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

[bucket]

Our industry is dead with stupid ideas and comments like above.

Our industry is dead because we have zero voice even though we are charged 50million in Saskatchewan alone for some sort of representation.

There was a carbon credit resolution put in front of Saskpulse in January 2020 and again in 2021 for all checkoff commissions. By that resolution it should have made it to the national organizations to get in front of what the federal government was thinking.

It so weird to listen to farm group reps say they are talking to the government at all levels...Well someone isn't listening and the other isn't talking...both speak volumes as to their incompetence...


Here is more from Erin Gowriluk from GGC in an email.....

"""""And maybe finally just with respect to your comments around grain prices and the rising costs facing Canadian farmers. I want to assure you that I’m every conversation that we have with government officials, we are highlighting the increased pressures that Canadian farmers are facing with rising input costs. That’s always been a part of our narrative around why the carbon tax is just yet another cost that Canadian farmers simply cannot afford to bear. """"

Just absolute bullshit that farm groups are doing anything when we have a so called carbon offset program announced with zero chance of it doing anything for farmers.


If they were talking to government officials maybe they should have mentioned the offset program is bullshit and to come back with a better plan...

[jazz]

Our industry is dead with stupid ideas and comments like above.

There is no way to get through to this govt and thats a feature not a bug.

But maybe you are already on to the solution. Protill it all down this fall and restart the baseline. Soil test every yr and track it.

Play the carbon game and sell offsets privately. If people will pay for bitcoin and digital art, they are just stupid enough to pay for imaginary environmental credits too. And a big place like yours could make bank.

[chuckChuck]

One of the reasons farmers don't have more traction on this issue is that a large percentage of them dismiss climate change as an issue and deny the overwhelming scientific evidence.

It's very hard to be taken seriously when on one hand you argue increasing CO2 is good for the planet and human caused climate is not a problem. And then argue that farmers should be paid well for storing carbon for a non existent problem.

So good luck trying to find advocates to support the idea that farmers should be paid significantly more for carbon credits when you don't agree there is a problem.

[bucket]

One of the reasons farmers don't have more traction on this issue is that a large percentage of them dismiss climate change as an issue and deny the overwhelming scientific evidence.

It's very hard to be taken seriously when on one hand you argue increasing CO2 is good for the planet and human caused climate is not a problem. And then argue that farmers should be paid well for storing carbon for a non existent problem.

So good luck trying to find advocates to support the idea that farmers should be paid significantly more for carbon credits when you don't agree there is a problem.

The science has been done on both emissions and sequestering. The fact is the government wants a tax on emissions and not pay on sequestering.

But I ask again because its the one study not done by anyone...where is the scientific evidence that the reduction of engine hours per acre has reduced emissions .....more than all the tier engine improvements combined by probably tenfold.

[jazz]

Govt and fake scientists rebaseline climate scams all the time to sell the doom. Like deleting 100 yrs of temp records or using an arbitrary baseline of 1981-2019 to measure against. They make shit up all the time and sell it to the public. Look at covid. The public are just a bunch of non critical pablum swallowers. They want to be told what to do and think. So let them think they are saving the planet.

Bundle up your soil samples showing the carbon sequestration for the season and sell it to people as an annual carbon subscription. Print out a fake certificate for them. It isnt fing real but its the perception that people want to buy. Christ people pay $50 a yr just to get in the doors at costco.

We dont need the govt but they have already set the prices for carbon for us and will continue to do so in the future. Everybody is in on the carbon scam. Canada is a place to make bank on this. US farmers cant because they have to plow down corn stubble every yr.

[bucket]

Govt and fake scientists rebaseline climate scams all the time to sell the doom. Like deleting 100 yrs of temp records or using an arbitrary baseline of 1981-2019 to measure against. They make shit up all the time and sell it to the public. Look at covid. The public are just a bunch of non critical pablum swallowers. They want to be told what to do and think. So let them think they are saving the planet.

Bundle up your soil samples showing the carbon sequestration for the season and sell it to people as an annual carbon subscription. Print out a fake certificate for them. It isnt fing real but its the perception that people want to buy. Christ people pay $50 a yr just to get in the doors at costco.

We dont need the govt but they have already set the prices for carbon for us and will continue to do so in the future. Everybody is in on the carbon scam. Canada is a place to make bank on this. US farmers cant because they have to plow down corn stubble every yr.

Tom Vilsack has some sort of carbon plan at the top of his to do list?

[Sheepwheat]

Drain every waterhole, push every tree, clear out every old yard, and then expect people to think we are good stewards of the land?

It’s in the mirror. Again.

[TASFarms]

One of the reasons farmers don't have more traction on this issue is that a large percentage of them dismiss climate change as an issue and deny the overwhelming scientific evidence.

It's very hard to be taken seriously when on one hand you argue increasing CO2 is good for the planet and human caused climate is not a problem. And then argue that farmers should be paid well for storing carbon for a non existent problem.

So good luck trying to find advocates to support the idea that farmers should be paid significantly more for carbon credits when you don't agree there is a problem.

It’s a scam by design. There is no science needed. It’s a wealth transfer scam. Why does this have to be debated. Paying people for sequestered carbon is part of the scam. If they aren’t paying they are just scamming more.

[chuckChuck]

A5 mentioned it yesterday and I will bring it up again.

Adding carbon to soils is a long process. Especially with annual crops. At some point the soil goes into equilibrium and as much carbon is released by decomposition as is captured.

Soil organic matter is proxy for carbon. Since direct seeding leaves most of the residues on the surface where is all the carbon from the residues going?

Grazing lands can speed up and enhance the process of storing carbon.

How long does it take to get back to pre agricultural levels of soil organic matter?

And of course this all varies with the soil type, climate and management.

The other factor that will be looked at will be farmers management of wetlands and non arable areas which store a lot of carbon.

So good luck measuring and quantifying carbon credits. One size does not fit all.

[bucket]

A5 mentioned it yesterday and I will bring it up again.

Adding carbon to soils is a long process. Especially with annual crops. At some point the soil goes into equilibrium and as much carbon is released by decomposition as is captured.

Soil organic matter is proxy for carbon. Since direct seeding leaves most of the residues on the surface where is all the carbon from the residues going?

Grazing lands can speed up and enhance the process of storing carbon.

How long does it take to get back to pre agricultural levels of soil organic matter?

And of course this all varies with the soil type, climate and management.

The other factor that will be looked at will be farmers management of wetlands and non arable areas which store a lot of carbon.

So good luck measuring and quantifying carbon credits. One size does not fit all.

But the science you believe has figured all the sequestering out already.

My guess is they can calculate the amount each crop will sequester every year.

Just like they have figured the emissions from a litre of fuel.


Science...you believe right?

[HITTGrapevine]

Science aside, its a stupid idea period to put a tax on food production, especially when every expert in the world a few years ago was crying about how are we going to feed the planet.
Feed the planet by increasing production costs? I suppose that makes a lot of sense if you smoke enough weed
But the sock puppet's tax is already in place and no government (Conservative, Liberal or NDP) is ever going to change that. It's a new tax source with no accounting system to back it up, exactly what every government wants and needs. And it makes sockface look like an environmental crusader to all of his buddies at the UN.
Oh, how silly of me, I forgot the carbon tax is revenue neutral

[HITTGrapevine]

Another good reason to buy farmland in Ukraine or Kazikstan. I wonder how much farmers there are paying for carbon.

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck again your off the mark. But the reality is your mad because a farmer like you will get less than me if this is in place.

Come on we all know your angle bigger is bad.

I will burn every acre this fall you will see the smoke when skippy is flying over and ill print **** you, Trudeau.

Climate change by Carbon is a Scam, Chuck.

We have liberals pushing it because follow the money and check where the support they get comes from.

Follow the money.

if all the land in Saskatchewan was owned by a liberal guess what we would be getting 100 an acre for every acre.

[Robertbarlage]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

We certainly are already paying emissions taxes in all sorts of ways, but that doesn't mean we can't be taxed in many more new and creative ways if we buy into the scam by demanding payment for no-till.
There is a lot of talk about how much emissions come from fertilizer application, and methane from cattle those two alone could dwarf any potential income from no-till sequestration. Then we could get to pay for the soil carbon released when we take out a tree or improve a slough, or take out perennials, our fuel exemption could go away.
Be careful what you ask for.