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

[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.

[chuckChuck]

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.

Hey it's Thursday! Lets have some fun. Lets watch SF3 explain why he wants to be paid for solving a problem that doesn't exist!

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck if the earth was surviving and thriving with 10 times today Co2 and we were a tropical paradise except for the dinosaurs. I would take that over what we have now in winter.

But you can't see past the last few years.

It's fun with numbers and like the NFU you cant understand them.

[chuckChuck]

JWAB,Habitat destruction, ocean degradation all have strong links to climate change. Two examples

1. Rising global temperatures are increasing boreal forests to burn, releasing more carbon.
2. Increasing CO2 levels in the ocean are leading to acidification which threatens many marine habitats and species.

I am just not sure how you can be pro protecting habitat for future generations and then not be concerned about well documented human caused climate change's dramatic impact on ecosystems? Please explain.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck if the earth was surviving and thriving with 10 times today Co2 and we were a tropical paradise except for the dinosaurs. I would take that over what we have now in winter.

But you can't see past the last few years.

It's fun with numbers and like the NFU you cant understand them.

So I take it you are not able or willing to explain the contradiction of why you should be paid for "helping" the climate but don't believe in human caused climate change? LOL

So you would prefer to farm in the tropics I take it. With dinosaurs no less? Are you thinking of farming with dinosaurs? Because you probably have the right aptitude for understanding them!

Why not buy an orange grove in Florida or a soybean farm in Brazil? That way you can leave us hardy prairie farmers to put in a full year of work while you vacation for 1/2 a year!

[Hamloc]

So I take it you are not able or willing to explain the contradiction of why you should be paid for "helping" the climate but don't believe in human caused climate change? LOL

So you would prefer to farm in the tropics I take it. With dinosaurs no less? Are you thinking of farming with dinosaurs? Because you probably have the right aptitude for understanding them!

Why not buy an orange grove in Florida or a soybean farm in Brazil? That way you can leave us hardy prairie farmers to put in a full year of work while you vacation for 1/2 a year!

Chuck2 how do you propose that farmers in Canada compete with jurisdictions like Russia, Brazil and the U.S. where there is no carbon tax and one is not proposed?! In the U.S. there is no proposed carbon tax but farmers can collect carbon credits. How do you square this circle?!

[Robertbarlage]

Tipical Lefty jealous! Come on chuck u do nothing all year but cut and paste!

[Guest]

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.

Hey it's Thursday! Lets have some fun. Lets watch SF3 explain why he wants to be paid for solving a problem that doesn't exist!

Are you *** serious , ??

[Robertbarlage]

Shouldn't u be turtle waxing your solar panels? In your shorty shorts? It's nice out!

[Guest]

Chuck2 how do you propose that farmers in Canada compete with jurisdictions like Russia, Brazil and the U.S. where there is no carbon tax and one is not proposed?! In the U.S. there is no proposed carbon tax but farmers can collect carbon credits. How do you square this circle?!

CHUCK , answer this question , FFS?