At a time of accelerating inflation and energy and food insecurity, Canadians concerned about their economy are right to suspect the federal government is not being honest or transparent about the implications and costs of its aggressive “Net-Zero Transition” to a “greener” economy. To the legislative overhaul marked by the carbon tax, clean fuel regulation and capping and reducing oil and gas sector GHG emissions is now added an arbitrary target for fertilizer emissions.
Given the profound economic and social effects of these intentionally transformational policies, Canadians quite reasonably ask: Who is our federal government really serving with such an aggressive climate policy agenda? How is it possibly in the national interest? Or has Ottawa completely lost sight of our national interest in pursuing initiatives aligned so closely with policies advanced by the European Union and United Nations?
apple.news
By seeking to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 the federal government, like the governments of Sri Lanka and the Netherlands before it, is now advancing a policy that will threaten food production, increase food insecurity and raise prices.
Where does the 30 per cent number come from? It is the target touted by key environmental groups, is similar to that set by the EU Green Deal in early 2020 and reflects Canada’s December 2020 commitments to the UN that led to the 2021 Draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2026.
Principles from the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were also incorporated directly into the 2021 mandate letters of cabinet ministers. Canada clearly is following in lockstep with policy goals set by the EU and UN that also encompass plans to: increase land set aside for nature to 30 per cent, place at least 25 per cent of agricultural land under organic production, reduce “nutrient loss of fertilizers” by 50 per cent (or at least reduce overall fertilizer use by 20 per cent) and reduce pesticide use by 50 per cent.
In fact, the federal government maintains that it is not actually proposing a 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer use. Individual farmers and industry groups disagree, however, arguing that a 30 per cent reduction in emissions from fertilizers effectively requires a 30 per cent reduction in their use.
Like the Dutch government, Ottawa has said the fertilizer emissions goal is not negotiable — although it has left implementation to farmers and provincial governments.
At the recent annual meeting of agriculture ministers, provincial and territorial ministers pushed to discuss this important topic with their federal counterpart but were told the emissions target was already set.
Ottawa’s commitment to future consultations only covers how to meet its perfectly arbitrary target, not whether the target is either appropriate or attainable.
Even worse, discussions and consultations about the policy target appear not to be enlightened by any comprehensive research into its economic impacts.
The target ignores Canada’s existing high practice standards and will hit crop yields and farm incomes just as the global community needs Canada to contribute to international food security.
Canadian farmers, like their Dutch counterparts, are among the most efficient users of chemicals in the world. Canadian farming practices recognize and use the “4R system” of nutrient stewardship: “right source, right rate, right time and right place,” which guides practices to keep nutrients on and in the field by aligning the economic, environmental and social components of nutrient management.
Canadians are right to question policies that will erode their economy and standard of living but will have only negligible effect on global emissions.
Canadians who already pursue best practices are being forced to reduce emissions even as the emissions of other countries increase. For instance, China was behind more than half the new coal power capacity of 176 gigawatts the world added in 2021 while contributing more GHG emissions globally than the other top seven emitters combined. In 2021 it accounted for over half the world’s new coal power plants, adding 43 new plants to its existing total of 1,110. As for fertilizer, China also uses almost 10 times as much as Canada but so far has not announced any fertilizer emissions reduction targets.
It is time for Canada to stop implementing copy-cat international climate commitments that are contrary to our national interest and which other countries ignore. Focusing on a robust, sustainable economy anchored in energy and food security would allow us to get on with the job of feeding and providing energy not just to Canada but to the world.
Given the profound economic and social effects of these intentionally transformational policies, Canadians quite reasonably ask: Who is our federal government really serving with such an aggressive climate policy agenda? How is it possibly in the national interest? Or has Ottawa completely lost sight of our national interest in pursuing initiatives aligned so closely with policies advanced by the European Union and United Nations?
Opinion: Axe the fertilizer ban — Financial Post
Fertilizer emissions reduction target will threaten food production, increase food insecurity and raise prices
By seeking to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 the federal government, like the governments of Sri Lanka and the Netherlands before it, is now advancing a policy that will threaten food production, increase food insecurity and raise prices.
Where does the 30 per cent number come from? It is the target touted by key environmental groups, is similar to that set by the EU Green Deal in early 2020 and reflects Canada’s December 2020 commitments to the UN that led to the 2021 Draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy 2022-2026.
Principles from the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were also incorporated directly into the 2021 mandate letters of cabinet ministers. Canada clearly is following in lockstep with policy goals set by the EU and UN that also encompass plans to: increase land set aside for nature to 30 per cent, place at least 25 per cent of agricultural land under organic production, reduce “nutrient loss of fertilizers” by 50 per cent (or at least reduce overall fertilizer use by 20 per cent) and reduce pesticide use by 50 per cent.
In fact, the federal government maintains that it is not actually proposing a 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer use. Individual farmers and industry groups disagree, however, arguing that a 30 per cent reduction in emissions from fertilizers effectively requires a 30 per cent reduction in their use.
Like the Dutch government, Ottawa has said the fertilizer emissions goal is not negotiable — although it has left implementation to farmers and provincial governments.
At the recent annual meeting of agriculture ministers, provincial and territorial ministers pushed to discuss this important topic with their federal counterpart but were told the emissions target was already set.
Ottawa’s commitment to future consultations only covers how to meet its perfectly arbitrary target, not whether the target is either appropriate or attainable.
Even worse, discussions and consultations about the policy target appear not to be enlightened by any comprehensive research into its economic impacts.
The target ignores Canada’s existing high practice standards and will hit crop yields and farm incomes just as the global community needs Canada to contribute to international food security.
Canadian farmers, like their Dutch counterparts, are among the most efficient users of chemicals in the world. Canadian farming practices recognize and use the “4R system” of nutrient stewardship: “right source, right rate, right time and right place,” which guides practices to keep nutrients on and in the field by aligning the economic, environmental and social components of nutrient management.
Canadians are right to question policies that will erode their economy and standard of living but will have only negligible effect on global emissions.
Canadians who already pursue best practices are being forced to reduce emissions even as the emissions of other countries increase. For instance, China was behind more than half the new coal power capacity of 176 gigawatts the world added in 2021 while contributing more GHG emissions globally than the other top seven emitters combined. In 2021 it accounted for over half the world’s new coal power plants, adding 43 new plants to its existing total of 1,110. As for fertilizer, China also uses almost 10 times as much as Canada but so far has not announced any fertilizer emissions reduction targets.
It is time for Canada to stop implementing copy-cat international climate commitments that are contrary to our national interest and which other countries ignore. Focusing on a robust, sustainable economy anchored in energy and food security would allow us to get on with the job of feeding and providing energy not just to Canada but to the world.
