NFU Still Undermining Agriculture

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A bit of math. A "small" dryer is about 4 million btu. 0.3 watts in a btu gives about 1.2 MW of "electricity" required. That is a big solar installation completely unrealistic to dry grain.

So when you flame up that dryer, you literally are becoming a 1,2,3 or more MW gas plant and the energy released is tremendous over a very short period of time. To use electricity to dry grain is even worse as plants are only about 60% efficient.

Now Glenn, by the picture of the combine behind him, dries only a few tonnes so completely unrealistic for farming in Canada - especially if its a cloudy harvest that needs drying.

And of course the worst part, all farmers need to agree on policy positions. You will never get anywhere being scattered all over the map making my job impossible.

I think we are all united in agreeing that a CO2 tax on grain drying is not going to have its intended effect, and needs to be abolished. Even the CO2 tax proponents at the National anti-Farmers Union are in agreement.

[tweety]

I think we are all united in agreeing that a CO2 tax on grain drying is not going to have its intended effect, and needs to be abolished. Even the CO2 tax proponents at the National anti-Farmers Union are in agreement.

"
Glenn Wright is a grain farmer in Vanscoy, Sask., 31 kilometres southwest of Saskatoon. He said he sees carbon pricing not as a tax but as an opportunity.

"I'm more open-minded, I guess, than most people are," said Wright, who wrote an affidavit in favour of the policy for the National Farmers Union, which is one of the interveners in the case.

"I've found that this is actually not something to fear, but actually of benefit to me."
"

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"
Glenn Wright is a grain farmer in Vanscoy, Sask., 31 kilometres southwest of Saskatoon. He said he sees carbon pricing not as a tax but as an opportunity.

"I'm more open-minded, I guess, than most people are," said Wright, who wrote an affidavit in favour of the policy for the National Farmers Union, which is one of the interveners in the case.

"I've found that this is actually not something to fear, but actually of benefit to me."
"

So even the NFU can't present a united message:

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/

Chuck was on here parroting this message at the same time it was released.

[furrowtickler]

A bit of math. A "small" dryer is about 4 million btu. 0.3 watts in a btu gives about 1.2 MW of "electricity" required. That is a big solar installation completely unrealistic to dry grain.

So when you flame up that dryer, you literally are becoming a 1,2,3 or more MW gas plant and the energy released is tremendous over a very short period of time. To use electricity to dry grain is even worse as plants are only about 60% efficient.

Now Glenn, by the picture of the combine behind him, dries only a few tonnes so completely unrealistic for farming in Canada - especially if its a cloudy harvest that needs drying.

And of course the worst part, all farmers need to agree on policy positions. You will never get anywhere being scattered all over the map making my job impossible.

So your the sheep herder ? Your job ?
Your right , we will never get anywhere being scattered all over the map .
So you are in position to make policy ?

[furrowtickler]

Yeah Gabe Brown, hes just one those guys who wants to experiment with new ways to farm, spend less and make more money. He's got it so wrong!

A good farmer is supposed to farm the same way his daddy did, avoid new ideas, information, science and spend more than you make! That's the way of the future! LOL

Who said he has it all wrong ???
I like his ideas ...... if you have cattle as well and are set up . For 90% of us it’s impractical.
And your last statement is simply idiotic at best

[tweety]

So your the sheep herder ? Your job ?
Your right , we will never get anywhere being scattered all over the map .
So you are in position to make policy ?

No, haven't you heard, I'm WD9.

Correct, not get anywhere. One affidavit says good tax and makes farmers better to the environment, one says bad tax and is too costly. Now pretend you are a justice, which one do you think carries a better future for the environment since farmers aren't aligned on the policy?

The relevant portions of the affidavit arguing directly against the SK gov.

4.The NFU believes that this case is about the risks posed to the country by Climate Change and that it is the duty of the Federal government to implement policy and a regulatory framework to control the specific pollutants, namely GHGs, that cause Climate Change. The NFU is supportive of the argument prepared by the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. In this affidavit, the NFU presents its perspective on how farmers across Canada will be affected by Climate Change and seeks to emphasize why national action must be taken to mitigate Climate Change as a matter of national concern.

5.The Attorney General of Saskatchewan (AGSK) argues that the provinces have autonomy within the realms of their jurisdictional authority without being obligated to policies set down by the central government2. Surely this cannot be interpreted to mean that one province has the right to act in a manner that is detrimental to the nation and the rest of the world. Climate change is an issue of national concern and international concern that requires a coordinated and collaborative response. The NFU believes that the Federal government is compelled to address GHG emissions and Climate Change with national policy and regulation.

6.In this affidavit, the NFU aims to outlay the facts that demonstrate how farmersacross Canada will be uniquely impacted by Climate Change. The NFU will explain the concerns of farmers and the NFU seeks to explain why mitigation of Climate Change requires a national approach, as proposed in (but not limited to) the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA).

The position, and i am not a lawyer, is that whether a carbon tax is a good vehicle to reduce GHG is not argued, but that not reducing ghg will cause a climate far more detrimental then the effects of the carbon tax.

So in effect they are intervenors against the position that provinces should have the right to decide on or make any independent GHG reduction schemes and that it should only be done centrally. Perhaps Chuck has a different conclusion, but they are warriors for a federal GHG reduction only and that provinces like SK should not have any say. They are intervening against the SK prov gov.

Edit. I should mention the GGPPA is the Act allowing the carbon tax to be collected.