Trudeau’s nitrogen policy will decimate Canadian farming

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,961
8,481
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
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?


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.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Where does the 30 per cent number come from?
This is a key question and one that the gov't hasn't provided any information on. We don't know what they're really thinking with regards to these reductions.

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.
And this is the other big part of the problem. There's no guidance, there's no information on how they're expecting it to be achieved, there's really not even a method of calculation. If they grow 30 percent less crops does that count? If they find a way to use less gas to spread the stuff, does that count?

There's no way to tell what Trudeau is actually trying to achieve, or how they expect them to go about it, and there's obviously very little thought going into the real impact of this 'declaration'.

Not to mention there's a lot of mixed messaging about whether the 30 percent is a hard target or a 'suggestion' or goal or the like. They seem to say different things at different times.

This is going to wind up causing disruptions not matter what just due to the lack of clarity around the issue.
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
976
113
Story I read accused religious zealots for taking the stones down. Claimed they were the devils work.

If the lying MSM told you that it was some religious zealots that took the Georgia Stones down then it has to be a lie. The fact that on one of the Georgia Stones there had words written on it that said that the population of the earth should be brought down to 500,000,000. This is exactly what the WEF globalists believe in also. Coincidence? No way. It was the globalist that took the Georgia Stones down. believe it or not. Your call. :)
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Manufacturing factors in to the 30% if just targeting emissions.
Are you 100 percent SURE that's what trudeau meant? Where does he say that?

There's one thing you can be sure about with these people, if it ain't in writing you can't be sure what they mean.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,302
11,789
113
Low Earth Orbit
I don't give a flying fuck what Trudeau said or didn't say. Educate yourself on this. For Trudeau It's a way to virtue signal cut harmless CO2, nitrous oxide.

Thing is, fertilizer producers are onboard with all this shit. As I stated before, most fertilizer is on its way out with new GMOs coming down the pipe that will elimate any future food shortages. "Round Up ready" GMOs are on their way out.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Twin_Moose

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
I don't give a flying fuck what Trudeau said or didn't say. E
Well then you're the uneducated one. If you haven't even got the brains to realize the issues here then you deserve what you get. And don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

Frankly i wouldn't trust a word you say on the subject knowing you can't even get your head around this basic concept.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,845
7,096
113
B.C.
Well then you're the uneducated one. If you haven't even got the brains to realize the issues here then you deserve what you get. And don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

Frankly i wouldn't trust a word you say on the subject knowing you can't even get your head around this basic concept.
Trudeau speaks but rarely says anything , why bother listening to his weasel words ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Trudeau speaks but rarely says anything , why bother listening to his weasel words ?
If all he did was speak we wouldn't have a problem. The challenge is that he also does things. And you can often tell what he's going to do or going to TRY to do based on what he said or often even more on what he doesn't say. He's not particularly smart or anything but he often has something else in mind and tries to 'excuse' it with a statement about something else. So one has to wonder where he's going with this given he's been extremely light on details or legislation.

And how fast he backs away from something is also an indicator of what he's got planned in the near future.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,302
11,789
113
Low Earth Orbit
Well then you're the uneducated one. If you haven't even got the brains to realize the issues here then you deserve what you get. And don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

Frankly i wouldn't trust a word you say on the subject knowing you can't even get your head around this basic concept.
Uneducated? Why the fuck would I bother listening to Trudeau when I read the literature published by the Govt of Canada that states the products targeted? Why would I or anyone else for that matter need Trudeau to say it?

Why fuck didn't you read the same information? The link is in this thread or from the GofC Ministry of environment and climate scam for free, gratis, nada, zero, zilch, zip zant doodley squat, sweet fuck all it's available 24/7/365. If you want you can even request a printed version that is hand delivered by an employee of the Government of Canada.

Get what I deserve? Is there a downside to saving $25K× a year and a pile of hours? Yields aren't going to drop enough to make a dent, food isn't going to rise in price and will be just as abundant.

Now for credibility. If your argument hinges on what was or wasn't said by a retard in a speech then you most certainly don't have any.

All you had to do was click on an URL but you flipped it off because Trudeau didn't say it. That's pretty fucked up buddy.

  • Set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers and work with fertilizer manufacturers, farmers, provinces and territories, to develop an approach to meet it. Direct emissions associated with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer application have increased by approximately 60% since 2005 and these emissions are projected to keep increasing. Improving how fertilizers are used through better products and practices will save farmers money and time.https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/healthy-environment-healthy-economy.html#toc0
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Uneducated?
Yep. And i was being kind. And given your inability to understand the nature of this conversation i have zero faith you correctly understand any literature on the subject.

As to why you might listen to what a guy who runs the gov't and is in charge of setting the policy and enacting the policy and who announced the policy has to say about the policy he announced and will be in charge of ... well i don't know how to explain that in a way that won't make you sound bad. Sorry, this is just over your head,
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,302
11,789
113
Low Earth Orbit
You dumb fuck, he or Government doesn't do any of that, Legislature does. If you think 1 person did this you'd best give up on talking about anything that goes down in Ottawa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,961
8,481
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
We have all seen the farmers’ protests in Europe. Protests that have seen farmers fly flags and block roads over proposed cuts to emissions from fertilizer use — nitrogen essentially. Get ready Canada. Those protests might come here, too.

The Canadian federal government is in the consultation stage of a policy that would seek a 30 per cent reduction in nitrogen fertilizer emissions. However that cut would not affect all parts of the country equally. Instead, it would disproportionately affect farmers on the Prairies — where grain is the major crop — because grain requires more fertilizer to cultivate.

It’s terrible policy. Full stop. In a nutshell, a 30 per cent cut in nitrogen fertilizer emissions would damage the food supply in Canada, act counter to the federal government’s own agricultural export goals, raise prices even more on the most basic staples in Canada and around the world, damage the farming sector, and here’s the kicker, increase greenhouse gas emissions globally, as I explain later. These aren’t unexpected consequences. They are obvious, and glaring.

The first thing urban Canadians need to know about grain growers, is that we’re cheap. Farming is a passion and multi-generational lifestyle to be sure, but we’re still in it for the profits — like any other business. Our single most expensive input as we raise our crops is fertilizer. We use as little of it as possible. And by harnessing technology and computer power over a generation, we have already drastically reduced our use of fertilizer. In fact, Canadian farmers are among the very best in the world at limiting fertilizer use — despite the fact that Canada grows high-protein wheat that benefits from nitrogen. In fact, if every other farmer in the world used as little fertilizer as Canadian farmers do, the world would see a drastic cut in overall use and associated greenhouse gases. If the world needs less fertilizer, then it needs more Canada.


A 30 per cent cut in fertilizer-based emissions will result in a very, very simple outcome. We will grow less food. Significantly less. So, all Canadians can look forward to even more strain on the supply chain and even higher prices for basic foodstuffs. So will the rest of the world since Canada is a major exporter. And when supply tightens and prices rise, we know will get hurt first, and hardest. The poor and the food insecure. This isn’t speculation, it’s the most basic economics. Make inputs more expensive, and production falls. When production falls, prices go up. It’s that simple. The poor, in Canada and globally, will suffer if this policy is enacted.
And what would a 30 per cent cut mean to global greenhouse gas emissions? Here’s the math, using StatsCan data. Canadian produces 1.5 per cent of global GHGs. A small number to begin with. The agricultural sector, grains, livestock, all in; produces about 10 per cent of Canada’s GHGs. But only just under half of that is caused by nitrogen fertilizer. The rest is fuel burning and cow burps. So, all in, if Canada’s fertilizer emissions are cut by 30 per cent, with the disastrous effects that will have on our grain sector, global GHGs will fall, on paper, by a measly 0.02 per cent.

Except that won’t happen. Because when Canadian farmers cut our production in response to less fertilizer, that void in the market will be filled, to some degree, by other jurisdictions, like China and India. And their fertilizer use is much more intensive than that of Canadian farmers. It’s called carbon leakage. We cut GHGs in Canada, but then shift production to countries with higher GHG production.

So, let’s review. A policy of cutting fertilizer use in Canada, a country that leads the world in prudent fertilizer use already, will hurt farmers, cut production, starve the poor, raise food prices for everyone, benefit other grain growing countries and … increase GHGs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,845
7,096
113
B.C.
We have all seen the farmers’ protests in Europe. Protests that have seen farmers fly flags and block roads over proposed cuts to emissions from fertilizer use — nitrogen essentially. Get ready Canada. Those protests might come here, too.

The Canadian federal government is in the consultation stage of a policy that would seek a 30 per cent reduction in nitrogen fertilizer emissions. However that cut would not affect all parts of the country equally. Instead, it would disproportionately affect farmers on the Prairies — where grain is the major crop — because grain requires more fertilizer to cultivate.

It’s terrible policy. Full stop. In a nutshell, a 30 per cent cut in nitrogen fertilizer emissions would damage the food supply in Canada, act counter to the federal government’s own agricultural export goals, raise prices even more on the most basic staples in Canada and around the world, damage the farming sector, and here’s the kicker, increase greenhouse gas emissions globally, as I explain later. These aren’t unexpected consequences. They are obvious, and glaring.

The first thing urban Canadians need to know about grain growers, is that we’re cheap. Farming is a passion and multi-generational lifestyle to be sure, but we’re still in it for the profits — like any other business. Our single most expensive input as we raise our crops is fertilizer. We use as little of it as possible. And by harnessing technology and computer power over a generation, we have already drastically reduced our use of fertilizer. In fact, Canadian farmers are among the very best in the world at limiting fertilizer use — despite the fact that Canada grows high-protein wheat that benefits from nitrogen. In fact, if every other farmer in the world used as little fertilizer as Canadian farmers do, the world would see a drastic cut in overall use and associated greenhouse gases. If the world needs less fertilizer, then it needs more Canada.


A 30 per cent cut in fertilizer-based emissions will result in a very, very simple outcome. We will grow less food. Significantly less. So, all Canadians can look forward to even more strain on the supply chain and even higher prices for basic foodstuffs. So will the rest of the world since Canada is a major exporter. And when supply tightens and prices rise, we know will get hurt first, and hardest. The poor and the food insecure. This isn’t speculation, it’s the most basic economics. Make inputs more expensive, and production falls. When production falls, prices go up. It’s that simple. The poor, in Canada and globally, will suffer if this policy is enacted.
And what would a 30 per cent cut mean to global greenhouse gas emissions? Here’s the math, using StatsCan data. Canadian produces 1.5 per cent of global GHGs. A small number to begin with. The agricultural sector, grains, livestock, all in; produces about 10 per cent of Canada’s GHGs. But only just under half of that is caused by nitrogen fertilizer. The rest is fuel burning and cow burps. So, all in, if Canada’s fertilizer emissions are cut by 30 per cent, with the disastrous effects that will have on our grain sector, global GHGs will fall, on paper, by a measly 0.02 per cent.

Except that won’t happen. Because when Canadian farmers cut our production in response to less fertilizer, that void in the market will be filled, to some degree, by other jurisdictions, like China and India. And their fertilizer use is much more intensive than that of Canadian farmers. It’s called carbon leakage. We cut GHGs in Canada, but then shift production to countries with higher GHG production.

So, let’s review. A policy of cutting fertilizer use in Canada, a country that leads the world in prudent fertilizer use already, will hurt farmers, cut production, starve the poor, raise food prices for everyone, benefit other grain growing countries and … increase GHGs.
If we kill off our poor we can always import replacements .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,214
7,406
113
Washington DC
We have all seen the farmers’ protests in Europe. Protests that have seen farmers fly flags and block roads over proposed cuts to emissions from fertilizer use — nitrogen essentially. Get ready Canada. Those protests might come here, too.
No problem. The Emergencies Act is still good law.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,302
11,789
113
Low Earth Orbit
So, let’s review. A policy of cutting fertilizer use in Canada, a country that leads the world in prudent fertilizer use already, will hurt farmers, cut production, starve the poor, raise food prices for everyone, benefit other grain growing countries and … increase GHGs.
Not true. Once upon a time yields were fantastic without any fertilizer then along came the "green revolution" which killed the soil that was capable of sustaining healthy crops without fertilizer.

Soil management, soil management and even more soil management is the key to the future of crop production along with GMOs and hybrids.