Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[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.

[the big wheel]

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.

So your saying there is no plan to be paid for sequesting carbon because we farmers are so moral? Lol

We re not getting paid or recognized because we have no vioice.

There are only so many options to deal with the rules our elected officials have the right to impose on us while they are in power. So it’s either adapt to their rules or don’t complain about the consequences.

None of us here can truly say we know how much humans have or don’t have an effect on the climate that does change. I don’t even think we know exactly what things we produce not just carbon may or may not have an effect on climate. The only thing we know is the rules that our elected officials are making us operate under.

[chuckChuck]

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.

Unscientific, fraudulent? That is total BS. A5 we have been waiting all winter for you to provide some compelling scientific evidence that humans and green house gases are not significantly contributing to climate change. You have made lame excuses but your failure to provide any credible research to backup your claims says it all. Even Scott Moe admits human caused climate change is real and a serious problem.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, please try to keep up, In this case, the fraud in this instance is the net effect of a carbon tax on Canadians to the world climate. If you were to accept The worst case scenario for climate sensitivity, Take the inconsequential decline that the carbon tax will result in. What is the two together, Evaluate the cost-benefit ratio for the carbon tax. Bring those numbers back here and show me that this is anything but in ineffective fraud.

And if you don't want to go to that much work, You can find the numbers already calculated for you from multiple sources.

[seldomseen]

Unscientific, fraudulent? That is total BS. A5 we have been waiting all winter for you to provide some compelling scientific evidence that humans and green house gases are not significantly contributing to climate change. You have made lame excuses but your failure to provide any credible research to backup your claims says it all. Even Scott Moe admits human caused climate change is real and a serious problem.

I guess we just call it the way we see it.

I still look for the shortest season canola that is available and it won't buy a wheat variety that takes more than 100 days to mature. Just like i did when I started farming.

I have said before that in our local history book one family came to this area in 1910 and planted their first crop on March 10 and they had a bountiful harvest. The hottest summer ever recorded in Canada happened in 1937.

[bucket]

I do not believe in climate change....I like to think that I am ahead of the crowd when they realize this is all bullshit...

[Hamloc]

Unscientific, fraudulent? That is total BS. A5 we have been waiting all winter for you to provide some compelling scientific evidence that humans and green house gases are not significantly contributing to climate change. You have made lame excuses but your failure to provide any credible research to backup your claims says it all. Even Scott Moe admits human caused climate change is real and a serious problem.

Chuck2 I would like you to tell us how you intend to lower your C02 emissions by 30% by 2030. Since you are a large proponent of the necessity of lowering our carbon footprint you must have started doing this already. I realize you have installed solar panels but how much do you feel this will lower your total emissions? How high do you feel the carbon tax should go? Will the carbon tax change your behaviour? If the carbon tax is $100 a tonne by 2030 do you think farming will still be viable in western Canada? My understanding from the latest report that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and that it is irreversible. Realistically emissions from one country don't stay in that country they spread throughout our shared atmosphere. If we as Canadians lower our carbon footprint do you think it will actually affect the climate in Canada? Look forward to your response.

[Guest]

I believe in climate change , i think most do
Otherwise there wouldnt be alligator and palm tree fossills in the arctic
What i cant believer is the arrogant airheads that think they can control it ?
Why dont we go after the real issues , smog and pollution in the big cities , Plastic and junk in the oceans and what government in their right ****ing mind would let quebec dump raw sewage in the st lawrence ???

[farmaholic]

......... Even Scott Moe admits human caused climate change is real and a serious problem.

Politicians sometimes have to say things to try and win the votes of any prospective voters.

Most things aren't only black or white....and the grey zone can be razor thin or a mile wide.

[walterm]

I believe in climate change , i think most do
Otherwise there wouldnt be alligator and palm tree fossills in the arctic
What i cant believer is the arrogant airheads that think they can control it ?
Why dont we go after the real issues , smog and pollution in the big cities , Plastic and junk in the oceans and what government in their right ****ing mind would let quebec dump raw sewage in the st lawrence ???

Agree why do 6 little screws or nuts have to be packaged in plastic? Seems everything we buy has to be almost individually packaged.