Brazilian farmer fined 50 million for damage to climate.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

https://www.agweb.com/news/brazil-fines-rancher-50-million-damage-amazon

This should scare every farmer.
The Brazilian rancher was illegally clearing rainforest on government land. Assuming that part of the story is true, sounds like criminal proceedings were justified.
But the scary part is how they calculated the damages.
Based on the social cost of carbon, and how much CO2 an acre of rainforest will release when burned.
Then confiscate/freeze all of his assets to pay for the arbitrary social cost of carbon.

Seems like a slippery slope .
? I can see our current federal environment Minister rubbing his hands with glee about the opportunities to apply these climate fines Canadian farmers at businesses for legal everyday business practices.

How do you prove that an action doesn't hurt the climate? Or what the cost of that damage actually is?

Could this be used to Target fertilizer applications, tillage operations, the ration you feed your cattle that creates more methane, fires caused by farm machinery, damage to ecosystems caused by cattle, emissions from farm equipment that doesn't meet the latest standards, habitat loss on private land?

[goalieguy847]

Uhhhh he destroyed 13000 acres by chainsawing it and lighting it on fire. It was rainforest and it was GOVT OWNED LAND. He admitted to the whole thing.

So lets get this straight.
HE CLEARCUT 13 K ACRES of NOT his own land. What.. uh... what do you think he should get fined?

pretty straight forward. I imagine it would be similiar fine in Canada.

and no. This couldnt be used against canadian growers. Unless a grower clearcut 13 k acres of crownland. In which case i would hope they get fined 50 million.

next question?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Please read my comment again. I don't disagree that he deserved punishment for breaking the law.

I'm concerned about how they calculated the monetary value of that punishment based on damage to climate, rather than any pre-existing legal precedents.

[fcr]

I spent two weeks last February in Brazil’s rain forest and am going back this winter for a month to explore more . It is an extremely fragile environment , there is clearing going on everywhere , just to grow more food to add to a world surplus. It isn’t small family operations like here but very large corporations. I am sure clearing of rain forests is a huge contributer to climate change , it’s very sad to see when you see it in person.

[biglentil]

Maybe someone should tell Monette and his fleet of Cats. We don't need any more new acres have a look at commodity prices. That's how she goes the remedy for high prices is high prices.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I probably should leave the conspiracies for Chuck's asylum, but...

Many people are speculating that there is a conspiracy to extract land from private/smallholder ownership. I don't buy into this.
But if a malicious government wanted to make private landownership untenable, financially punishing them with arbitrary climate fines/costs would be the perfect quasi legal means to do so, while pretending to take the moral high ground.

This rancher was clearly breaking the law. But when the punishment is justified by damage to the climate, which can not be proven or disproven, with goalposts that move constantly, who is to say that our normal day to day operations couldn't be redefined as damaging the climate in the future, and the punishment being so disproportionate that farming isn't financially viable?

How high could cow flatulence fines go?
Fertilizer emissions fines?
etc.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Maybe someone should tell Monette and his fleet of Cats. We don't need any more new acres have a look at commodity prices. That's how she goes the remedy for high prices is high prices.

I don't see any similarities. What monette is doing is legal (so far) on privately owned land.

But who is to say that in the future the climate crazies don't decree that farmers have to keep a certain percent of their farm in its natural state with large fines every year until that state is achieved. Using climate as the justification.

If Forest is the natural state and it takes 30 years to regrow a forest, and has to be done at the landowners expense, that could bankrupt nearly any operation.. What was legal today maybe punishable tomorrow under that scenario.

[LEP]

Currently some grain buyers require you sign a declaration that you haven't cleared xx amount of uncultivated land to be considered "sustainable". This allows them to sell canola into Europe.

No $$ incentive. Also if you have any oil wells on your land you aren't able to be considered sustainable.

Apparently my son and I are some of the few that would qualify.

Guess we have to farm to make a living.

[checking]

Currently some grain buyers require you sign a declaration that you haven't cleared xx amount of uncultivated land to be considered "sustainable". This allows them to sell canola into Europe.

No $$ incentive. Also if you have any oil wells on your land you aren't able to be considered sustainable.

Apparently my son and I are some of the few that would qualify.

Guess we have to farm to make a living.

Okay, if I agree what you said is correct. We have no property rights as landowners.

Have you used "sustainable" in lieu of not having property rights to prevent an oil company from being granted an Arbitration Board right of entry?

Traditionally, said landowner is no more than a three day inconvenience if you are only arguing over money for the lease an oil company wants, or say you don't want their lease, period. Arbitration Boards are set up by governments such that court systems aren't burdened with the task of deciding. Your thoughts suggest that governments are the cause of farmers not being able to sell canola into Europe because the Board rarely refuses entry to an oil company.

[WiltonRanch]

Okay, if I agree what you said is correct. We have no property rights as landowners.

Have you used "sustainable" in lieu of not having property rights to prevent an oil company from being granted an Arbitration Board right of entry?

Traditionally, said landowner is no more than a three day inconvenience if you are only arguing over money for the lease an oil company wants, or say you don't want their lease, period. Arbitration Boards are set up by governments such that court systems aren't burdened with the task of deciding. Your thoughts suggest that governments are the cause of farmers not being able to sell canola into Europe because the Board rarely refuses entry to an oil company.

Good question. My other question is in a transitional zone which the natural cycle is between prairie and mixed aspen woodlands due to change in rainfall amounts and naturally occurring fires, what is the sustainable practice there? Being that prairie fires are frowned upon today, is using my cat to clear bush that was once open prairie when ancestors came any less sustainable? My honest opinion it’s a bunch of bullshit and I have no intentions of selling any canola to Viterra.

[checking]

What you will never hear is what became of that cleared 13000 acres. Suspect that some politician-justice elite can now move in to grow corn and beans.

No transitional zone here as was only populated by trees along the river system. Trees/poplar weed showed up after sod turning. Those suckers sucker system never existed. Where is the EU evidence that ridding a tree weed that imported itself into the area is any different than controlling a wild oat?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What you will never hear is what became of that cleared 13000 acres. Suspect that some politician-justice elite can now move in to grow corn and beans.

There's definitely more to this story. This wasn't a mom and pop ranch that snuck out overnight and cleared 13,000 hectares with a chainsaw without anyone noticing.

This must have taken years or decades with a very large staff. Knowing how business works in brazil, some of the appropriate local authorities must have been bribed to look the other way.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Now that the precedent has been set that punishment for burning forests as a crime against the climate, that should be proportionate to its social cost of carbon released, how soon before the activist arsonists in the first world get sentenced accordingly? And what about their sponsors, enablers and supporters?

[checking]

Fine is getting less per acre all the time. Makes sense that it should have been by the hectare in Brazil. An LSD move and I could pay the fine!

[poorboy]

And how many farms in Canada are farming the crown owned road allowance or have their fields creeping into the road ditch. hmm