Farmers in Canada will get no Credit for what they did to help the climate up to 2017

[sumdumguy]

The injustice of being penalized by ever-increasing carbon taxes when we are actively and continually providing an effective carbon sync is evident. (Without compensation)

Add to that the fact that carbon is one of the most necessary inputs in photo-synthesis and the perpetuation of our food supply and it is blatant that lunacy reigns.

Loony Justice - it’s the Canadian Way

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I actually agree with Chuck on this one. No one is direct seeding, or seeding perennials to save the world from plant food. It is an economic decision, and (hopefully at least), and decision based on long term sustainability.

I know in my case, moisture retention, and soil erosion are not big concerns, but soil organic matter and compaction certainly are, and that is why I switched. Seeing the degradation of the grey wooded clay soils in only a few decades from intensive tillage and extraction of everything that grows (and the comensurate decline in productivity) was enough to convince me that no till was the only solution.

I have been hypocritically enrolled in the carbon credits program, but that is hardly an economic incentive, at ~ $1.00 per acre per year, I certainly wouldn't make any production decision based on that.

Studies indicate that after enough years in no till, sequestration slows or stops at a new higher level of soil OM. So there is no scientific basis to expecting to get paid for ongoing no till. Assuming that there was a reason to want to lower CO2 levels of course.

All that said, if the CO2 tax is supposed to be revenue neutral(which we all believe of course), and farmers have no way to claim any of it back, then this certainly would have been one way to actually keep that promise.

[HITTGrapevine]

I actually agree with Chuck on this one. No one is direct seeding, or seeding perennials to save the world from plant food. It is an economic decision, and (hopefully at least), and decision based on long term sustainability.

I know in my case, moisture retention, and soil erosion are not big concerns, but soil organic matter certainly is, and that is why I switched. Seeing the degradation of the grey wooded clay soils in only a few decades from intensive tillage and extraction of everything that grows (and the comensurate decline in productivity) was enough to convince me that no till was the only solution.

I have been hypocritically enrolled in the carbon credits program, but that is hardly an economic incentive, at ~ $1.00 per acre per year, I certainly wouldn't make any production decision based on that.

Studies indicate that after enough years in no till, sequestration slows or stops at a new higher level of soil OM. So there is no scientific basis to expecting to get paid for ongoing no till. Assuming that there was a reason to want to lower CO2 levels of course.

All that said, if the CO2 tax is supposed to be revenue neutral(which we all believe of course), and farmers have no way to claim any of it back, then this certainly would have been one way to actually keep that promise.

All good points. But don't underestimate the future value of offsets. They might only be generating $1 an acre of farm revenue now, but my understanding is that in some cases, they are being sold to large emitters in the US for 15 or 20 times that. What will they be worth when Canada's carbon tax quadruples in 10 years?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All good points. But don't underestimate the future value of offsets. They might only be generating $1 an acre of farm revenue now, but my understanding is that in some cases, they are being sold to large emitters in the US for 15 or 20 times that. What will they be worth when Canada's carbon tax quadruples in 10 years?

What they are might sell for, and what they are actually worth are two completely unrelated things.
At some point science will prevail and we will accept that there is no "cost" to CO2, that it belongs in fact on the opposite side of the ledger sheet.
But until that time, if we demand payment for the CO2 supposedly sequestered, we also open ourselves up to paying for all the emissions too. From fertilizer, from livestock, from exempted farm fuel, from land improvements. We will all look as hypocritical as Chuck when we start crying about paying emissions taxes on everything else after demanding to be paid for CO2 sequestration on long term no till ground that isn't sequestering anything anymore.

[HITTGrapevine]

What they are might sell for, and what they are actually worth are two completely unrelated things.
At some point science will prevail and we will accept that there is no "cost" to CO2, that it belongs in fact on the opposite side of the ledger sheet.
But until that time, if we demand payment for the CO2 supposedly sequestered, we also open ourselves up to paying for all the emissions too. From fertilizer, from livestock, from exempted farm fuel, from land improvements. We will all look as hypocritical as Chuck when we start crying about paying emissions taxes on everything else after demanding to be paid for CO2 sequestration on long term no till ground that isn't sequestering anything anymore.

We're already paying for emissions AF5, either directly through carbon taxes or indirectly, through costs downloaded to us by fertilizer manufacturers, equipment makers, railway companies that will be charging more to move our grain, etc, etc.
Costs to farmers have already been established. Potential revenues is the other side of the ledger.
Not saying I like the system. Just trying to find a way to make the best of the mess we're already in.

[blackpowder]

It's always been about taxing who you dont like (easy marks), and giving it to whom you do like (votes).
Where do you think you fit?
Isn't this carbon thingy handy?

[jazz]

We're already paying for emissions AF5, either directly through carbon taxes or indirectly, through costs downloaded to us by fertilizer manufacturers, equipment makers, railway companies that will be charging more to move our grain, etc, etc.
Costs to farmers have already been established. Potential revenues is the other side of the ledger.
Not saying I like the system. Just trying to find a way to make the best of the mess we're already in.

Well the consumers are going to feel it this year too. Lets see how gung ho they are on climate change after cost of living doubles. They voted for it.

Hell if we arent going to get compensated for any of this and only penalized maybe you will see chem fallow take over again one day. I certainly could survive on 60% of the yeilds. Why grow more to be penalized? We cant get anymore efficient in this game so why try.

Like horse says, why should we care about feeding the world? Maybe our motto should be Ag Less Than ever (sorry about the starving)

[dalek]

I likely won’t be getting credit for anything I do after 2017 or even after 2021 either because it’s not likely worth the pain in the ass of getting involved with the government any farther than I already have to be

[burnt]

What they are might sell for, and what they are actually worth are two completely unrelated things.
At some point science will prevail and we will accept that there is no "cost" to CO2, that it belongs in fact on the opposite side of the ledger sheet.
But until that time, if we demand payment for the CO2 supposedly sequestered, we also open ourselves up to paying for all the emissions too. From fertilizer, from livestock, from exempted farm fuel, from land improvements. We will all look as hypocritical as Chuck when we start crying about paying emissions taxes on everything else after demanding to be paid for CO2 sequestration on long term no till ground that isn't sequestering anything anymore.

"So what you're saying is" (cue Cathy Newman) that it's a game of charades for us and a money maker for them.

As usual, we supply the goods and services on the farm and the money is made in the city after it leaves the farm.

Like you can buy a coffee in your local greasy spoon for your trouble whilst the Big People live on caviar and champagne in St. Barts.

Might just be me being me, by I refuse to pimp myself out for someone else's pleasure.

[LWeber]

[/B] There's a 17.2 yr drought cycle we are walking into and now we are getting one hand tied behind our back, think '88. Save the ct, i won't be treating moisture as a given.

This drought is real and will be the real killer ....the silent end farm game called CT has left the barn and there are too many faceless entities that won't round it up and get it back - that is longer term and it will be lost in the short term drought induced peril.

Despite that, it will be an oligarch in Russia as he is playing farm poker with as many decks of aces as he needs to win.

Bucket, Blackpowder and WesternVicki have been saying it all along - farmers have zero voice and it gets worse and worse every year.

For the amount of checkoff dollars collected every year, the farm voice is pathetic.

[Old Cowzilla]

Took a D8 two full days to level a sand bank ( stored carbon ) that was made a 100 years ago on the property line. Don't think anybody wants to go back to that way of farming and the world couldn't handle that either profit or food production wise.

[SASKFARMER]

Alberta and chuck you two are hilarious.

They already pay farmers in Iowa 67 Canadian a acre for carbon capture by farmers for Cargill.

Your dollar a acre is insane.

Chuck I wanted better land less fuel and a simpler way and yea carbon credits when a idiot like your buddy Trudeau rode into town on his unicorn.

Why can’t farmers ever get paid for what they do?

Simple question chuck and Alberta and horse kiss my ass