Trudeau’s nitrogen policy will decimate Canadian farming
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
I think she has been so wrong about so many things that is just what she sees from people all the time.
Ive never seen someone so naive and out of the loop before. Hermit like.
A mix of politics and distrust of the federal Liberals among some farmers have fuelled recent criticism of the targets, including claims that Ottawa plans to impose hard caps on fertilizer use in a way that could imperil Canada’s food supply.
Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has tried to clean up a muddled rollout and push back against those criticisms. Shetold The Globe’s Alanna Smith that there are no plans for regulations that would impose an enforceable cap. Instead, the government is proposing incentives for farmers and funding for research into new technology that could make it easier to cut down emissions while keeping yields up.
She argues that cutting emissions is not the same thing as cutting fertilizer use, and proponents of the targets argue there are changes to farming practices that could reduce emissions without hurting production.
The government’s repeated assurances haven’t stopped critics of the federal Liberals from taking the fertilizer issue and running with it.
apple.news
In Alberta, several candidates in the United Conservative Party leadership campaign to replace Premier Jason Kenney have held up the fertilizer targets as yet another instance of Ottawa attacking the province’s interests.
One of the front-runners, Danielle Smith, called the plan a “direct attack on Alberta farmers” and claimed it violated the Constitution. She added it to the list of issues she plans to target with a proposed Alberta Sovereignty Act, which purports to give the province the authority to ignore some federal laws. (Constitutional experts had widely condemned the proposed law.)
Pierre Poilievre, who is considered the favourite to win the federal Conservative Party leadership race next month, has also vowed to fight what he has characterized as a forced reduction that would put crops at risk.
The Premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have also been vocal opponents of the targets.
One of the reasons the fertilizer issue has gained so much traction – and why the federal government’s assurances have been met with so much skepticism – is because of lingering resentment of the impact of the carbon tax on the agricultural sector. There have long been calls to exempt agriculture entirely or change how the tax is applied, such as by exempting grain drying, which uses a lot of fuel.
Agriculture made up about 10 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions or 73 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2019, primarily from ruminant livestock like cattle, crop production and on-farm fuel use, according to Ottawa. Emissions from synthetic fertilizers accounted for about 13 tonnes.
Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has tried to clean up a muddled rollout and push back against those criticisms. Shetold The Globe’s Alanna Smith that there are no plans for regulations that would impose an enforceable cap. Instead, the government is proposing incentives for farmers and funding for research into new technology that could make it easier to cut down emissions while keeping yields up.
She argues that cutting emissions is not the same thing as cutting fertilizer use, and proponents of the targets argue there are changes to farming practices that could reduce emissions without hurting production.
The government’s repeated assurances haven’t stopped critics of the federal Liberals from taking the fertilizer issue and running with it.
Western Canada: Federal fertilizer emission targets become a flashpoint among Alberta Conservatives — The Globe and Mail
UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith and federal Conservative leadership contender Pierre Poilievre have claimed that Ottawa’s fertilizer emissions targets could imperil Canada’s food supply.
In Alberta, several candidates in the United Conservative Party leadership campaign to replace Premier Jason Kenney have held up the fertilizer targets as yet another instance of Ottawa attacking the province’s interests.
One of the front-runners, Danielle Smith, called the plan a “direct attack on Alberta farmers” and claimed it violated the Constitution. She added it to the list of issues she plans to target with a proposed Alberta Sovereignty Act, which purports to give the province the authority to ignore some federal laws. (Constitutional experts had widely condemned the proposed law.)
Pierre Poilievre, who is considered the favourite to win the federal Conservative Party leadership race next month, has also vowed to fight what he has characterized as a forced reduction that would put crops at risk.
The Premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have also been vocal opponents of the targets.
One of the reasons the fertilizer issue has gained so much traction – and why the federal government’s assurances have been met with so much skepticism – is because of lingering resentment of the impact of the carbon tax on the agricultural sector. There have long been calls to exempt agriculture entirely or change how the tax is applied, such as by exempting grain drying, which uses a lot of fuel.
Agriculture made up about 10 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions or 73 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2019, primarily from ruminant livestock like cattle, crop production and on-farm fuel use, according to Ottawa. Emissions from synthetic fertilizers accounted for about 13 tonnes.
This is what happens when moonbeams and their "organic" minds get into office.
OTOH It could be hint that global population is somehow going to be reduced by 20%....
That doesn't sound so bad if she could be trusted. And of course they will virtually ignore any progress made on that to date.
What the "organics" crowd fails to comprehend is fertilizers are just salts no matter the source. Its 100% the same chemistry.
Salts from fish, plants, or microbes used by plants are identical to mined or isolated sources.
Salts from fish, plants, or microbes used by plants are identical to mined or isolated sources.
"We expect them to reduce emissions by 30 percent, but honest they don't actually have to do anything and it won't change what they're doing now and anyway it's just a suggestion we don't really mean, we just thought we'd put it out there. But we definitely will cut emissions by 30 percent by cutting fertilizer. But there won't be any cuts to fertilizer, as long as they cut fertilizer use.
As always in such matters any attempt to give everybody what they want inevitably results in nothing getting done and everyone being angry
Well, it plays well in Ottawa/Montreal/Toronto with a side of Vancouver where Crop Production yields will be less affected by the arbitrary 30% number pulled out’a some politicians ….hat….with out any consultations with actual real stakeholders that would be affected in this….pre-election announcement.As always in such matters any attempt to give everybody what they want inevitably results in nothing getting done and everyone being angry
Is it? Can you show me the federal gov't document that specifies that? Or how the reductions are to be achieved? It would seem that even THEY don't know what "it" is precisely at this point. They just picked a number and they're running with it, and now they're changing their tune as there is backlash.
Read and learn!
Fuck it....you wont soooo
Fertilizer Type:
Changing the type of fertilizer applied may influence N2O emissions. Anhydrous ammonia (AA) is a more concentrated source of N than urea based fertilizers and can increase soil pH, leading to an increase in soil nitrite and N2O production.Anhydrous and ammonium nitrate are being targeted.
I don't know what the hell is wrong with you today but apperently you have lost the ability to read or comprehend basic english.
I said show me where that's what the GOV"T INTENDS. CAN ... YOU... SHOW... WHERE...THEY ... ARE .... NOT .... LOOKING... AT... A.... FLAT... CUT?!?!
Is that slow enough for you? Because that's not what they said a week ago - in fact they said specifically the reductions might come from something OTHER than fertilizer.
Does your brain take weekends off or something? You're usually pretty sharp - get a grip and REAAAAAD before replying.
How are your crops this year? Hopefully Ill be starting to harvest 1900 acres of barley come Wednesday. Were hoping for around 85 BuA. You?
So .... never learned to read? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that because you're a farmer you know what trudeau is thinking of when he hasn't announced it? And seems to change his story? Again it was a pretty simple question - do you have anything from the gov't that says what their ACTUAL plan that they're proposing is? Because the gov't doesn't seem to be saying what you think they're saying.
If you had a clue what we're talking about, you'd be asking if justin did.
But sure - didn't always live in the province i do now (boy you and our other friend there sure are trying to get information about me personally this weekend).
Contrary to common belief most of the farmers i talked to growing up weren't dumb hicks. So i'd rather you didn't reinforce that stereotype with low thinking here. i see you were unable to answer my question, so in the end you're admitting you didn't know the answer i take it.
So your statement was not factual then, was it.