Open Letter about carbon offset program

[jazz]

bucket, there was just an article in the WP saying if farmers want to sequester more carbon, then need to move the current profile deeper first.

So no protill, but get out the banding points and deep rip it all every fall.

[SASKFARMER]

Sub soil and fall band?

[bucket]

bucket, there was just an article in the WP saying if farmers want to sequester more carbon, then need to move the current profile deeper first.

So no protill, but get out the banding points and deep rip it all every fall.

Isn't that contrary to the announcement yesterday about the CFGA pilot project and monitoring the native grasslands?

[jazz]

Isn't that contrary to the announcement yesterday about the CFGA pilot project and monitoring the native grasslands?

I dont know anything about that but before climate change policy hits ag (as in no opening the land at all subject to export penalty) we should get the jump on them and bury our CO2 profile now. We are being ignored right now but that wont last forever. Play the game.

[Misterjade9]

While I 100% agree with your concerns and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the carbon sequestering side of the equation, I don't believe this government or even governments going forward honestly care about that. They see a tax revenue stream and nothing more.
I think if we are going to be able extract value from all of the practices that we have or will adopt in the future to make our farms more efficient we need to look to the end users of our products not government. The Cargill's, the Quaker's, the General Mills of the world are what consumers first see on the grocery store shelves when the encounter our products. SaskFarmer as already alluded to the pilot program that Cargill has in the U.S, and General Mills has had their oat sustainability program here for 5 or 6 years. As just about every major corporation is trying to purport the myth of being emissions free, food processors will be no different. Going forward these companies will need a strong base to build their claims off of, and I think this puts us in an enviable position to show just how we have adopted technology and stewardship practices that already have benefits, not only for us but also the so called climate change.
Even if we did have effective farm groups, I think they could talk till they were blue in the face and government still wouldn't acknowledge what we do already, but if there is a dollar to be made on the food processor side we have a better chance to see some return from that. I could be totally wrong but I really don't believe government cares about us as primary producers.

[LEP]

In the real world when it comes to making a case, organizations and individuals that ignore scientific evidence and say that human caused climate change is a hoax or not happening, don't have any credibilty to make the demand that they should be paid for storing carbon and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The thing is Chuck, you don't have to be a believer to be forced to pay the carbon tax so why should you have to be a believer to be paid to reduce carbon?

The Lieberals were never concerned about creating an effective program. They were just trying to look like they were doing something.

[furrowtickler]

While I 100% agree with your concerns and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the carbon sequestering side of the equation, I don't believe this government or even governments going forward honestly care about that. They see a tax revenue stream and nothing more.
I think if we are going to be able extract value from all of the practices that we have or will adopt in the future to make our farms more efficient we need to look to the end users of our products not government. The Cargill's, the Quaker's, the General Mills of the world are what consumers first see on the grocery store shelves when the encounter our products. SaskFarmer as already alluded to the pilot program that Cargill has in the U.S, and General Mills has had their oat sustainability program here for 5 or 6 years. As just about every major corporation is trying to purport the myth of being emissions free, food processors will be no different. Going forward these companies will need a strong base to build their claims off of, and I think this puts us in an enviable position to show just how we have adopted technology and stewardship practices that already have benefits, not only for us but also the so called climate change.
Even if we did have effective farm groups, I think they could talk till they were blue in the face and government still wouldn't acknowledge what we do already, but if there is a dollar to be made on the food processor side we have a better chance to see some return from that. I could be totally wrong but I really don't believe government cares about us as primary producers.

You are not wrong at all , this is simply a tax grab for wealth redistribution .
The Bill Gates / John Kerry’s and Amazons of the world will simply just buy carbon offsets and carry on with huge carbon footprint, meanwhile the middle class will be lambs to a slaughter financially

[SASKFARMER]

Another example of how stupid this program is going to be in canada. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-certified program aims to create another source of income for American farmers hit by trade uncertainty. That would create another source of subsidy for American farmers that Canadian farmers don’t get, which is already an issue with the large subsidies provided by the Trump administration.

So again we’re being made disadvantaged compared to our neighbours to the south as this will be the new way subsidies will be sent.

Like I said of liberals owned all the land they would be getting over a 100 a acre and falling all over themselves over how well they were helping the environment

[SASKFARMER]

Look at chucks comments it’s people like chuck advising skippy. Think long and hard at the mentality of these advisors. Plus then look at the our PM and cabinet. Now you know why Canadian farmers are screwed.

[Guest]

SF, you still haven't explained why you think you should be paid for storing carbon in your soils when you don't believe that human caused carbon emissions are causing climate change.

you haven't explained why a cement plant in quebec is exempt

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Since Chuck is still using the word believe in regards to his religion of global warming, then our consititutional right to freedom of religion ( should be freedom from religion...) should allow any non-believers to opt out of his church, and any obligation to be extorted into paying for it.

Let them finance their own cult activities, and leave us out of it, if we don't have to pay for their folly, then we won't expect to get paid if we play along with the nonsense.

How about a human rights or constitutional challenge based on the constant use of the word believe, who is with me?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

you haven't explained why a cement plant in quebec is exempt

For the same reason that quebec hydro is exempt from transfer payments of course.

[furrowtickler]

For the same reason that quebec hydro is exempt from transfer payments of course.

Exactly, and while the political flavour of the day wastes time on buying votes , we are headed for a train wreck .

[bucket]

Look at who owns the cement company and how much they sent to the Trudeau foundation...that's how they get exemptions

[chuckChuck]

So what policy objective would be accomplished by paying farmers for carbon sequestration that they have already done in the past because it made business and agronomic sense? None, because farmers have already done a lot without incentives. It would be a direct subsidy payment when no subsidy is needed.

The objective of providing carbon credits to farmers is to provide an incentive to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions beyond the current "business as usual".

According to agricultural scientists there are still opportunities for farmers to be incentivized to adopt more best management practices to address climate change.