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

[SASKFARMER]

Why is everything we do in western Canada shit on by useless Ottawa.

Why is the basic question. I know the answer is because we have no liberals who could make money off the land so why would the federal liberals give money to farmers who have direct seeded for 37 years.

Bring out the cultivators and rip the shit out of it all because that Mr farmer is the only way they will help you.

It's ****ing useless like the Carbon tax and everything they do.

So small farmers who are still using old tec might get a loan or subsidy to go Direct seeding and buy into the Carbon Credit Scam.

Regular farmers that were ahead of the curb to save the planet will get shit on.

It's all about punishing one group and get back to the poor section farmer with the barn and free-range chickens and pigs and barefoot and pregnant wife.

Draft regulations for Canada’s new carbon market show Canadian farmers won’t receive credit for removing any greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the atmosphere prior to 2017.

Under the proposals released Friday, producers won’t be getting any credit for being zero-till, or having perennial forage coverage — particularly if those efforts were completed prior to 2017.

Projects started prior to the beginning of 2017 won’t be eligible for carbon credits under the federal program, because federal officials want to see additional efforts taken to reduce emissions.

So where were our Farm Groups or was it just the NFU and a few farmers like Chuck advising these ****ing idiots.

Why cant anything ever work for real farmers in Canada.

The shit show continues.

[SASKFARMER]

The Pro Till market will be hot this fall. Ripping all 10000 acres.

**** you Ottawa.

[Old Cowzilla]

The Pro Till market will be hot this fall. Ripping all 10000 acres.

**** you Ottawa.

EASY EASY now keep your stubble fields yul safe a fortune in air filters !

[mcfarms]

Yes the way I read that was any practices in action before 2017 will be ineligible for any recognition for carbon storage .

[bucket]

They are expropriating our contribution to the environment.

To me ..expropriate means "legal theft" . It was defined that way in a dictionary I used when I looked it up one time back in my 20s

[macdon02]

At risk of kicking the bull here, but have you read up on Bidens 30x30 executive order?

https://twitter.com/Kblah_blah/status/1368584495444729864?s=20

Since all these idiots at the podium are using "Build back better" as their mantra you can be damn sure this is coming here next. And whatever you do, don't start digging into "renewable diesel". It's only a matter of time before China realizes that the green agenda is an act of war designed to cut off their food supply. But maybe they already did and that explains the massive stockpiling of grains they've committed to in the last 6 months. 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.

[chuckChuck]

Most farmers adopted direct seeding because it made economic and agronomic sense and improved moisture management and reduced soil erosion risk and those benefits far outweigh any potential carbon credits.

So how much extra carbon have farmers sequestered with direct seeding? Perennial forages? Cover crops? Intensive grazing systems?

[Horse]

Sask I would like to know if you are that high on yourself or just that low of an opinion of everyone else that is happy to farm at there own comfort zone, pregnant wife,dont you have kids,nothing wrong with chickens and pigs.
As for feeding the world,BS its all about profit,and that's not a bad thing,just don't try to disguise as what its not.

[bucket]

Most farmers adopted direct seeding because it made economic and agronomic sense and improved moisture management and reduced soil erosion risk and those benefits far outweigh any potential carbon credits.

So how much extra carbon have farmers sequestered with direct seeding? Perennial forages? Cover crops? Intensive grazing systems?

You might be right


but when the carbon tax goes to 170 and beyond there is an opportunity for sequestering....that just got shitcanned no matter the carbon tax pricing.

[jazz]

As for feeding the world,BS its all about profit,and that's not a bad thing,just don't try to disguise as what its not.

If farmers were all about profit they wouldnt be in a business that squeezes them every year.

Most I know are looking for a reasonable profit with lifestyle and freedom and without govt overreach and an opportunity for the next generation to enter the business. Unfortunately the last item has meant that farmers need to expand and watch the bottom line closely.

This is a business now as we were told by govts many moons ago, so stop treating it as a charity.

Wait until your kids are 18 and there is no entry into your families business and they shuffle off to the city and never come back. You might think differently on what you obviously think is greed.

[bucket]

50 million a year from checkoffs in Saskatchewan and not one farm group can issue a press release on this?

This announcement was teased a month ago...

Farm groups = silence.

[HITTGrapevine]

Yes the way I read that was any practices in action before 2017 will be ineligible for any recognition for carbon storage .

Two thoughts on this.
First, lots of grain farmers can still qualify for offset payments, although some in Alberta who have already capitalized under that province's offset program might be SOL.
The key is in your starting baseline.
Ottawa doesn't know how much we've been tilling our land each year, or how many "subsurface" tillage passes we make on our fields each year, or what kind of openers we've been using. I'm pretty sure they are completely oblivious to that kind of info at the farm level.
So, if you want to benefit from the carbon offset market, then you should establish a baseline practice on your farm that does not conform with Ottawa's proposed Enhanced Soil Organic Carbon protocol. I agree SKF. Some forages might get ripped up and pro-till acres might go up. In other instances, something as simple as moving to a different and slightly wider opener might be all that's required to establish a non-conforming baseline. Once you're in a nonconforming position, you can adjust later to become conforming and eligible for offset payments. I know its a bunch of BS and I agree that farmers should have been rewarded for changes they've already made. But its a Liberal government. What can you expect?
2) I'm not sure if its too late for this already but I think there needs to be some serious lobbying done to ensure that farmers are compensated for carbon sink maintenance. Things like leaving unproductive low lying areas in grass or trees, keeping potholes and marsh areas intact, avoiding drainage of ponds and potholes, keeping wooded areas as wooded areas, etc, etc. These are all things that contribute to carbon sequestration. But as far as I know, there's been no indication that farmers will be rewarded for these types of actions. To farmers, there's a cost to leaving those five or 10 acres of trees or grass intact. It's called opportunity cost. They'll be paying land managers and the forestry industry to plant new trees. How about paying farmers to keep existing ones?

"In microeconomic theory, opportunity cost is the loss or the benefit that could have been enjoyed if the alternative choice was chosen."

[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?