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

[blackpowder]

Fair point. What are we giving in return. We can't do nothing. But I believe we never ask for a fair exchange.
Social license for market access my foot.

[bucket]

I usually agree with most stuff.
But not the bin building theory.

Maybe it's just in this area...but when they closed Eyebrow as an example ...bins had to be built to offset the thousands of tonnes that couldn't make it from field to elevator anymore..three loads off the field is a 5000 bushel bin...

Then by extension the other elevators within a 45 mile range started backing up as well ...

A 10000 tonne elevator is 60-80000 tonnes that have to find a new home.

[blackpowder]

We've exchanged opinions on this before therefore, respectfully I wont try to change your mind.

[bucket]

We've exchanged opinions on this before therefore, respectfully I wont try to change your mind.

Location does make a difference into opinion. So does a elevator manager's attitude if they can remain open...

Good discussions always need opposing views...otherwise it's called cheerleading.

And from what I see from farm groups is a lot of cheerleading without much thought for the average farmer.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

SF, just try to explain how carbon emissions don't cause climate change, but you still want to be paid well for capturing carbon? What do you think the reason is for paying carbon credits to farmers?

Chuck discovers hypocrisy. Good job. Now go back and read most your own posts and see if you can recognize the constant examples.

[SASKFARMER]

Guys like chuck sooner or later fall into the pile of shit.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agriculture-and-the-environment/agricultural-practices/climate-change-and-agriculture/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indicator/?id=1461014704763 https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agriculture-and-the-environment/agricultural-practices/climate-change-and-agriculture/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indicator/?id=1461014704763

[chuckChuck]

https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agriculture-and-the-environment/agricultural-practices/climate-change-and-agriculture/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indicator/?id=1461014704763 https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agriculture-and-the-environment/agricultural-practices/climate-change-and-agriculture/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indicator/?id=1461014704763

Overall state and trend

In 2011, the net GHG emissions (emissions minus absorption by soils) from Canadian agricultural activities, excluding fossil fuel use, amounted to 42 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents (Mt CO2e) which is equal to about 6% of Canada's overall GHG emissions. Total agricultural GHG emissions (not factoring in carbon sequestration by agricultural soils) comes to 8% of Canada's total emissions. You can view these statistics in Environment Canada's National Inventory Report 1990-2011: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada - Executive Summary.

Use the interactive map below to zoom in and explore different regions. Note that all the Prairie Provinces show relatively low emissions, despite the agricultural intensity of the region. This is attributed to the uptake of beneficial management practices (BMPs) that promote the sequestration (absorption and storage) of carbon in soils, such as conversion from annual crops to perennial cover, reduced soil disturbance through no- or minimum-tillage, and the shift away from summerfallow – a practice of leaving fields bare.

In addition to exploring the 2011 emissions, click the play button to view changes over time. Since 1981, there has been a reduction in net agricultural GHG emissions by approximately 10%. Most of this reduction has taken place in the Prairie Provinces as a result of BMPs that favour soil carbon sequestration.

Interestingly, while GHG emissions as a whole have decreased since 1981, carbon dioxide equivalent gases have not all followed a similar trend. In the same period, nitrous oxide has increased by 31% and methane has increased by 2%. This confirms that the improvements in net agricultural GHG emissions have primarily come from the change in carbon dioxide emissions from agricultural soils.

[chuckChuck]

Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to get into bed with the science deniers like Chuck, needs to spend a few minutes reading his NFU website.

The supposed farmers in the NFU are also campaigning for eliminating fertilizer ( because climate change), all petrochemical inputs( because climate change), attacks on livestock ( because climate change) etc etc. This is the slippery slope we would be signing up for if we ignore the science and lobby for a few pennies for sequestering CO2.

"Science denier" Whaaat? This is rich coming from the jackass who thinks we are going to run low on CO2 if we don't keep burning fossil fuels! Anyone who thinks this, obviously knows very little about the carbon cycle and shouldn't be calling others science deniers! LOL

[chuckChuck]

Then farmers shouldn't expect payment for BMPs and carbon credits?

If so, you should tell SF3 who started this thread, because he was mad that farmers wouldn't receive any credit for "helping the climate" prior to 2017.

So SF3 doesn't believe in human caused climate change caused by increased CO2 emissions, but he still believes that by sequestering carbon (capturing C02 in soils) he "helped" the climate! An interesting contradiction. maybe SF3 can "rant" at us with an explanation of the obvious contradiction.

[shortbox]

Does anyone actually read the crap that chuck/chuck posts? Lol

[SASKFARMER]

Oh, chuck you mindless twit.

CO2 is at one of the lowest points in the history of the world it really isn't a problem. IT is needed for life on earth and Saskatchewan was under a tropical paradise at one time in the history of the world when CO2 levels were at their highest levels. Then the great ice age took us to one of the lowest.

You keep pushing the last 100 years with bullshit data. ITs because no one in your group is looking beyond that time period. It is made up to suit their narrative, we know it, but skippy and you don't. So farmers either get on with the program scam like all good liberals or were left behind.

We need to fight now or we will be crushed by the excess costs.

Chuck hates this because we all need to be section farmers ****ing the sheep living in an old home with solar and zero friends.

The NFU plan doesn't work.

Chuck would hate if he got 67 an acre for a total of $42,888 and I got $670,000.00 and a Large farmer got $8,375,000.00.

See chuck you hate the money difference I don't, I really don't care if another farmer gets more money than me, they are taking a risk farming the same as all of us. But the NFU and You hate the difference.