Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[dmlfarmer]

Back then we were going to get carbon credits as farmers , which we should
Now we are going to just simply get bent over .

Tell me, where do you think the money for carbon credits was going to come from? Government? Taxes? or large emitters of carbon? If farmers are to get carbon credits, someone has to be paying for carbon. A cap and trade is no different than a carbon tax as both put a price on carbon.

If you think government should just pay credits or incentives without some means of collecting the money going out, you are a socialist. Cap and trade is a capitalist answer for reducing carbon.

Finally, if you actually represent the views of most farmers, why would any government, no matter of views ever support paying carbon credits when farmers continually deny climate change and oppose any action to reduce GHGs? Farmers have a huge opportunity to be part of the solution and be credited financially for it, if they would realize they could be selling sequestration as a product of their farms to a public that is in support of sequestration and a public that is willing to pay for farmers to sequester it. But no, farmers would rather claim actual climate scientists are all corrupt and instead believe conspiracy theories and junk science.

[Hamloc]

"First, the Conservatives previously supported and promoted cap-and-trade. And they did so repeatedly and over a number of years. In their 2004 election platform, the Conservatives said they would “investigate a cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.” The commitment was repeated in the party’s 2005 policy declaration. In 2008, the Conservative party’s policy declaration expressed support for “a domestic cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.” In May 2008, John Baird celebrated the launch of a carbon market in Montreal. “Carbon trading and the establishment of a market price on carbon are key parts of our Turning the Corner plan,” he explained. In their 2008 election platform, the Conservatives promised to help “develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution.” The Harper government repeated the pledge in the subsequent Throne Speech. In June 2009, Jim Prentice announced an offset system that would “generate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … by establishing a price on carbon.” In September 2009, Mr. Prentice lobbied the Alberta government to support cap-and-trade. In December 2009, the Harper government claimed to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.” McLeans Sept 21, 2012

Dml you do realize it was believed at the time that President Obama was about to implement a cap and trade system which Harper planned to duplicate in Canada. Harper believed a cap and trade system harmonized with our largest trading partner made sense and did not put us at a competitive disadvantage. Justin Trudeau on the other hand is implementing a carbon tax while the U.S. is not which will put us at a competitive disadvantage. Plus his carbon tax is taking money from businesses and using it to subsidize the rebates to all taxpayers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and NewBrunswick because business owners have far less voting power than the general public.

[furrowtickler]

Farmers have a huge opportunity to be part of the solution and be credited financially for it, if they would realize they could be selling sequestration as a product of their farms to a public that is in support of sequestration and a public that is willing to pay for farmers to sequester it.

Can you explain this ?
Was this not exactly what I just brought up ? Or is it just not called “carbon credits” ?

You tell me ... where is the carbon tax going to come from ?? After doing your tax’s do you have all the extra cash laying around ? Time will tell next tax season .

[dmlfarmer]

Farmers have a huge opportunity to be part of the solution and be credited financially for it, if they would realize they could be selling sequestration as a product of their farms to a public that is in support of sequestration and a public that is willing to pay for farmers to sequester it.

Can you explain this ?
Was this not exactly what I just brought up ? Or is it just not called “carbon credits” ?

You tell me ... where is the carbon tax going to come from ?? After doing your tax’s do you have all the extra cash laying around ? Time will tell next tax season .

Re-read my entire post and especially note that for farmers to get credits, that money has to come from somewhere. It could come from a carbon tax, or from cap and trade, both are capitalist means to reduce emissions. To expect governments to simply pay farmers without collecting revenues to cover carbon credit costs is simply socialism. Is that what you want?

If you believe in carbon credits and that farming sequesters carbon, farmers should be lobbying government for a price for sequestration that would be significantly higher than cost of the carbon tax instead of fighting the tax. Farmers should be seeking to profit from sequestration, which is a saleable commodity, instead of arguing that science, government, and the public are simply wrong about climate change.

[jazz]

If you believe in carbon credits and that farming sequesters carbon, farmers should be lobbying government for a price for sequestration that would be significantly higher than cost of the carbon tax instead of fighting the tax. Farmers should be seeking to profit from sequestration, which is a saleable commodity, instead of arguing that science, government, and the public are simply wrong about climate change.

No dml, the govt twisted the narrative from the get go to make Canada look like we are an emissions laggard and then virtuous trying to do something about it. They ignored our freshwater, boreal forest and carbon sequestered farmland on purpose. We werent even in the game to argue our point. Carbon credit cash can come from any source, local companies wanting to do something or even foreign countries who cant reduce their own. Then you provide capitalist tax incentives for people to make reasonable adjustments in lifestyle and improvements. That's not socialism at all. That's a capitalist approach to an nebulous problem.

[westernvicki]

Minimum tillage farmers of western Canada have made significant contributions to reducing carbon & sequestration, if there is a carbon tax, there should be carbon tax credits for farmers and cap and trade.

Google the Quebec system.

[dmlfarmer]

Minimum tillage farmers of western Canada have made significant contributions to reducing carbon & sequestration, if there is a carbon tax, there should be carbon tax credits for farmers and cap and trade.

Google the Quebec system.

absolutely, I agree fully, but farmers are so busy arguing climate change is not real and pricing carbon is a government conspiracy that we have zero credibility to make a case for carbon credits. Furthermore farmers have no united voice - we cannot even discuss climate change without conspiracy theories, name calling, and politics; much less make a science based claim that we should be paid for sequestration.

[fjlip]

Found this, well said...the real issue is how could such measurements be done?

"Here is the question I always ask the AGW gang. I have yet to have even one answer (except for an avalanche of ad hominems). And, BTW, I hold a PhD in Atmospheric Fluid Dynamics from McGill. Before we commit to spending billions upon billions of dollars to solve this problem, how about we define it scientifically? You know, in a way that can be measured. Real scientists check out the value of their theories and hypotheses by using data. So let's try that here. What, exactly, is being *measured*?

And how accurate are those measurements, both now and over time? And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring? I'll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let's look at it. After all, it's about the simplest thing involved, isn't it? So show me a map of the earth's surface temperature, and a companion map of the margin of error. Then do the same thing in (say) 1950. If you prefer another atmospheric parameter than surface temperature, suggest it and provide reasons for your choice, and then answer the same questions. Finally, tell me what part of the differences is due to human activity, how you know, and how accurately you know it. Bet you can't."

[bucket]

I remember a time when people used the organ between their ears for more than just believing what popular stupid people said......

[the big wheel]

Farmers have a huge opportunity to be part of the solution and be credited financially for it, if they would realize they could be selling sequestration as a product of their farms to a public that is in support of sequestration and a public that is willing to pay for farmers to sequester it.

Can you explain this ?
Was this not exactly what I just brought up ? Or is it just not called “carbon credits” ?

You tell me ... where is the carbon tax going to come from ?? After doing your tax’s do you have all the extra cash laying around ? Time will tell next tax season .

City people from the east are all for this because they fill up their cars and drive to work for a month on one tank of gas. Thanks to global warming have very little home fuel to heat their houses during winter. But the minute they had to pay what a farmer or person out on the prairie pays for fuel the theory of needing to end carbon to stop global warming would come to an end real quick. We should have promoted a huge increase to income taxes for people that benefited with less heating bills due to global warming we out west created by producing oil. We need to be just as stupid as they are.

Furrow is right we should have been promoting how to get paid for our massive sequestering that we do. Hell get the city people to pay for fart bags strapped behind cows. Everyone thinks their idea is right until they lose money on their idea then it ends. I guarantee that would happen. If you are an easterner why wouldn’t you support the carbon tax if you get your money back and the little that they spend they likely will make money off the rebate.

We re too stupid out west to play their game. We could have made massive amounts of money off this for awhile until those people got tired of paying.

[dmlfarmer]

City people from the east are all for this because they fill up their cars and drive to work for a month on one tank of gas. Thanks to global warming have very little home fuel to heat their houses during winter. But the minute they had to pay what a farmer or person out on the prairie pays for fuel the theory of needing to end carbon to stop global warming would come to an end real quick. We should have promoted a huge increase to income taxes for people that benefited with less heating bills due to global warming we out west created by producing oil. We need to be just as stupid as they are.

Furrow is right we should have been promoting how to get paid for our massive sequestering that we do. Hell get the city people to pay for fart bags strapped behind cows. Everyone thinks their idea is right until they lose money on their idea then it ends. I guarantee that would happen. If you are an easterner why wouldn’t you support the carbon tax if you get your money back and the little that they spend they likely will make money off the rebate.

We re too stupid out west to play their game. We could have made massive amounts of money off this for awhile until those people got tired of paying.

I disagree. People are willing to spend more than they have to if they perceive a benefit. Look at what people spend on organic food or non GMO products when they can get the a conventional product which is just as safe, tasty, and of the same (if not better) quality in the next isle over. And there are farmers willing to meet the demand of consumers for organics, non GMO, nature raised etc etc. Why are farmers not doing the same thing for sequestration of GHGs? The truth is most farmers are great producers but poor saleman and would rather tear down the neighbor who is doing real marketing and getting a premium for what ever reason rather than uniting and working to create a new demand for something like sequestration. Our commodity groups/associations/etc should have been all over the issue, pushing government for sequestration for years, but don't dare because the uproar from individual farmers against use of their funds to support such an effort would be politically stupid.

[the big wheel]

I disagree. People are willing to spend more than they have to if they perceive a benefit. Look at what people spend on organic food or non GMO products when they can get the a conventional product which is just as safe, tasty, and of the same (if not better) quality in the next isle over. And there are farmers willing to meet the demand of consumers for organics, non GMO, nature raised etc etc. Why are farmers not doing the same thing for sequestration of GHGs? The truth is most farmers are great producers but poor saleman and would rather tear down the neighbor who is doing real marketing and getting a premium for what ever reason rather than uniting and working to create a new demand for something like sequestration. Our commodity groups/associations/etc should have been all over the issue, pushing government for sequestration for years, but don't dare because the uproar from individual farmers against use of their funds to support such an effort would be politically stupid.

You think if a city person had to pay what we will pay in carbon tax or even more in the pst a farm pays they would be so gung ho? Not a chance.
The organic part of many grocery isles is very small only a few pay it that are very wealthy and it doesn’t matter if they spend 4 bucks on a tomato compared to 2. But for the rest the 2 dollar one is too much.

You are correct though we should have been going hard on getting paid for sequestering. But that likely would end also because like I said if they had to pay for it they wouldn’t do it. We re the ones paying the bill for them to enjoy cheap food and to reduce ghg for them to feel good.