Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[bucket]

I remember a time when people used the organ between their ears for more than just believing what popular stupid people said......

[the big wheel]

Farmers have a huge opportunity to be part of the solution and be credited financially for it, if they would realize they could be selling sequestration as a product of their farms to a public that is in support of sequestration and a public that is willing to pay for farmers to sequester it.

Can you explain this ?
Was this not exactly what I just brought up ? Or is it just not called “carbon credits” ?

You tell me ... where is the carbon tax going to come from ?? After doing your tax’s do you have all the extra cash laying around ? Time will tell next tax season .

City people from the east are all for this because they fill up their cars and drive to work for a month on one tank of gas. Thanks to global warming have very little home fuel to heat their houses during winter. But the minute they had to pay what a farmer or person out on the prairie pays for fuel the theory of needing to end carbon to stop global warming would come to an end real quick. We should have promoted a huge increase to income taxes for people that benefited with less heating bills due to global warming we out west created by producing oil. We need to be just as stupid as they are.

Furrow is right we should have been promoting how to get paid for our massive sequestering that we do. Hell get the city people to pay for fart bags strapped behind cows. Everyone thinks their idea is right until they lose money on their idea then it ends. I guarantee that would happen. If you are an easterner why wouldn’t you support the carbon tax if you get your money back and the little that they spend they likely will make money off the rebate.

We re too stupid out west to play their game. We could have made massive amounts of money off this for awhile until those people got tired of paying.

[dmlfarmer]

City people from the east are all for this because they fill up their cars and drive to work for a month on one tank of gas. Thanks to global warming have very little home fuel to heat their houses during winter. But the minute they had to pay what a farmer or person out on the prairie pays for fuel the theory of needing to end carbon to stop global warming would come to an end real quick. We should have promoted a huge increase to income taxes for people that benefited with less heating bills due to global warming we out west created by producing oil. We need to be just as stupid as they are.

Furrow is right we should have been promoting how to get paid for our massive sequestering that we do. Hell get the city people to pay for fart bags strapped behind cows. Everyone thinks their idea is right until they lose money on their idea then it ends. I guarantee that would happen. If you are an easterner why wouldn’t you support the carbon tax if you get your money back and the little that they spend they likely will make money off the rebate.

We re too stupid out west to play their game. We could have made massive amounts of money off this for awhile until those people got tired of paying.

I disagree. People are willing to spend more than they have to if they perceive a benefit. Look at what people spend on organic food or non GMO products when they can get the a conventional product which is just as safe, tasty, and of the same (if not better) quality in the next isle over. And there are farmers willing to meet the demand of consumers for organics, non GMO, nature raised etc etc. Why are farmers not doing the same thing for sequestration of GHGs? The truth is most farmers are great producers but poor saleman and would rather tear down the neighbor who is doing real marketing and getting a premium for what ever reason rather than uniting and working to create a new demand for something like sequestration. Our commodity groups/associations/etc should have been all over the issue, pushing government for sequestration for years, but don't dare because the uproar from individual farmers against use of their funds to support such an effort would be politically stupid.

[the big wheel]

I disagree. People are willing to spend more than they have to if they perceive a benefit. Look at what people spend on organic food or non GMO products when they can get the a conventional product which is just as safe, tasty, and of the same (if not better) quality in the next isle over. And there are farmers willing to meet the demand of consumers for organics, non GMO, nature raised etc etc. Why are farmers not doing the same thing for sequestration of GHGs? The truth is most farmers are great producers but poor saleman and would rather tear down the neighbor who is doing real marketing and getting a premium for what ever reason rather than uniting and working to create a new demand for something like sequestration. Our commodity groups/associations/etc should have been all over the issue, pushing government for sequestration for years, but don't dare because the uproar from individual farmers against use of their funds to support such an effort would be politically stupid.

You think if a city person had to pay what we will pay in carbon tax or even more in the pst a farm pays they would be so gung ho? Not a chance.
The organic part of many grocery isles is very small only a few pay it that are very wealthy and it doesn’t matter if they spend 4 bucks on a tomato compared to 2. But for the rest the 2 dollar one is too much.

You are correct though we should have been going hard on getting paid for sequestering. But that likely would end also because like I said if they had to pay for it they wouldn’t do it. We re the ones paying the bill for them to enjoy cheap food and to reduce ghg for them to feel good.

[dmlfarmer]

You think if a city person had to pay what we will pay in carbon tax or even more in the pst a farm pays they would be so gung ho? Not a chance.
The organic part of many grocery isles is very small only a few pay it that are very wealthy and it doesn’t matter if they spend 4 bucks on a tomato compared to 2. But for the rest the 2 dollar one is too much.

You are correct though we should have been going hard on getting paid for sequestering. But that likely would end also because like I said if they had to pay for it they wouldn’t do it. We re the ones paying the bill for them to enjoy cheap food and to reduce ghg for them to feel good.

You need to visit a grocery store more often. It is not just the wealthy buying organic and NON GMO, it is anyone who perceives organic/ non GMO to be better. Consumer demand is why food manufacturers are putting non GMO labelling on products even if there is no GMO options. A&W leads the way in "healthy" burgers and could care less than many farmers swear they would never eat another teen burger because A&W correctly forecast consumers want and would pay a premium for hormone free etc. And A&Ws competitors have jumped on the same bandwagon. Watch McDonals ads now on sustainable beef - what ever that means.

Right or wrong the general public has widely accepted climate change as fact. The perceived need is there. Farmers are just too stupid and/or pig headed to capture a market for which there is pent up demand.

Do I like the carbon tax - absolutely not. But I know the divided farm voice does not have a hope in hell of fighting it. We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing climate change instead of fighting to get paid for something we are already doing and should be paid for!

[the big wheel]

You need to visit a grocery store more often. It is not just the wealthy buying organic and NON GMO, it is anyone who perceives organic/ non GMO to be better. Consumer demand is why food manufacturers are putting non GMO labelling on products even if there is no GMO options. A&W leads the way in "healthy" burgers and could care less than many farmers swear they would never eat another teen burger because A&W correctly forecast consumers want and would pay a premium for hormone free etc. And A&Ws competitors have jumped on the same bandwagon. Watch McDonals ads now on sustainable beef - what ever that means.

Do I like the carbon tax - absolutely not. But I know the divided farm voice does not have a hope in hell of fighting it. We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing the practice as needed.

Non gmo in a can is not a huge price if any more then gmo in a can so if you had a choice for nearly same price of course you’d pick the non gmo. I don’t know why that is.
But put a fresh tomato for 2 bucks or 4 bucks and you see the 4 dollar ones in a small little section getting old. At least where I’ve been.

But if your right then let’s make this work let’s ask all the feel gooders in the warmer parts of the country to pay our heating bills so that they can do a great thing for the environment. Or make up the difference it costs us to drive and make a living in rural areas compared to driving a block or 2 to work. I’m sure they’d tell us to fk off. Or do you think they’d gladly pay it for the overall good?

[farmaholic]

We could mitigate it by marketing sequestration but that is impossible to do when the majority of farmers insist on publically denouncing climate change instead of fighting to get paid for something we are already doing and should be paid for!

Who would of thought?!?!?!?!?!?!

Wasn't it furrowtickler who said we are being charged more to perform the benefit we provide?

[dmlfarmer]

Non gmo in a can is not a huge price if any more then gmo in a can so if you had a choice for nearly same price of course you’d pick the non gmo. I don’t know why that is.
But put a fresh tomato for 2 bucks or 4 bucks and you see the 4 dollar ones in a small little section getting old. At least where I’ve been.

But if your right then let’s make this work let’s ask all the feel gooders in the warmer parts of the country to pay our heating bills so that they can do a great thing for the environment. Or make up the difference it costs us to drive and make a living in rural areas compared to driving a block or 2 to work. I’m sure they’d tell us to fk off. Or do you think they’d gladly pay it for the overall good?

It all depends how you market it. Try to sell it with what you said in your last paragraph and you are right. But if farmers would market modern farming practices as environmentally friendly, and that if farmers were paid for GHG sequestration it will help both the environment and lessen what consumers have to do as an individualsto meet Canada's goals and international commitment to reductions, people would listen. It is all in the marketing.

[samhill]

This is such joke in so many ways, on top of carbon sequestration when growing crops, the end product is food for the consumer. Obviously the carbon tax should be on food at the grocery store, the reason and purpose for the use of fossil fuels on the farm.
But no, tax those who grow food. Hahaha.

[farmaholic]

It boils down to the typical marketing mentality in Primary Production:

When its goods and services Producers need.....they're almost priceless!
When its goods and services Producers provide.....they're almost worthless!

I know that is a bit extreme and dramatic but...


Is Canada using the benefits of modern farming practice to meet their Paris Agreement targets(or which ever international agreement they signed up for, or their own goals)?

If they are, Zero/Min Till Producers are not getting any value for their contribution.