for beef guys

[bucket]

They sure made a difference it two world wars. Good job for the world that they didn't sit on their hands then and say they couldn't do anything (and with an even smaller population back then)

Yes true...good point grass farmer....but I think you realize I am talking about the environment and I don't think Canada is a major polluter compared to other countries...

And if the alarmists would take us off a per capita basis for pollution ...many would realize this...

Or if canada had 150 million people ...what would the results be....

[Sheepwheat]

A nation of 35 odd million ppl. Second coldest nation in the world. We use lots of heating fuel.

Huge nation, enormous transportation needs. We use lots of shipping fuels.

Poland and Ukraine are western comparables. They are warmer, have less raw mining, and far warmer winters. Importantly, Ukraine is smaller in size than Saskatchewan. Poland is under half. Lot less travel needed.

Of course they emit less. Poland about half as much, and Ukraine about a third as much. also know they capture far less than Canada does with our vast forests.

[farming101]

Indeed, math skills and logic not required. /sarc

Canada is down for 1.12% of the world's increase in CO2 emissions from 1990-2017.

If Canada had maintain levels at 1990 values, the world increase in emissions would have been 14,241.814 mega tonnes instead of 14,403.288 mega tonnes during that 27 year stretch

[bucket]

Just curious how canadian cattlemen on this site can raise cattle in the most efficient and sustainable way and still think the UN should have the authority to shut your business down??????

[15444]

Just curious how canadian cattlemen on this site can raise cattle in the most efficient and sustainable way and still think the UN should have the authority to shut your business down??????

'Sustainable' (whatever the **** that means) cows still fart and burp. Nothing is going to change that fact. So if producers are going to buy into global warming, they are ****ing themselves in the long term. Doesn't matter if beef or grain, the liberal elites are out to shape how and where you do business.

[bucket]

'Sustainable' (whatever the **** that means) cows still fart and burp. Nothing is going to change that fact. So if producers are going to buy into global warming, they are ****ing themselves in the long term. Doesn't matter if beef or grain, the liberal elites are out to shape how and where you do business.

I think sustainable means using land that can't be used for other purposes....so every acre is usable ...the UN has no reason to impact my business....these guys have been saying for decades something about feeding the world.....it appears they still have some work to do on that file....

[15444]

I think sustainable means using land that can't be used for other purposes....so every acre is usable ...the UN has no reason to impact my business....these guys have been saying for decades something about feeding the world.....it appears they still have some work to do on that file....

UN and Trudeau would be much happier if it wasn't being used at all and just become one big national park.

UN sees more suckers willing to spend big on climate change than world hunger. I could give shit less about starving 3rd world kids while their useless parents are in the bedroom trying to create another. Sterilizing some of these pricks would do a lot more good towards ending hunger.

[the big wheel]

Expanding cities on some of the best farmland should be looked at. But then again the swamp people would want a frog to be saved.

[grassfarmer]

Yes true...good point grass farmer....but I think you realize I am talking about the environment and I don't think Canada is a major polluter compared to other countries...

And if the alarmists would take us off a per capita basis for pollution ...many would realize this...

Or if canada had 150 million people ...what would the results be....

World wars then, climate change now - both the biggest challenges facing mankind in their respective eras so the comparison is valid.

With 0.5% of the world's population and producing 1.66% of the world's emissions we are one of the nations with the highest per capita emissions - you can't deny that. When we are talking about the problems caused by man made GHG emissions and how to address that problem of course we talk about per capita emissions - it makes no sense to talk about geographical size of the country.
If you're in favour of moving to a per acre basis to quantify emissions are you also in favour of splitting the total federal taxation burden by the acre or do you prefer it to be per person?

[bucket]

World wars then, climate change now - both the biggest challenges facing mankind in their respective eras so the comparison is valid.

With 0.5% of the world's population and producing 1.66% of the world's emissions we are one of the nations with the highest per capita emissions - you can't deny that. When we are talking about the problems caused by man made GHG emissions and how to address that problem of course we talk about per capita emissions - it makes no sense to talk about geographical size of the country.
If you're in favour of moving to a per acre basis to quantify emissions are you also in favour of splitting the total federal taxation burden by the acre or do you prefer it to be per person?

Maybe you would prefer to go on a per animal in herd for methane emissions. ?

Holy cow ...you want the UN determining your business?