Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[dmlfarmer]

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.

You need to visit a grocery store more often. It is not just the wealthy buying organic and NON GMO, it is anyone who perceives organic/ non GMO to be better. Consumer demand is why food manufacturers are putting non GMO labelling on products even if there is no GMO options. A&W leads the way in "healthy" burgers and could care less than many farmers swear they would never eat another teen burger because A&W correctly forecast consumers want and would pay a premium for hormone free etc. And A&Ws competitors have jumped on the same bandwagon. Watch McDonals ads now on sustainable beef - what ever that means.

Right or wrong the general public has widely accepted climate change as fact. The perceived need is there. Farmers are just too stupid and/or pig headed to capture a market for which there is pent up demand.

Do I like the carbon tax - absolutely not. But I know the divided farm voice does not have a hope in hell of fighting it. We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing climate change instead of fighting to get paid for something we are already doing and should be paid for!

[the big wheel]

You need to visit a grocery store more often. It is not just the wealthy buying organic and NON GMO, it is anyone who perceives organic/ non GMO to be better. Consumer demand is why food manufacturers are putting non GMO labelling on products even if there is no GMO options. A&W leads the way in "healthy" burgers and could care less than many farmers swear they would never eat another teen burger because A&W correctly forecast consumers want and would pay a premium for hormone free etc. And A&Ws competitors have jumped on the same bandwagon. Watch McDonals ads now on sustainable beef - what ever that means.

Do I like the carbon tax - absolutely not. But I know the divided farm voice does not have a hope in hell of fighting it. We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing the practice as needed.

Non gmo in a can is not a huge price if any more then gmo in a can so if you had a choice for nearly same price of course you’d pick the non gmo. I don’t know why that is.
But put a fresh tomato for 2 bucks or 4 bucks and you see the 4 dollar ones in a small little section getting old. At least where I’ve been.

But if your right then let’s make this work let’s ask all the feel gooders in the warmer parts of the country to pay our heating bills so that they can do a great thing for the environment. Or make up the difference it costs us to drive and make a living in rural areas compared to driving a block or 2 to work. I’m sure they’d tell us to fk off. Or do you think they’d gladly pay it for the overall good?

[farmaholic]

We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing climate change instead of fighting to get paid for something we are already doing and should be paid for!

Who would of thought?!?!?!?!?!?!

Wasn't it furrowtickler who said we are being charged more to perform the benefit we provide?

[dmlfarmer]

Non gmo in a can is not a huge price if any more then gmo in a can so if you had a choice for nearly same price of course you’d pick the non gmo. I don’t know why that is.
But put a fresh tomato for 2 bucks or 4 bucks and you see the 4 dollar ones in a small little section getting old. At least where I’ve been.

But if your right then let’s make this work let’s ask all the feel gooders in the warmer parts of the country to pay our heating bills so that they can do a great thing for the environment. Or make up the difference it costs us to drive and make a living in rural areas compared to driving a block or 2 to work. I’m sure they’d tell us to fk off. Or do you think they’d gladly pay it for the overall good?

It all depends how you market it. Try to sell it with what you said in your last paragraph and you are right. But if farmers would market modern farming practices as environmentally friendly, and that if farmers were paid for GHG sequestration it will help both the environment and lessen what consumers have to do as an individualsto meet Canada's goals and international commitment to reductions, people would listen. It is all in the marketing.

[samhill]

This is such joke in so many ways, on top of carbon sequestration when growing crops, the end product is food for the consumer. Obviously the carbon tax should be on food at the grocery store, the reason and purpose for the use of fossil fuels on the farm.
But no, tax those who grow food. Hahaha.

[farmaholic]

It boils down to the typical marketing mentality in Primary Production:

When its goods and services Producers need.....they're almost priceless!
When its goods and services Producers provide.....they're almost worthless!

I know that is a bit extreme and dramatic but...


Is Canada using the benefits of modern farming practice to meet their Paris Agreement targets(or which ever international agreement they signed up for, or their own goals)?

If they are, Zero/Min Till Producers are not getting any value for their contribution.

[shtferbrains]

I know with all the river valleys,pastures, and hay fields that haven't been tilled in years I am not a "polluter".

We had a carbon trading scheme back a few years where you sold your acres to a broker who pooled them in a contract that traded. To long ago for me to remember the details but it disappeared because the money didn't justify the effort.

Right now I'd be happy with some kind of exemption that basically said I am sequestering more than I produce and **** off and leave me alone.

[Hamloc]

Alberta still has a program that pays no till farmers for carbon sequestration. When I was in it you were allowed one pass of 40% disturbance and basically I was payed $1.69 an acre. Now this all sounds well and good. But there was a couple of issues. On rented land the landlord had to sign to allow you to have the money which made sense as the person farming the land should get the credits. Some landlords wanted half the money which than made it debatable whether it was worth it. Another problem was after a wet year if you had to work the land you had to take those acres out of the program. I have a high proportion of rented land and after a few years decided it wasn't worth the trouble. It is possible that it pays a little better now with our $30 a tonne carbon tax, I do not know. It would be probably 7-8 years since I was in the program.

[shtferbrains]

If you are paid the $1.69/acre for sequestering, will that cover the carbon tax you will pay in upcoming years or will you be a sequestering polluter?

[bucket]

If you are paid the $1.69/acre for sequestering, will that cover the carbon tax you will pay in upcoming years or will you be a sequestering polluter?

Well,,, the fees for sequestering should rise with the carbon tax....times that 2.5 or greater with the right negotiator....maybe an indigenous negotiator ...lol Because they are going to see some huge dollars to correct this ****ing mistake

[furrowtickler]

“Do I like the carbon tax - absolutely not. But I know the divided farm voice does not have a hope in hell of fighting it. We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing climate change instead of fighting to get paid for something we are already doing and should be paid for!”

You make a very good point , but..
Farmers are against carbon tax scheme , not so much climate change. This is not the Spanish Inquisition, but it sure seems like it .
Just because some are against carbon tax does not make them climate change deniers. That is a false assumption.
This whole climate change hysteria has been overinflated. Is it real , yes. But most of us see that it is being way overplayed for the benifit of many groups riding the green train.

That’s where the lines get blurred , they have set it up as though one can not even question the climate change religion... sorry but thats wrong , this is not the Middle Ages where people were not allowed to think for themselves or get burned at the stake ..

[AlbertaFarmer5]

dml, perhaps, unlike the average left leaning voter or politician, farmers just aren't hypocritical enough, and have too many morals and strong enough ethics not to support and profit from something that they clearly understand is fraudulent, unscientific, ineffective, and not in their best long term interests.

That would probably be a difficult concept to comprehend by anyone who is still able to support the current gang of lying criminals in the liberal party(not saying that you are).

Why would we want to offer legitimacy to something which is clearly illegitimate to anyone willing to do their homework? It would only be used against us in the future, and further encourage more draconian measures including the carbon tax increases(and eventual removal of exemption for farmers), more regulations and restrictions over how we operate, more support for expensive "green" power which will cost us dearly and on and on.

Not everyone is willing to sell out for short term ( and short sighted) gain.