Originally posted by Oliver88
View Post
Goff summed up by saying “The NFU is seeking Intervenor status as a way to do our part to prevent a few provinces from hamstringing federal efforts to meet our international and national climate change obligations.â€
our members voted overwhelmingly in favour of this court intervention to support federal jurisdiction over climate change policy.â€
Our very own Agriville member even contributed. After berating us dumb farmers constantly about it being our fault for not demanding our provinces do something about the CO2 tax on grain drying, instead of blaming the feds like we do, his very own organization has been insisting that the provinces shouldn't have any say in the matter, only the feds.
It is absurd for the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to offer an exemption that seems to encourage farmers to use diesel-fired burners for grain drying, while penalizing those who use cleaner-burning natural gas or propane,†said Kyle Korneychuk who farms at Pelly, Saskatchewan. “We believe this is an oversight that can be corrected by setting up a rebate as soon as possible.â€
Link: https://www.nfu.ca/nfu-asks-minister-of-environment-and-climate-change-to-rebate-fuel-used-for-on-farm-grain-drying/ https://www.nfu.ca/nfu-asks-minister-of-environment-and-climate-change-to-rebate-fuel-used-for-on-farm-grain-drying/
Which all begs the question, can the atmosphere really differentiate between the CO2 that a farmer releases drying grain vs. the CO2 that an NFU member releases flying to their national conventions to discuss the perils of climate change? And if not, why should grain dying be exempt in the face of such an existential crisis?
Comment