They are going to plant 2 billion trees....

[farmaholic]

Trudeau announced this initiative as a measure to capture more carbon. Trees have many other benefits as well.

Unfortunately farmers are left out of this approach. Why not encourage and reward farmers for using practices that capture carbon, protect the environment and improve the soil?

The political problem is that farmers overwhelmingly vote Conservative, so all the parties including Conservatives don't have to offer anything to farmers to secure their support.

Translated, that means they don't want to pay us for something we are already doing!

[sumdumguy]

How hard is it to plant 2000 trees from Indian Head? Flatlanders would love todo it- prolly northerners not so much. All our local RM’s used to have tree planters. So it only takes a million farmers - no problem 🥴 That would be the fly in the ointment. Maybe we gotta plant 5000 trees each, we’ll be roto-tilling all summer but won’t get into much other trouble.

[bucket]

How hard is it to plant 2000 trees from Indian Head? Flatlanders would love todo it- prolly northerners not so much. All our local RM’s used to have tree planters. So it only takes a million farmers - no problem 🥴 That would be the fly in the ointment. Maybe we gotta plant 5000 trees each, we’ll be roto-tilling all summer but won’t get into much other trouble.

Won't have to rototill if you lay down plastic ...probably get a grant to retrofit the tree planters with a plastic wrap in front and a slot maker for the saplings....hahaha

[jazz]

Translated, that means they don't want to pay us for something we are already doing!

Translated they wont recognize something we already do and Canada already has, so its put in schemes they know wont work, publish some bogus studies and the tax goes up next year. They don't want it to work. If they did there are a 100 better ways to cut emissions like halting immigration from warm countries to cold ones.

[chuckChuck]

Translated, that means they don't want to pay us for something we are already doing!

I dont think draining wetlands, breaking up vulnerable grasslands and pushing bush qualify as protecting the environment. Unfortunately some farmers still continue to do a lot of all 3.

In Europe some of the subsidy support programs are tied to providing ALUS. That provides a strong incentive to to follow BMPs.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Won't have to rototill if you lay down plastic ...probably get a grant to retrofit the tree planters with a plastic wrap in front and a slot maker for the saplings....hahaha

Can't do that, he already banned single use plastics. I'm sure I should follow that up with a joke about drink box water bottle kinda things.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I dont think draining wetlands, breaking up vulnerable grasslands and pushing bush qualify as protecting the environment. Unfortunately some farmers still continue to do a lot of all 3.

In Europe some of the subsidy support programs are tied to providing ALUS. That provides a strong incentive to to follow BMPs.

Yes, so in other words, you disagree with private property rights. What a big surprise.

[farmaholic]

I dont think draining wetlands, breaking up vulnerable grasslands and pushing bush qualify as protecting the environment. Unfortunately some farmers still continue to do a lot of all 3.

In Europe some of the subsidy support programs are tied to providing ALUS. That provides a strong incentive to to follow BMPs.

I was thinking more along the lines of continuous cropping zero tilling.

If Gov doesn't want wetlands drained why does the SASK Water Security Agency promote and support Conservation and Development boards/groups? If they don't want draining and consolidating just pass legislation banning it.

Erosion wise....continuous cropping has eliminated the need for wind breaks. How many farms are driven nuts by trying to operate large GPS guided machinery in fields with crooked hedge rows.

Oh ya, and no tree lives forever, annual crops and forages are renewable, yearly.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Trudeau announced this initiative as a measure to capture more carbon. Trees have many other benefits as well.

Unfortunately farmers are left out of this approach. Why not encourage and reward farmers for using practices that capture carbon, protect the environment and improve the soil?

Can you please try to keep consistent in your narrative.

A while back I pointed out the preposterous scheme in the UK where they converted a coal power plant to burn wood, then imported the trees from North America where we clear cut forests for them. All done because, by some warped logic burning trees is considered not to release any CO2. Of course, you defended the practice since trees don't store CO2, except temporarily.

Now you claim that planting trees is a good way to capture more carbon ( please try to use the proper chemical nomenclature, CO2, carbon is black sooty pollution, CO2 is a colorless, odorless, beneficial gas).

I realize you must agree with this latest scheme because Mr. Dressup supports it, but the hypocrisy really erodes what shreds of credibility you may have left.

[jazz]

I dont think draining wetlands, breaking up vulnerable grasslands and pushing bush qualify as protecting the environment. Unfortunately some farmers still continue to do a lot of all 3.

So you are anti food then? In case you havent noticed those acres are growing cheap food for poor people in other countries. There aren't strip malls going up.