Opinion Poll

[chuckChuck]

The biggest threat to Chuck's farm is that his mom steps on one of his tractors on her way to the basement and not only breaks the tractor, but gets mad and throws the entire line of equipment outside in the snow.
The CO2 tax doesn't have much effect on carpet farmers. And carpet doesn't sequester much CO2 either.

A5, are you regressing to childish insults again? Give up on the blocking? I thought you were going to take the high road?

[GDR]

But the application of it would be an issue. To eliminate CG on farmland only and not Toronto housing, how would the govt pull that one off? I would say thats unconstitutional.

Could be differentiated that you deducted interest costs on farmland purchase, the Toronto homeowner could not.


I think if they decide to go after cg on farmland it will not be a challenge for them, but I suspect if they do they will be going after residential capital gains also, why wouldnt they?

[jazz]

I think if they decide to go after cg on farmland it will not be a challenge for them, but I suspect if they do they will be going after residential capital gains also, why wouldnt they?

Well thats their base in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. They will have to have a majority to pull it off and do it right away so those same voters forget by next election cycle.

[shtferbrains]

Actually more recent studies say Canadian agricuture will benefit.

[Hamloc]

The carbon tax will be irrelevant as we move away from carbon fuels. Climate will always be an issue . Whether CO2 will be the main culprit is an open question. If it is we don't seem to have the will to change it. Whether you believe in the CO2 armagedon or not , we better hope science is wrong.

I am very curious Agstar what you consider the timeline to be on the farm for moving away from carbon fuels? For the carbon tax to be irrelevant this timeline would have to be in the next 3-5 years. Will we quit using fertilizer in the next 5-10 years? Let’s say they develope an electric combine in the next 5 years, on my relatively small farm a combine is usually 5-7 or more years old before it is in my price range so that puts it application on my farm past 2030. So that means you consider a $170 carbon tax irrelevant, am I understanding you correctly?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I am very curious Agstar what you consider the timeline to be on the farm for moving away from carbon fuels? For the carbon tax to be irrelevant this timeline would have to be in the next 3-5 years. Will we quit using fertilizer in the next 5-10 years? Let’s say they develope an electric combine in the next 5 years, on my relatively small farm a combine is usually 5-7 or more years old before it is in my price range so that puts it application on my farm past 2030. So that means you consider a $170 carbon tax irrelevant, am I understanding you correctly?

Valid questions.
And considering that there is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle yet(still powered by a fossil fuel grid), and nothing remotely close to economically or physically viable to electrify a machine such as a tractor or combine, I don't see Agstar's solution as being much help in the immediate time frame.

These folks seem to think that by repeating the phrase transitioning to a low carbon economy enough times, it will magically occur.

And have they calculated the CO2 emissions already spent in creating the existing combine or tractor which will then be scrapped before its time to replace it with another machine requiring even more CO2 emissions to be built.

[Hamloc]

Nope. Weather is weather and climate is what happens over decades.

But are you going to ignore the impact climate change can have on the intensity or frequency of extreme weather events? Or the impact it has on the jet stream and extended periods of blocking patterns?

It's all in the peer reviewed published climate science.

Every province if they want to can design a carbon pricing system that supports farmers. Most would rather blame the feds than support their own farmers.

I would say that there is one place you and I can agree and that is that the provinces could and should design their own carbon tax but Justin Trudeau’s demand and belief that it needs to go to $170 a tonne by 2030 is still a non starter for me. It is also obvious to me that even though you can’t bring yourself to say it you support Justin Trudeau’s proposed scaled up carbon tax, this shows me that your ideology severely affects your ability to do math!

[blackpowder]

Simple question, as a farmer in Canada which is a greater threat to your future viability the C02 levels in the atmosphere or a federal carbon tax that is projected to reach $170 CAD by 2030?

Easy answer. Cash is king.
More immediate and real time.
Rain in June. Lol.
Inside my timeline?
Taxes on farmland value.
Or retirement income from same.

By 2030 there will be 25% ?? less "farms".

[jazz]

By 2030 there will be 25% ?? less "farms".

I dont know about that, but I am betting continuous cropping will be a marginal venture by that time.

Its not going to pay to runover a bunch of acres and fertilize the hell out of them just to make $50 an acre. Better off to idle the land to chemfallow ever 3rd yr.

Agronomy be damned.

[Chief]

Isn’t the solution to pollution, dilution. In the rural areas we have ample dilution. It’s time to address the problem right at it’s source. Jack up the carbon taxes in the urban centers, mount wind generators on all the sky scrappers and cover all the south facing windows with solar panels. Urban dwellers created their pollution problem let them solve it. This is one issue that we are not all in together.