Carbon tax

[bucket]

Could not one farm group found out about this with all the lobbying they have done with liberals in the last couple years...

Its getting sickening how little our farm groups do ....

[jazz]

Trudeau is a fogging idiot, prove me wrong. Even Premier Ford thinks so. Hear his response starting 14.30.

And note, ZERO dollars for health care transfers. More than $400B spent and not a dollar to health care. Sure we are in this together and trying to save lives.

And maybe ya all missed this part, Quebec is exempt from the increase.

I hope Canada cracks into a million pieces.

[fjlip]

WELL! he dumped stinky manure all over that DEVIL ruining our country!
Help! save us somebody!

[Oliver88]

Carbon tax increase doesn’t apply to Quebec.

Is Saudi oil free of emissions?

[J88]

He says the average Canadian will get a refund every quarter. Even more than the carbon tax will cost that person. Well that sounds like we’re making interest on our money. How else do you get more back. Gee I guess covid isn’t such a big problem after all

[jazz]

If Liberals stay in power till then, carbon tax is the least of my worries....

Herc, you better pour yourself a stiff one cause that weasel will probably be there 15 yrs like his dad.

Already laying the ground work to steal the election here.

https://thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-liberals-push-for-mail-in-voting-changes-ahead-of-next-election BREAKING: Trudeau Liberals push for 'mail-in voting' changes ahead of next election

[jazz]

The carbon tax increase is just phase one of the tax grab, the clean fuel standard is up next to kill industry for good.

But you say wont farmers be able sell canola for biodiesel under that program.

Not unless you meet with and comply with their land use regulations to be verified by a govt 3rd party.

This was from their website. Basically if you want to enter the climate change pmt scam, you will need to submit to unlimited regulation by the govt to do so.

Farmers were always going to get controlled all the way. But you knew that already.

Most likely that product will get imported, probably from canadian canola crushed in China.

----------

Land-use change
Direct land-use change happens when a particular parcel of land is converted to grow crops for biofuel production. Indirect land-use change occurs when crops grown for biofuels displace traditional food and animal feed crops, leading to a demand to produce that displaced food crop elsewhere (i.e., land somewhere else is converted to grow the food crop). If new agricultural land expands into areas with high carbon stock such as forests, wetlands and peat land this leads to additional greenhouse gas emissions. If it occurs in a highly biodiverse land, it can lead to lost biodiversity. While it is very difficult to quantify and determine what actions cause indirect land-use change and to separate it from direct land-use change, there is global consensus that it does happen and is an important issue to consider.

Applying best practices developed in other jurisdictions can help mitigate undesired direct and indirect land-use impacts resulting from the increased use of low-carbon-intensity fuels under the Clean Fuel Standard. To do so, the regulations will account for land-use change in two ways:

the Fuel Lifecycle Assessment Modeling Tool will account for greenhouse gas impacts of direct land-use change in the carbon intensity of low-carbon-intensity fuels;
the regulations will define sustainability criteria for biofuels and their feedstocks, related to land-use change – including indirect land-use change – and land management practices. The portion of a fuel made from feedstocks associated with land-use changes that do not meet the criteria will not count for credit creation under the Clean Fuel Standard.
The criteria referred to in the second bullet above align with the sustainability criteria in the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive II of December 21, 2018 and the European Union’s Delegated Regulation on high indirect land-use-change-risk feedstockFootnote6 . The criteria will vary depending on the type of feedstock (i.e. agricultural or forest biomass), and will apply to both domestically-produced and imported biofuels and feedstocks.

For agricultural feedstock, the criteria include:

feedstocks at high risk of indirect land-use change: the portion of a biofuel comprised of feedstocks at high risk of indirect land-use change will not count towards credit creation for Clean Fuel Standard;
high biodiversity or carbon stock land: raw material used in the production of biofuels may not come from land that has the status of high biodiversity land or high carbon stock land on or after January 1, 2008; and
protected areas: raw material used in the production of a biofuel may not come from land that has the status of protected area on or after January 1, 2008.
For forest feedstock, the criteria include:

sustainable forest management: forest biomass used to produce biofuels must meet a set of sub-criteria to ensure it is harvested in a country/area where sustainable forest management is practiced; and
protected areas: raw material used in the production of biofuel may not come from land that has the status of protected area on or after January 1, 2008.
Details on the proposed criteria are provided in Annex VI.

The Clean Fuel Standard will require third-party verification or certification to ensure the criteria along with all the regulatory requirements are met. Work is underway to develop these verification and certification requirements.

[Taiga]

I am of the opinion the existing carbon tax costs are not being passed on to the next user, yet. Trucking rates have not changed. It is industrial users of fuel (trucking industry, mining and construction, Ag, etc) that are the big fuel users. I burn 600L a day in the big truck, and there must be hundreds of thousands of heavy trucks running in Canada every day. Like I say I have not seen trucking rates change yet, the costs are still being absorbed, Joe city dweller hasn’t felt the bump yet but at some point that will change. Also how long does it take to burn 600L of fuel for the average driver of a small vehicle living in the city. Month or more?

Obviously on farm grain drying costs are not being passed on as well.

[makar]

Stop justine and the liberals from destroying western Canada !

I don't have the eyesight or 20 dollar Italian rifle to do the job.

[helmsdale]

I am of the opinion the existing carbon tax costs are not being passed on to the next user, yet. Trucking rates have not changed. It is industrial users of fuel (trucking industry, mining and construction, Ag, etc) that are the big fuel users. I burn 600L a day in the big truck, and there must be hundreds of thousands of heavy trucks running in Canada every day. Like I say I have not seen trucking rates change yet, the costs are still being absorbed, Joe city dweller hasn’t felt the bump yet but at some point that will change. Also how long does it take to burn 600L of fuel for the average driver of a small vehicle living in the city. Month or more?

Obviously on farm grain drying costs are not being passed on as well.

Lots of intra-city commuters burn probably a tank a week, maybe tank and a quarter if you averaged out other things. Smaller SUV's are in that 60L range, so say 75L a week, 52 weeks a year, so 3900L a year? When I was long-hauling I burnt 500-700L a day. I could burn their yearly consumption in a week and a half...

Some local grain haulers were able to pass the costs onto farmers, but all their increased costs have made it more and more economical to park a 5yr old set of supers and a big rig in your own yard. Farm registration and insurance for a whole year is about equal to a high deductible insurance, and pro-rated commercial registration for *one month*.

Local guys hardly seem to exist around here anymore, as they've had to go long haul to find the work to turn the wheels. The sheer number of trucks competing for long haul work has most of the extra costs getting absorbed by the transport companies. Dry and reefer van business isnt much different. There are a SLUG of trucks looking for work!

[Misterjade9]

Here is an interesting tidbit that ties directly into Jazz's clean fuel post. I was listening to one of the shows on rural radio yesterday and the topic was China. Their leader, Number 11, has stationed political officers inside a vast majority of the private business in China to ensure that they comply and conform to the CCP party line. If they resist or do not comply with what they are told they are denied access to financing, markets, and in good old fashion communist ways probably disappear.

Now where did we just hear that song and dance, oh yea in the wording of the clean fuel proposal. If you don't comply to the government's party line you will be denied access to markets, probably financing, the only thing you have going for you is you probably won't disappear, but your business might.

You tell me where the difference is between our current government and the CCP.

[chuckChuck]

Opinion: Biden’s victory a win for carbon pricing policy
Expect opposition to evaporate as one of the world’s largest economies signs on
D.C. Fraser By D.C. Fraser

Published: December 11, 2020
Op/Ed, Opinion

With Joe Biden as the incoming U.S. president, Canada’s climate policy may end up benefiting farmers. Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters

President-elect Joe Biden’s climate strategy will lay waste to the opposition some Canadians have to our country’s carbon pricing policy.

Biden campaigned on aggressively combating climate change.

When he becomes president in January, it is expected he will create investment in green technologies.

Like Canada, the United States will soon be trying to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

How the Americans try to get there will surely differ from Canada’s approach.
Related Articles

On top of a US$2-trillion investment in the green economy, Biden is expected to try to impose a “carbon border adjustment” that would tax imported goods, based on their carbon emissions, from polluting countries.

For years, Canadian producers have decried carbon pricing – arguing it disproportionately impacts operations, disadvantages them competitively on international markets and creates a cost that can’t be passed to consumers.

There will always be room for Canada’s carbon pricing policy to improve, but the policy is here to stay.

Around two-thirds of people who voted in the last election cast their ballot for a party that supported or promoted a price on pollution or carbon tax, demonstrating once again a strong climate plan is needed to get elected.

Most opponents of a carbon tax have turned their attention elsewhere during the pandemic. Lobby groups and politicians criticizing the policy just don’t gain much traction anymore.

Now, with Biden’s election, Canada’s climate policy may end up benefiting farmers.

Putting a price on carbon does not make Canada a lone wolf. Neither do policies aimed at combating climate change.

The European Union is trying to introduce a carbon border adjustment and there is a growing effort on the international stage to standardized credits around a price on carbon.

Because Canada already has a price on carbon across each of its industries, including those that pollute the most, it has a strong argument to be excluded from carbon border adjustments being proposed by the EU and Biden.

The United States, in particular, won’t surprise anyone if it excludes Canada from its carbon border adjustment, considering the friendly history between Biden and Trudeau.

Canada took significant steps to reorganize its economy and put a price on carbon. These difficult steps have put it in a better position to face the future.

Despite countless challenges ahead, a strong international carbon market means farmers in Canada using sustainable agriculture are already well positioned.

There will likely be a web of different protocols to generate credits, and markets to sell those credits in as international standards are established.

Likely there will need to be huge amounts of technology needed at the farm level to properly monitor this.

But Canadian producers are already ahead of the game.

In recent years a whole industry has been created out of carbon markets, many of them headquartered near Western Canada’s oil and gas sector.

If the market grows as many are now expecting it to, at least some American producers will be playing catch-up to Canada.

Within a few years, Canada’s price on carbon may go from being one of the nation’s most hotly contested policies to one of its most celebrated.

Perhaps that’s being too hopeful, but it is already clear Biden’s climate strategy will smother Canadian opposition.

Producers, and other opponents to these policies, should recognize environmental regulations will continue.

Rather than outright opposing them, or calling for blanket exemptions, they should work to improve them.

D.C. Fraser

Reporter