Farmers in Canada will get no Credit for what they did to help the climate up to 2017

[bucket]

50 million a year from checkoffs in Saskatchewan and not one farm group can issue a press release on this?

This announcement was teased a month ago...

Farm groups = silence.

[HITTGrapevine]

Yes the way I read that was any practices in action before 2017 will be ineligible for any recognition for carbon storage .

Two thoughts on this.
First, lots of grain farmers can still qualify for offset payments, although some in Alberta who have already capitalized under that province's offset program might be SOL.
The key is in your starting baseline.
Ottawa doesn't know how much we've been tilling our land each year, or how many "subsurface" tillage passes we make on our fields each year, or what kind of openers we've been using. I'm pretty sure they are completely oblivious to that kind of info at the farm level.
So, if you want to benefit from the carbon offset market, then you should establish a baseline practice on your farm that does not conform with Ottawa's proposed Enhanced Soil Organic Carbon protocol. I agree SKF. Some forages might get ripped up and pro-till acres might go up. In other instances, something as simple as moving to a different and slightly wider opener might be all that's required to establish a non-conforming baseline. Once you're in a nonconforming position, you can adjust later to become conforming and eligible for offset payments. I know its a bunch of BS and I agree that farmers should have been rewarded for changes they've already made. But its a Liberal government. What can you expect?
2) I'm not sure if its too late for this already but I think there needs to be some serious lobbying done to ensure that farmers are compensated for carbon sink maintenance. Things like leaving unproductive low lying areas in grass or trees, keeping potholes and marsh areas intact, avoiding drainage of ponds and potholes, keeping wooded areas as wooded areas, etc, etc. These are all things that contribute to carbon sequestration. But as far as I know, there's been no indication that farmers will be rewarded for these types of actions. To farmers, there's a cost to leaving those five or 10 acres of trees or grass intact. It's called opportunity cost. They'll be paying land managers and the forestry industry to plant new trees. How about paying farmers to keep existing ones?

"In microeconomic theory, opportunity cost is the loss or the benefit that could have been enjoyed if the alternative choice was chosen."

[sumdumguy]

The injustice of being penalized by ever-increasing carbon taxes when we are actively and continually providing an effective carbon sync is evident. (Without compensation)

Add to that the fact that carbon is one of the most necessary inputs in photo-synthesis and the perpetuation of our food supply and it is blatant that lunacy reigns.

Loony Justice - it’s the Canadian Way

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I actually agree with Chuck on this one. No one is direct seeding, or seeding perennials to save the world from plant food. It is an economic decision, and (hopefully at least), and decision based on long term sustainability.

I know in my case, moisture retention, and soil erosion are not big concerns, but soil organic matter and compaction certainly are, and that is why I switched. Seeing the degradation of the grey wooded clay soils in only a few decades from intensive tillage and extraction of everything that grows (and the comensurate decline in productivity) was enough to convince me that no till was the only solution.

I have been hypocritically enrolled in the carbon credits program, but that is hardly an economic incentive, at ~ $1.00 per acre per year, I certainly wouldn't make any production decision based on that.

Studies indicate that after enough years in no till, sequestration slows or stops at a new higher level of soil OM. So there is no scientific basis to expecting to get paid for ongoing no till. Assuming that there was a reason to want to lower CO2 levels of course.

All that said, if the CO2 tax is supposed to be revenue neutral(which we all believe of course), and farmers have no way to claim any of it back, then this certainly would have been one way to actually keep that promise.

[HITTGrapevine]

I actually agree with Chuck on this one. No one is direct seeding, or seeding perennials to save the world from plant food. It is an economic decision, and (hopefully at least), and decision based on long term sustainability.

I know in my case, moisture retention, and soil erosion are not big concerns, but soil organic matter certainly is, and that is why I switched. Seeing the degradation of the grey wooded clay soils in only a few decades from intensive tillage and extraction of everything that grows (and the comensurate decline in productivity) was enough to convince me that no till was the only solution.

I have been hypocritically enrolled in the carbon credits program, but that is hardly an economic incentive, at ~ $1.00 per acre per year, I certainly wouldn't make any production decision based on that.

Studies indicate that after enough years in no till, sequestration slows or stops at a new higher level of soil OM. So there is no scientific basis to expecting to get paid for ongoing no till. Assuming that there was a reason to want to lower CO2 levels of course.

All that said, if the CO2 tax is supposed to be revenue neutral(which we all believe of course), and farmers have no way to claim any of it back, then this certainly would have been one way to actually keep that promise.

All good points. But don't underestimate the future value of offsets. They might only be generating $1 an acre of farm revenue now, but my understanding is that in some cases, they are being sold to large emitters in the US for 15 or 20 times that. What will they be worth when Canada's carbon tax quadruples in 10 years?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All good points. But don't underestimate the future value of offsets. They might only be generating $1 an acre of farm revenue now, but my understanding is that in some cases, they are being sold to large emitters in the US for 15 or 20 times that. What will they be worth when Canada's carbon tax quadruples in 10 years?

What they are might sell for, and what they are actually worth are two completely unrelated things.
At some point science will prevail and we will accept that there is no "cost" to CO2, that it belongs in fact on the opposite side of the ledger sheet.
But until that time, if we demand payment for the CO2 supposedly sequestered, we also open ourselves up to paying for all the emissions too. From fertilizer, from livestock, from exempted farm fuel, from land improvements. We will all look as hypocritical as Chuck when we start crying about paying emissions taxes on everything else after demanding to be paid for CO2 sequestration on long term no till ground that isn't sequestering anything anymore.

[HITTGrapevine]

What they are might sell for, and what they are actually worth are two completely unrelated things.
At some point science will prevail and we will accept that there is no "cost" to CO2, that it belongs in fact on the opposite side of the ledger sheet.
But until that time, if we demand payment for the CO2 supposedly sequestered, we also open ourselves up to paying for all the emissions too. From fertilizer, from livestock, from exempted farm fuel, from land improvements. We will all look as hypocritical as Chuck when we start crying about paying emissions taxes on everything else after demanding to be paid for CO2 sequestration on long term no till ground that isn't sequestering anything anymore.

We're already paying for emissions AF5, either directly through carbon taxes or indirectly, through costs downloaded to us by fertilizer manufacturers, equipment makers, railway companies that will be charging more to move our grain, etc, etc.
Costs to farmers have already been established. Potential revenues is the other side of the ledger.
Not saying I like the system. Just trying to find a way to make the best of the mess we're already in.

[blackpowder]

It's always been about taxing who you dont like (easy marks), and giving it to whom you do like (votes).
Where do you think you fit?
Isn't this carbon thingy handy?

[jazz]

We're already paying for emissions AF5, either directly through carbon taxes or indirectly, through costs downloaded to us by fertilizer manufacturers, equipment makers, railway companies that will be charging more to move our grain, etc, etc.
Costs to farmers have already been established. Potential revenues is the other side of the ledger.
Not saying I like the system. Just trying to find a way to make the best of the mess we're already in.

Well the consumers are going to feel it this year too. Lets see how gung ho they are on climate change after cost of living doubles. They voted for it.

Hell if we arent going to get compensated for any of this and only penalized maybe you will see chem fallow take over again one day. I certainly could survive on 60% of the yeilds. Why grow more to be penalized? We cant get anymore efficient in this game so why try.

Like horse says, why should we care about feeding the world? Maybe our motto should be Ag Less Than ever (sorry about the starving)

[dalek]

I likely won’t be getting credit for anything I do after 2017 or even after 2021 either because it’s not likely worth the pain in the ass of getting involved with the government any farther than I already have to be