The federal plan to cut total fertilizer emissions to 30 per cent below 2020 levels by the end of the decade is really just a funding package for research and technology subsidies aimed at making agriculture more efficient on fertilizer — for now, at least???
Behind the apparently-toothless target is a series of funding commitments: $631 million for carbon sequestration on properties including farmland, $98 million for an agricultural “climate solution” fund and $167 million for efficient technology research and subsidies. In 2022, another $550 million was added to the various initiatives.
The 2030 target is voluntary, says Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.
In other words, it’s a branding tool to sound tough on climate while justifying any expense to meet an unreachable target.
It might also be a Trojan horse to bring in tighter regulations without inciting any Dutch-style farmer protests. It’s hard to say where Bibeau’s contradictory messaging is going, and that’s what makes it so troubling.
If the government one day decides to mandate a fertilizer cut, it’s going to hurt at home and abroad. Most food grown in Canada gets exported, but that could change. An analysis by accounting firm MNP calculated that a 20 per cent reduction in fertilizer use to meet the 2030 target would devastate Canadian agriculture, leading to possibly $48 billion in losses for just corn, canola and spring wheat alone. The cut would also wipe out our canola exports.
Such a drastic cut likely needs more than just government funding for research projects and subsidies for newer, more efficient equipment. And with today’s technology, it will be impossible for Canada to meet the 30 per cent target, Fertilizer Canada’s CEO told a Macdonald-Laurier Institute panel Thursday.
If it’s impossible, what’s the point?
The agriculture minister’s response to criticism of the target’s low feasibility is to ease off climate and act soft on farmers.
On August 9, she told Western Producer that the target was “voluntary” and that she didn’t intend to limit fertilizer use. On August 10, she told RealAg Radio that there was “no intention of going in a regulatory direction” with the target?
Bibeau’s words aren’t reassuring. Having “no intention” to do something doesn’t rule it out in the future.
On top of that, the feds have already taken a regulatory approach to fertilizer elsewhere — they included nitrogen fertilizer production in the federal greenhouse gas pricing scheme for industrial emitters. If they’re going for fertilizer at the beginning of the supply chain, they can go for the end too.
Hard targets on fertilizer use aren’t necessary because the market already does a lot to drive efficiency. Fertilizer accounts for half of Canadian crop expenses — more money is spent on fertilizer than on seeds. The farmers who use more efficient practices stand to gain more.
The agriculture minister wants to be tough on climate though, and looks past simple market dynamics in favour of weaker policy support. In December in the House of Commons, Bibeau justified her emissions target by citing an informal survey of 12 soil experts in the government and the private sector who “mostly agreed” that the target was feasible?
In January, Bibeau refused to tell the House of Commons if the government studied how a 30 per cent fertilizer emissions reduction would specifically impact food production, supply and exports
She then confirmed that the federal government had not assessed the impact of the emissions target in Saskatchewan — a significant blind spot, considering that the province has the largest share of the nation’s farmland, at 39 per cent according to Statistics Canada.
Industry publication Real Agriculture reported on government revisions made in April to how it calculated nitrogen fertilizer, dropping emissions figures by a whopping 20 per cent. This revision was based on research from 2016 — so for six years, the government wasn’t following the latest science to properly calculate emissions.
(It’s likely the official figure for total nitrogen fertilizer emissions still overshoots reality on the ground, because a number of other sustainable fertilizer practices haven’t been factored in yet.)
There’s $185 million earmarked for efficient technology subsidies, and the amount a farmer can qualify for varies depending on identity. In March, Bibeau told the agriculture committee that the feds would subsidize up to 50 per cent of purchases for older, white male farmers, “but young farmers, women and under-represented groups can get a subsidy of up to 60 per cent.” ?????
If cutting fertilizer emissions is truly urgent, the agriculture ministry wouldn’t be subsidizing solutions
Consultations were recently re-opened to help the agriculture ministry substantiate its ideas. This is more a game of catch-up than an act of being thorough — neither the provinces nor the agricultural sector were consulted on the target before it was announced, according to Fertilizer Canada. Altogether, it seems the justification for the 2030 target is being made up as they go.
apple.news
Behind the apparently-toothless target is a series of funding commitments: $631 million for carbon sequestration on properties including farmland, $98 million for an agricultural “climate solution” fund and $167 million for efficient technology research and subsidies. In 2022, another $550 million was added to the various initiatives.
The 2030 target is voluntary, says Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.
In other words, it’s a branding tool to sound tough on climate while justifying any expense to meet an unreachable target.
It might also be a Trojan horse to bring in tighter regulations without inciting any Dutch-style farmer protests. It’s hard to say where Bibeau’s contradictory messaging is going, and that’s what makes it so troubling.
If the government one day decides to mandate a fertilizer cut, it’s going to hurt at home and abroad. Most food grown in Canada gets exported, but that could change. An analysis by accounting firm MNP calculated that a 20 per cent reduction in fertilizer use to meet the 2030 target would devastate Canadian agriculture, leading to possibly $48 billion in losses for just corn, canola and spring wheat alone. The cut would also wipe out our canola exports.
Such a drastic cut likely needs more than just government funding for research projects and subsidies for newer, more efficient equipment. And with today’s technology, it will be impossible for Canada to meet the 30 per cent target, Fertilizer Canada’s CEO told a Macdonald-Laurier Institute panel Thursday.
If it’s impossible, what’s the point?
The agriculture minister’s response to criticism of the target’s low feasibility is to ease off climate and act soft on farmers.
On August 9, she told Western Producer that the target was “voluntary” and that she didn’t intend to limit fertilizer use. On August 10, she told RealAg Radio that there was “no intention of going in a regulatory direction” with the target?
Bibeau’s words aren’t reassuring. Having “no intention” to do something doesn’t rule it out in the future.
On top of that, the feds have already taken a regulatory approach to fertilizer elsewhere — they included nitrogen fertilizer production in the federal greenhouse gas pricing scheme for industrial emitters. If they’re going for fertilizer at the beginning of the supply chain, they can go for the end too.
Hard targets on fertilizer use aren’t necessary because the market already does a lot to drive efficiency. Fertilizer accounts for half of Canadian crop expenses — more money is spent on fertilizer than on seeds. The farmers who use more efficient practices stand to gain more.
The agriculture minister wants to be tough on climate though, and looks past simple market dynamics in favour of weaker policy support. In December in the House of Commons, Bibeau justified her emissions target by citing an informal survey of 12 soil experts in the government and the private sector who “mostly agreed” that the target was feasible?
In January, Bibeau refused to tell the House of Commons if the government studied how a 30 per cent fertilizer emissions reduction would specifically impact food production, supply and exports
She then confirmed that the federal government had not assessed the impact of the emissions target in Saskatchewan — a significant blind spot, considering that the province has the largest share of the nation’s farmland, at 39 per cent according to Statistics Canada.
Industry publication Real Agriculture reported on government revisions made in April to how it calculated nitrogen fertilizer, dropping emissions figures by a whopping 20 per cent. This revision was based on research from 2016 — so for six years, the government wasn’t following the latest science to properly calculate emissions.
(It’s likely the official figure for total nitrogen fertilizer emissions still overshoots reality on the ground, because a number of other sustainable fertilizer practices haven’t been factored in yet.)
There’s $185 million earmarked for efficient technology subsidies, and the amount a farmer can qualify for varies depending on identity. In March, Bibeau told the agriculture committee that the feds would subsidize up to 50 per cent of purchases for older, white male farmers, “but young farmers, women and under-represented groups can get a subsidy of up to 60 per cent.” ?????
If cutting fertilizer emissions is truly urgent, the agriculture ministry wouldn’t be subsidizing solutions
according to gender and race.Consultations were recently re-opened to help the agriculture ministry substantiate its ideas. This is more a game of catch-up than an act of being thorough — neither the provinces nor the agricultural sector were consulted on the target before it was announced, according to Fertilizer Canada. Altogether, it seems the justification for the 2030 target is being made up as they go.
Jamie Sarkonak: The Liberals' unserious, unfeasible fertilizer emissions plan — National Post
The federal plan to cut total fertilizer emissions to 30 per cent below 2020 levels by the end of the decade is really just a funding package for research and technology subsidies aimed at making agriculture more efficient on fertilizer — for now, at least. Behind the apparently-toothless target...
