are greedy bastards.

[dmlfarmer]

Follow the money! Nets your answer damn near every time. Common sense tells me 99% of us are greedy bastards.

So where do you find this "credible" money trail to follow for most scientists that shows what you are claiming? And if scientists are as corrupted as you claim, do you feel scientists on both sides of the argument are lying, or just the scientists whose research disagrees with your beliefs and position?

[burnt]

This video shows that the left-winger, climate shriekers should just admit that they are all a bunch of liars who are either out to grab revenue, like Climate Barbie McKenna, or useful idiots like those on here who stupidly pipe out the alarmist B.S. that they have ingested...


https://twitter.com/farmermegzz/status/1069278625084530688 https://twitter.com/farmermegzz/status/1069278625084530688

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Right answer but wrong reasons. Besides there not being the kind of money in cattle production to justify purchase of $200,000 tractors I also realize that the embodied emissions taken to produce a new tractor typically rival the exhaust emissions over its entire lifetime. For that reason, with our low usage, it is more environmentally friendly to stick with the one already in existence.

Very much true. And the exact same logic applies to our electrical production. When the entire life cycle of emissions is taken into account, in most cases it actually is more environmentally friendly to stick with the coal fired power plants already in existence, rather than mothball them before their useful lives are finished. Then add the fact there isn't the kind of money in society to replace them with more expensive alternative energy source, as evidenced by mounted debt and deficits, plus rising electricity prices, which are already driving businesses out of supposed green energy jurisdictions. You exhibit a lot of common sense on your own operation with your own money, but somehow fail to apply the same logic to government and other peoples money.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

Typical tolerant response from the extreme left. And about half a dozen more insulting name calling posts by the same troll just in this thread alone. Does anyone else see the irony in an unwelcome troll who came onto an agricultural commodity marketing forum with the sole purpose of supporting his/her single agenda of climate change, has never made a post remotely related to commodity marketing, let alone agricultural production unless it relates to climate change, telling another long time contributing poster to leave the site and take his counter views elsewhere? And then you get upset when posters want to ignore you, or even suggest you face the same fate as you suggested in the post above, or question your true motivations and true identity? Tolerant liberal, the definition of an oxymoron.

[TASFarms]

Would like to see a chart with all politicians for and against carbon tax. Think it would be disturbing

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Would like to see a chart with all politicians for and against carbon tax. Think it would be disturbing

First of all, it would need to be anonymous to have any meaning, not towing the politically correct party line. And, while it would be interesting, it would be meaningless, just like the troll keeps stating, us ignorant uneducated farmers are not permitted to have a point of view on climate because we are not climate scientists, neither are any politicians, so their opinions are equally meaningless. And as I keep pointing out to the troll, who fails to comprehend the scientific process, consensus is not a part of the scientific method even when it involves scientists, it is by extension even more meaningless when it is unqualified politicians. But the troll will keep touting consensus in both spheres, as the only evidence they have, at least until the climate either cooperates with their catastrophic dreams, or makes their position completely untenable by refusing to cooperate. Judging by the increasingly desperate and insulting tone of the posts, I think the latter is closer to reality than the first.

[furrowtickler]

Prof’s with zero skin in the game can say what they want . Time will tell ... I will bet they are wrong , big time.
The true tail will be in farming net revenue over the next few years . Reality is .....


Too many hands in the cookie jar already

[grassfarmer]

Prof’s with zero skin in the game can say what they want . Time will tell ... I will bet they are wrong , big time.
The true tail will be in farming net revenue over the next few years . Reality is .....


Too many hands in the cookie jar already

Handy that you can lift info from the NFU without crediting them and condemn them out the other side of your mouth at the same time.

[fjlip]

Wheels are falling OFF Climate horse shit/tax grab in Europe...give'm hell mon amis...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/france-fuel-protests-heres-whats-happening-and-why-it-matters.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/france-fuel-protests-heres-whats-happening-and-why-it-matters.html