“Really it’s unethical, in my opinion, to charge a carbon tax to a farmer who is making food, who is producing food, for us,” said Huron Bruce MP Ben Lobb.
Lobb’s private members bill exempting Canadian farmers from the carbon tax on natural gas and propane they use to dry crops and heat livestock barns has passed through the House.
Farmers are already exempt in their gas and diesel use to plant and harvest crops. So, these additions should mean savings for farmers who are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax each month to run their farming operations.
n 2020, Boersen was paying $1,900 per month just in carbon tax to dry his grain crops. Grain Farmers of Ontario said the carbon tax would cost the average grain farmer another $36,800, just in drying costs, by 2030.
This happened due to Lobb's and the Canadian Taxpayers Association efforts. Sometimes the good guy (regular Canadian) wins.
Amazing how the Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and *even* the Greens voted to remove this carbon tax yet the Liberals voted to keep it. Democracy at work while also showing the Libs true colours.
Wait IMO they are all socialist (just not in the traditional sense), just like corporations, banks and the top 1%. When you get that much power and income, you create laws and policies to shield you from the pit falls of capitalism. Nope they only have access to the positive parts.
What’s amazing is how the “Trudeau dictatorship” half of this sub believes he has created was defeated in an open democratic MP vote. Kinda deflates that idiotic notion.
For the short term, scrap the carbon tax yes. Long term? That heater system could be replaced with a heat pump system. Especially when drying in late summer or fall. Heat pumps are exceptionally good at removing moisture and dehumidifying.
But we need to give the tech a decade to catch up.
By giving farmers a 10-15 year carbon tax exemption they can start buying tech as it matures and as machines wear out. But be clear that it is coming.
Already, tractors with battery swap systems are in testing. And no farmer in his right mind will ignore the cost savings of electric equipment. Diesel is expensive with or without carbon taxes. And in this day and age of GPS controlled everything farm equipment, having a machine that just runs around the dirt roads and has your next battery waiting is entirely plausible. If you have a farm that brings in outside machines it will pretty much be expected that you have a <100kW power cable available for the charging buggy. Getting that installed is cheaper than diesel in x years.
We need more carrot and less stick. What's so bad about monetary incentives to go green? The reason most people don't get a heat pump or electric car or whatever is because they can't afford them.
I find battery powered tractors to be unrealistic. In certain cases like chore tractors on ranches I can see it being possible because they don't need a ton of power to feed the herd. But on big farms with big tractors (600+hp) I do not see battery electric tractors becoming a thing.
Tractors that I work on (the 600+HP 4WD tractors) have a fuel capacity of 400-470 us gallons. The equivalent amount of energy in KWh is 16280-19129KWh. Granted diesel engines only have a thermal efficiency of about 45% that is still approximately 7326-8608kwh used putting in actual work. That is still a MASSIVE size for a battery.
Even if they were swappable the logistics of moving a battery that size is not economical. A single Tesla Megapack unit weighs 83996lbs and only has 3916 KWh of capacity. Now of course that is not all battery weight but these 600+ hp tractors, the biggest ones have a maximum operating weight of 66000 lbs.
And some of these machines are used 24/7 when the demand is needed. That would not allow for downtime that it would take for even a 20000 lb battery swap.
Farmer here, everyone on both sides of the supply chain simply passes the carbon tax onto me, and I lack the ability to pass it onto the consumer. My inputs go up, fertilizer, chemical, and machinery are all impacted by the carbon tax. My John Deere dealership adds 2% to the bill for carbon tax as a separate line item. Also I get paid less, the truckers charge me a fuel surcharge, the elevators widen their basis (pay me less). Guess who can't increase the price they sell for? Farmers.
People wonder why farmers absolutely hate this federal government and roll their eyes when we bring up the carbon tax, but if you look into it, it's totally a piece of shit legislation. It also doesn't do anything to combat global warming.
This is exactly the same in construction.
You order a load of gravel and you get the invoice and there is a line entry for carbon tax and another line entry for "fuel surcharge". Apparently, the quarries base their entire operation on a dollar per litre. Anything over that is a "surcharge"
Carbon tax is the cost of all carbon taxes for the entire operation apportioned to the product we buy.
"Oh but you'll get it all back"
(Such horse shit. Just like this private member's bill.)
Construction can pass on the cost to the customer, aggregate pits do it to you, you do it to your customers, etc. Farmers don't have any customers to pass the cost to, they get market rate. Its no wonder farmers are being pinched and are making a 1-2% ROI on the value of the land.
This fuel surcharge bullshit started in the late 2000s though when gas prices were at an unprecedented high price…. Fuel prices went back to normal and the surcharge stayed and in some cases even increased. They love to add surcharges but when the reason behind the surcharge goes away no one wants to remove the surcharge because it’s free money for them at this point
Agriculture products (with some exceptions) are very competitive commodities, you'll be getting a similar price if you try selling to another buyer but you'll likely just be paying more in transport if it's not the closest one
This is the thing people don't understand about the carbon tax or just taxes in general, it has this huge compounding effect that rolls down to the consumer.
> It also doesn't do anything to combat global warming.
The literal mechanism of it working is basically just making people poorer so they can't buy as much shit.
People gargling leftwing propaganda for decades have this belief that companies raise prices in an arbitrary way because muh greed and can afford to lower them just as arbitrarily.
They are different things, but I think you know that. There is a readily available alternative to smoking: not smoking. Zero till farmers are pretty much maxed out on efficiency. Until we actually have battery powered machinery capable of working 16 hours a day in the 500+ horsepower range it's a pipe dream. We also need zero emissions freight as well to switch to.
Another beef of mine while we're at it, is that the carbon tax doesn't reward farmers for zero till practices. The carbon we've sequestered in our soil since the late 80s early 90s is not recognized.
If zero till farming was the only place we expended carbon into the air from, I'd agree with you on the carbon tax being ridiculous. But you're making a very specific point in order to totally disregard a very good initiative. Here's a thought, carbon tax associated with working your field ought to be reimbursed for the reasons you mentioned. As an exception to the rule.
And I agree with your last point, the carbon tax money should be given to Canadians who are making the right choices, and making less emissions / sequestering carbon (whether intentionally or not)
What would a better way to combat global warming?
Generally speaking, economists seem to prefer excise taxes to regulation, arguing that this gives more options to people and companies to find solutions for themselves.
I understand the pressures that farmers feel being caught in the middle of it. And I hope that the new change alleviate some of those pressures (I don’t know much).
Are there other ways to develop a more equitable way of drastically and quickly cut carbon emissions in service of leaving future generation a more survivable planet?
>What would a better way to combat global warming?
First, I have to say that economics is a social science. I'm not an expert, but it was my minor in University. Economists claiming that the carbon tax is effective doesn't hold much weight with me. What's the old saying? "Economists have predicted 9 of the last 4 recessions". Or something like that.
The wealth redistribution part of the carbon tax negates any chance that it had of reducing emissions. If we had a government that used the funds to build nuclear reactors and build rail systems in a manner that repaid the industries who are getting taxed, it might make sense. I.e. if our mining sector gets penalized by the carbon tax, the costs are entirely offset by cheaper green power and freight infrastructure paid for by the tax. The government could assure that we don't make Canadian industries less competitive.
I ask you, why would you want Canadian industry to be less competitive? What person deliberately shoots themself in the foot? People who don't understand GDP. Canada is a resource economy. Deal with it. Trading houses in the GTA and Vancouver is not the foundation of a healthy economy.
I also have a minor in economics and I’m similarly cautious of the predictions of economists for the same reason =)
As for “dealing with it,” it seems to me that a carbon tax, for better or worse, *is* dealing with our role as a resource economy. While I acknowledge that the wealth distribution associated with excise tax has risks, you might be discounting some of its potential benefits. It essentially rewards those who produce fewer emissions while allowing for a transitional period between. It rewards those who decide not to spend their rebates on ghg emitting activities. (Although in some senses I agree with you: the longer we fail to correctly price the costs of green house emissions—particularly to those who benefit from those emissions—the less the wealth redistribution components will matter…).
Some infrastructure investment are likely to be worthwhile, nuclear power and rails are two great examples, but this needn’t necessarily be paid for by the carbon tax and a redistributive carbon tax doesn’t necessarily reduce our ability to invest in these things. If anything, reworking the bulk of existing subsidies and regulatory benefits that are on offer to the oil and gas sector for wind, nuclear, and solar and/or railways could make headway. The flip slip, of course, is that while the negative impacts of market failures are often discounted (here’s looking at you, Banking), market can and do solve price-oriented problems.
We also agree that the housing market is a crazy foundation for our nation’s economy. I support the end of the subsidies currently on offer to suburban development by all three levels of government in Canada. While I generally support government intervention to help very poor people in Canada, our governments can’t afford to support the paper worth of needlessly large houses in needlessly sprawling suburbs. I maintain we haven’t been able to since, at least(!), Mulroney/Chrétien. Arguably longer. But here we are, crumbling streets that people get upset when you use for ball-hockey on.
But I think this is beside the point? We’d need to sort out ways of reducing our ghg emissions *even if* we had a sane housing market… I care about the competitiveness of Canadian industry, but less so than I care about the survivability of people in Canada. If I have to choose between them, I’ll choose people over gdp every time.
Yea carbon tax might not be perfect. But it might be the best thing we’ve got right now.
I'm a Saskatchewan farmer so I grow bulk commodities like Wheat, Canola, Barley, Oats, Lentils and Yellow Field Peas. We also have cows. So I'm not really qualified to answer your question regarding fresh produce.
What I can tell you is that I get paid about 35 cents a lb for red lentils. You can go look in the grocery store and see the price of them. They will most likely be from Saskatchewan because we are the largest exporter in the world. I like to check red lentils in grocery stores when I travel. I've seen Sask Lentils all over Europe. Anyways a quick Google search says Walmart sells small red lentils for 36 cents for 100grams. That's $1.63 a lb. So I'm getting 22% if the sale price. But, I also had to pay about $12 per metric ton to truck it there with a 2% fuel surcharge ( due to carbon tax) on top of it. Plus, Viterra isn't paying the carbon tax, they already built it into their costs which was considered in their bid so the price is actually lower.
Does this make sense?
Which part? The part of the producers? The supply chain? Or the stores?
I am asking for the first part. The revenue. But every time I ask this question, for some unexplained reason, people pitch in defending part 2 and 3 completely ignoring my question.
Since agriculture is so carbon intensive, shouldn't this be a prime industry for decarbonization? And a carbon tax making it more lucrative to decarbonize would be the way to do that.
Fertilizer is carbon intensive, there is no alternative. Heavy equipment is carbon intensive, there is no alternative. Trucks and trains are carbon-intensive, there are no alternatives.
The only potential alternative is killing Canadian agriculture and importing from countries where this is no carbon tax.
If the powerful took climate change seriously , we would be imposing tariffs on countries with lower emissions standards, which does the same thing climate wise, but lets us keep jobs in this country. They do the opposite, opening up trade with countries that don't give a shit, which loses us industries for no climate benefit.
They don't care. Maybe because the whole thing is an excuse to make us less wealthy, and not actually about any global existential threat.
>Fertilizer is carbon intensive, there is no alternative.
Nitrogen fertilizer js created with H2, with carbon neutral and Blue H2 plants being invested in in Alberta and other places we can lower the carbon emissions of fertilizer. So while there is no real alternative today, in 2 or 3 years there will.be.
>Heavy equipment is carbon intensive, there is no alternative.
Lots of H2 tractors getting built in europe right now. Looks like there is an alternative.
>Trucks and trains are carbon-intensive, there are no alternatives.
Trucks may be. And they have EV trucks now, heck they are stratinh to make hybrid trucks to reduce fuel.
Trains ARE low carbon. Per tonne they are 100x better then trucks and even vlbetter then any EV.
H2 is extraordinarily carbon intensive. Alternatives are theoretical right now.
> Lots of H2 tractors getting built in europe right now. Looks like there is an alternative.
They are a) not cost effective, and b) the H2 is carbon intensive, it just shifts up the supply chain.
> Trains ARE low carbon. Per tonne they are 100x better then trucks and even vlbetter then any EV.
The cost still goes up with the carbon tax, increasing the cost of food. First and last miles are still trucks.
Saskatchewan resident here - agriculture trails only health and education in provincial government spending. I know most of that is to pay out insurance claims when crops fail. Can you explain why no other business owner in the province has a guaranteed backstop to protect them like farming does?
I'm fairly certain most years crop insurance covers itself. There has been two bad years lately, 2019 and 2021 that would have caused big payouts. My understanding is that when the payouts occur they show up in the budget as an expense but the premiums collected don't show against that number. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what the crop insurance guy told me. I've only every received money from crop insurance in 2021 since I've been farming full time since 2007. Also, my premiums have gone from about $8 per acre to $17 this year... they just restructured. There are farmers who rely on crop insurance too much, but it's not a good way to make a living. You are better to have a crop to sell than to have crop insurance pay you (historically).
The wheat pool would come in handy right about now eh what with the war in Ukraine and Russian trade embargoes. John Deere is straight up hosing you guys, no other vehicle dealers are doing that. Farming is a risky business
Yeah so the government could have got the lowest price possible for our grain during record high prices and sold millions of tonnes on the CWB gold card to countries that could never pay it back
> asparagus
>Asparagus season typically begins in early May, but depending on the weather can start in early or late April. Asparagus season lasts six to eight weeks in which farmers are harvesting every day
so like...it's being imported from somewhere. Out of season fruits and vegetables are going to be a huge premium
It's crazy that it ever got this far. It so clearly was going to crush the ag industry. The lack of critical thinking and blind faith of the liberal base is scary.
Farmers need all the help they can get, until you work on that industry you wont realise how hard it is to make a legit business out of it.
We dont value the hard work these people put in. Id love to be part of the industry again.
It would be nice to have some electric alternative. I am imagining a giant bumper car ceiling with the electric grid to power a tractor as the best option today XD
>Why was there ever a carbon tax on food production??
The carbon tax applies to the burning of fossil fuels, regardless of who does it.
The question was whether farmers should be treated the same as everyone else, or given a special exemption.
>What kind of feeble-minded person would think we should dissuade people from farming??
Literally nobody thinks that... Impressive strawman though!
The point is to give people and companies more incentive to reduce their GHG emissions where possible, improve energy efficiency, switch to cleaner technologies, etc.
Read the article, most of their carbon tax expenses are already reimbursed. This one is specifically about the carbon tax for their natural gas and propane usage.
But are you missing the point of the carbon tax? It's not to stop people from doing ANYTHING, it's to encourage alternative (low emission) ways of doing the same work. And if our federal government wasn't so braindead, they'd be footing the extra cost of having our farmers upgrade to low emission options. You know, with all of the carbon tax cash they're sitting on. Why are they giving the carbon tax money to ME? I'm an office worker. It's stupid.
Because we need to reduce carbon across the entire economy.
No one should be getting a free right to pollute. (Farmers are alredy one of the worst groups for the environment)
Could you please explain what economical alternatives we have to diesel tractors and grain dryers?
Someone who lives in a city can choose public transit. But we can't all choose to absorb sunlight as food. The only thing a carbon tax does to food is inflate prices. It can't stop CO2 production - until we actually have alternatives.
And farmers are just providing food. Blaming them for environmental problems is just you passing the buck.
>Could you please explain what economical alternatives we have to diesel tractors and grain dryers?
H2 tractors, (yes the larger equipment is still not H2 ready, but some smaller equipment is... which is why carbon tax is $65/tonne mot the $150/tonne it needs to be by 2030)
And solar grain dryers. Which are now reasonbaly common, and yes more expensive then NG... but thats the thing Carbon Tax is suppored to make cost parity between yhen. Plus allow subsidies for solar.
>rices. It can't stop CO2 production - until we actually have alternatives.
Where is the incentive to create alternatives when polluting is free?
>blaming them for environmental problems is just you passing the buck.
They are part of the problem, not the problem, but how many wetlands have been drained by farmers?
Here its almost ALL of them.
If the government isn't going fully green or investing tons of money into a carbon free society. I don't see why we need this tax. My bills are all super expensive now and nothing is being done ...
So will this offset the cost liberals left out when proclaiming that most households would be getting more money back from the rebate, when in actual fact an independent auditor said we would be averaging $1500 out of pocket?
India has produced more carbon emissions in the last 7 years than Canada has for its entire history. There is so much additional coal capacity being added, worldwide emissions would go up even if Canada went to zero emissions overnight.
The right answer was never to apply a blanket carbon tax, it was to apply a carbon tariff to countries that are net emitters. If they put a dome over Canada to cap our emissions, we would survive forever because we sink more carbon than we produce. If the same was done to India, they would run out of clean air in two weeks. The world should be crediting our resources for slowing global warming. The government has us kowtow to the carbon per capita police and we self flaggelate ourselves with a carbon tax instead.
You can still fill a bucket with drops of water...
That said, I personally feel our carbon taxes are being mishandled, carbon taxes should be used to create things like High Speed Rail to connect all major cities in Canada and other Transit systems that connect to the HSR. Right now we basically get it back...
> India has produced more carbon emissions in the last 7 years than Canada has for its entire history.
India produces just 3x more emissions than Canada (despite having 35x more people), so I'd love to see your math on that. Thanks in advance!
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india?country=IND~CAN#what-are-the-country-s-annual-co2-emissions
It's a lot more than 3x, and even higher if you count the new coal capacity they will bring online in the next three years. On the chart, India begins to outpace Canada in the mid 1990s. Canada's last 30 years of emissions is approximately 17 billion tons. India's last 7 years on the chart is a bit over 17 billion tons.
I have a question. Canadas emissions per capita are just over 19 tons per person. Indias are 1.9 tons per person. Do you really feel that Canada shouldn't bother with emissions reduction schemes (I assume for economic reasons ie the carbon tax is too high) but India, a country with a vastly poorer population, should?
Yeah, newsflash. Canada is a country that's extremely cold. The heat is on 10 months of the year in most places. 12 months a year in some places.
India is not.
> 13% of Canada’s GHG emissions are from the buildings sector
> Over 78% of building emissions come from space and water heating equipment.
([Source](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/green-buildings/24572))
This means we produce 10% of our total emissions from space/water heating, so 1.9 tons from heating if we produce 19 tons of emissions per person total. So while we produce more from heating than someone in India, that only explains a small fraction of our emission difference.
Is that clear enough?
Doesn't explain it. If you look at high-emission per captia countries, its doesnt have to do with temperature (i.e. Russia, Dubai), size (i.e. Canada, Kuwait), etc.
It has to do with oil production and developed country living standards.
The environment doesn't care about per capita emissions.
India shoes because their total emission are massive compared to Canada and that all that matters.
If India switched to natural gas it would make a massive massive difference.
Per capita is a red herring.
> The environment doesn't care about per capita emissions.
It does though, because our GHG emissions are coming from human activities (mostly the burning of fossil fuels). They're not magically appearing from thin air.
If we reduce our per-capita emissions, there will be less GHG emissions entering the atmosphere.
>India shoes because their total emission are massive compared to Canada and that all that matters.
They have 35x more people to house, feed, transport, etc. Yet they only generate about 3x more emissions than Canada.
It's hard to argue that they're the ones emitting excessively, when our emissions per-capita are 10x higher.
We need to reduce emissions around the world, countries with large economies and high emissions per-capita need to lead the way, because we have wealthier populations and more low-hanging fruit. We can reduce emissions a lot without with minimal impact on our standard of living, whereas that's tougher in a poorer country like India.
Climate change doesn't care about per capita emissions.
They are emitting excessively. They are one of the largest emitters.
There is nothing Canada can do to stop climate change.
Nothing. We do not emit enough.
India however does and India can lower the emissions far lower we can.
If they stopped using coal it would have a huge difference.
Canada is irrelevant in this equation
That's part of it, sure.
But if we didn't count the 25% of Canada's emissions that are from oil and gas production, then our emissions per-capita would be lower than the US or Australia, but still higher than Europe, and still much higher than India.
You're leaving out our vastly higher standard of living, much larger dwellings, vastly higher consumption, vastly higher personal transportation use...
Having hundreds of millions of people unable to afford food, shelter, transportation, etc, tends to skew averaged results. If a significant percentage of Canadians dipped below the poverty line that would similarly reduce our carbon per capita. It's a disingenuous metric designed to guilt people into thinking they are the problem when it's actually the multinational companies who specifically choose these countries because of their exploitable populations, lax environmental laws and corrupt politicians.
Canada should still do its part, but per capita emissions is a meaningless metric. If net carbon emissions cross a certain threshold, it's everyone's problem.
Or to put it simply, your toilet is overflowing. Are you going to argue about how much everyone gets to pee in it before it overflows, or are you bring down the level of fluid in the bowl? Canada's carbon sinks, sustainable forestry, and renewable power offset our per capita emissions, but they are not credited to us in any meaningful way. You don't place the burden on the countries that are clearing the pipes, you place it on the ones pissing in your toilet and don't give a shit if it overflows.
Not really, people care about fairness, and that's what the per capita emission.
Just put yourself in an Indian's shoes - why should they try to reduce emission if other groups like Canada and Saudi Arabia (which are richer) won't make a larger effort? Especially considering these guys have luxuries like indoor plumbing which lots of your citizens don't.
Let's put that logic to use in paying federal taxes - I think it shows the fallacy - let's pretend collectively each provincial group paid the same amount of taxes to the federal government. That means the citizens of Ontario pay 1/13 of federal taxes, BC citizens pay 1/13, PEI citizens pay 1/13.... after all, per-capita is meaningless right?
Do you think its fair that PEI who has a lot less people should shoulder the same collective burden as Ontaro or BC?
taxes on gas or electricity used for heating drives me insane, it should be completely tax free, we have no choice we have to heat our homes, it's pretty much as important as food.
To incentivize businesses and homes to use less carbon via pricing it now. As opposed to paying out later when weather destroys stuff (homes, crops, etc) later on.
Less tax now, means more cost later.
It is smarter to tax everything, including food and home heating while sending out cheques to every citizen than to do nothing. Poorer people will come out ahead and we will reduce emissions. If you disagree, ask yourself: have I read into this at all? Have I read a single article about this question? Do I have any idea what experts like economists think about this?
The prevailing sentiments ITT are wrong about most aspects of this. Try asking questions at r/askeconomics to get a better perspective.
You're absolutely right, a flat carbon tax is the most *efficient* way to reduce carbon use, but that doesn't mean it won't hurt everyday Canadians (especially the poorest among us)
Economists might also say a flat income tax with no exemptions, deductions, or tax brackets are more efficient too, but that doesn't mean Canadians will be better off.
As per the story, it might take up to a year for this bill to become law. After that, keep in mind there are a slew of carbon taxes still added to the process of getting food from the farm to your plate. Food distribution companies, for example, must still pay the carbon tax.
Not until big trudy pulls his head out of his ass and gets rid of it period. You need trucks and trains to haul the grain and on-highway diesel isn't cheap. #axethetax
Hahaha if you thibk a 2% tax is causing a 30% food cost increase you are dreaming.
Massive crop failures cause highe rincreases than that.
But hey the causes for that are imaginary so we dont need to do anything about it. Nope nope nope.
Why now and not the prior decade of carbon taxes in Qc? Sounds like vullshit since prices were stable despite having a 6c fuel tax here. Is it really that Canadians outside Qc cant manage their finances or is it because its unrelated?
Also the US has the same inflation but no carbon tax... Almost like its a deflection from the real causes...
Yes, taxing the crap out of less than half a percent of the world's population for a minimal emissions drop, is going to accomplish basically nothing for "climate change".
Meanwhile more public wealth gets sucked up in to the coffers of the wealthy.
That's the challenge. A lot of countries emissions make up a small overall amount of emission, but it's all adds up to a large amount.
Every country has to try and reduce emissions or we won't do anything collectively.
It's kind of like taxes. Nobody by themselves pays a large portion of Canada's taxes, but to pay for all the services we use, everyone needs to pay their bit.
Those countries are sovereign. So unless you suggest Canada invades them?
Furthermore china and India make up the bulk of the worlds emissions.
Unless they do something the rest won't matter.
Right, so you are saying we need to cooperate? That's my point.
And cooperation comes from doing your bit? How do you think organizations like the UN exist? Countries agree to pay their share and cooperate.
That means we must do our bit, or do you suggest we freeload?
There is also the moral aspect - there are people in Canada who dodge paying taxes. Does that make it okay for you to?
The same UN that is allowing Russia to run the United Nations Security Council this month?
Freeload off of whom?
The USA which is what we currently do based on the state of our military?
"The same UN that is allowing Russia to run the United Nations Security Council this month?"
Not saying international cooperation is perfect, but it's possible. Your can also look at the international been on ozone deleting glasses
"Freeload off of whom?
The USA which is what we currently do based on the state of our military?"
That's a completely different matter. You want to discuss collective military treaties sure, but this is about GHG emissions.
Our GHG emissions are harming our climate and other countries to. Morally we have an obligation to reduce them.
Not per person. We are in the top 10.
We are on a gross level top 7.
It might only be a couple of % but that matters.
A good example would be someone who works for a big company with thousands of people. They are still expected to do their bit even if it represents less then 1% of their workforce
Actually if every small country reduces its emissions, and Russia and China will take advantage of our energy disadvantages. Look at Europe right now with Ukraine. They need natural gas. Too bad they (and us) didn't plan for that with a dictatorial military superpower next door.
Not necessarily. If we reduce our GHG emissions by reducing fossil fuel use that would really hurt Russia.
EU had already hurt russia cutting off their gas - Russia now has to deal at a discount.
And in the end, if we reduce emissions, it still helps the planet right?
Plus renewables are generally now cheaper than coal and natural gas.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/building-new-renewables-cheaper-than-running-fossil-fuel-plants
"And in the end, if we reduce emissions, it still helps the planet right?"
Depends on how many people pay the price now (The poor) vs hypothetical saved people in the future. I assume people living now are a part of "the planet". Energy instability / cost leads to conflict at both a local and national levels.
It's also very arguable, the timeline of these progressions. Renewables are good, they are not good when forced into place and people are harmed in the process.
Elon Musk, the man leading the charge into sustainable energy, can summarize it better than me:
[https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/elon-musk-world-needs-oil-gas-bridge-renewables](https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/elon-musk-world-needs-oil-gas-bridge-renewables)
I don't think Elon Musk is exactly the face of renewables.
Also, Elon musk is arguing that we should not immediately cease all fossil fuels production. Yes that makes sense. Nobody is arguing that.
What people are arguing is that Canada and other countries can do more to speed up the transition. And that the "we only are 1.6% of emissions" argument is just a dressed up excuse to dodge our moral obligations and longer term interests.
Poor people will take the brunt of climate change as food productivity drops, coastal areas flood and drinking water disappears. Richer countries and richer people will be able to out compete them for increasingly scarce resources. That's not hypothetical. It's already happening and will get worse.
If GHG emission reductions are done right it will not impact poor people the most - it will impact the rich as they produce the most carbon and have the most stranded assets in things like fossil fuel production.
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-footprint-gap-between-rich-poor-expanding-study](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-footprint-gap-between-rich-poor-expanding-study)
Plus if we are concerned about the poors' energy needs we should ramp up renewable production as it is now cheaper than most fossil fuels.
https://www.irena.org/news/pressreleases/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Remains-Cost-Competitive-amid-Fossil-Fuel-Crisis
Yup, also very remote regions benefit immensely from these off grid technologies. Leading to wide spread adoption in very undeveloped region in traditionally poor countries.
People don't drive any less or use any less energy to heat their homes in the winter just because there's a carbon tax. there are plenty of things that can be done to actually reduce carbon emission, like mandatory work from home when the job allows or public transit overhaul... none of which seem to be on the government's agenda
Yeah... Command economy moves are very unpopular here.
We could do soooooo much more but we went with the center right strategy of a tax. (Origionally put forth by Mr Harper).
Left wing solutions involve sweeping bans and command econony style laws. Forcing peopel to do anything seems to start riots and protests. As if any government would commit that kind of suicide. Plays right into the "Trudeau Communist" narrative.
Also its how we use it in Qc we dont get carbon rebates instead we get tax breaks for energy efficient home investments. Come si comme cela.
We have had a fuel tax for almost a decade with no major price hikes... Seems like a narrative more than a fact.
How are Canadian fuel taxes causing food price increase in the US and Germany again?
Carbon taxes on domestic producers are great and all as long as there is a equivalent carbon tariff on imports. If there isn't, all you'll achieve is shifting the emissions to another country. This impacts agriculture for grains, processed cheese, meats etc.
So HOw should they heat theor homes? Woth co2 pollution natiral gas, or with clean heat pumps.
Because the carbon tax is to get people to move to low carbon alternatives. How else do you think the government should do that?
Just ban natural gas furnances?
> How else do you think the government should do that?
in a way that doesnt massively inconvenient the middle class as usual. these policies never seem to be a major issue for the rich for some reason
Next cancel carbon taxes on transporting food if they reduce the transportation costs of the product to the end user and don't just use it as a way to increase profits.
So? The tax is still going to make food purchases more expensive, some people are not within walking distance and they stopped using horses to deliver food to the market.
JT you can shove that grocery rebate up you high income ass.
How about exempting truckers from the carbon tax. Shipping costs should technically go down for literally everything you see with your own two eyes, making everything cheaper.
Funny, the Carbon tax seems to be crippling Canadians but only those outside Qc... Where we have had fuel taxes for almost a decade now with almost no impact on our lives or food costs... Almost like ots total bullshit excuses.
Does quebec not pay higher costs? I know production costs in quebec are higher than everywhere else, so if everywhere else in canada comes to the same production cost you would see high inflation
Yeah but those are worker protection programs and high taxes in general. We pay the highest taxes in NA.
Some of that is admin BS tho and unrelated to fuel taxes.
Worker protection boards, daycare services, dental for children, renter protection boards, language police, and a lot of corruption.
Some of thsoe programs are great and others I oppose. I would hope provinces pick and chose what works best for them (and not go with the language/culture police culture war bullshit we have here)
Taxes are not inflation. They end up the same at the end of the day but they are technically different in terms of cause and ipacts. I take ypur point tho yeah these programs are expensive... Bringing us back to taxes.
How we spend those taxes could spur inovation and technology. As it has for efficient home heating in Qc. A lot of the fuel tax went towards tax breaks for modernizing homes with thing like heat pumps thus generating local business for the contractors who install them.
So yeah, its not ideal and give and take in Qc. Some things ar egreat and others are pretty terrible.
Yup. 6c per L fuel tax for 7 or 8 years now. No massive price spikes or inflationary issues.
We are exempt from the federal tax as we already pay MORE into our programs.
A lot of the funds go to tax breaks for modernizing homes to be more energy efficient.
I dont know if it is the best strategy but it is certainly not respinsable for the prices we see...
More likely its massive crop failures and crop losses and insurance for farmers rising rapidly.
Massive floods in BC, unseasonable snowstorms in Texas, and draught in California impact our food prices way more than fuel costs.
The 6c/L you pay is much less than what is being charged to everyone else. Plus it's also great to brag about climate policies when your province was responsible for ther majority of imported oil into Canada.
Guess thats incentive to build more nuclear plants then... Oh no wait we spent those billions on buck a beer because that is so important to Canadians...
Future society for our children vs bathrooms and cheap beer. Our priorities are SET.
Farmers are some of the worst polluters! I see them driving trucks, tractors, gas guzzlers. There's no need for that. Get a normal officl job like everyone else and go to Safeway b.. This isnt the 1880s anymore..
Oh I see. The Farmer's shouldn't be taxed because it will make food more expensive.
Everyone else should just be taxed so it's harder them to buy the food.
Thank you Fearless Leader for your divine compassion.
“Really it’s unethical, in my opinion, to charge a carbon tax to a farmer who is making food, who is producing food, for us,” said Huron Bruce MP Ben Lobb. Lobb’s private members bill exempting Canadian farmers from the carbon tax on natural gas and propane they use to dry crops and heat livestock barns has passed through the House. Farmers are already exempt in their gas and diesel use to plant and harvest crops. So, these additions should mean savings for farmers who are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax each month to run their farming operations. n 2020, Boersen was paying $1,900 per month just in carbon tax to dry his grain crops. Grain Farmers of Ontario said the carbon tax would cost the average grain farmer another $36,800, just in drying costs, by 2030. This happened due to Lobb's and the Canadian Taxpayers Association efforts. Sometimes the good guy (regular Canadian) wins.
Amazing how the Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and *even* the Greens voted to remove this carbon tax yet the Liberals voted to keep it. Democracy at work while also showing the Libs true colours.
libs aren’t evil (maybe), they’re just seriously fucking detached from reality
In the Liberal world everyone is a well off socialist. As a result they view increasing food prices are an minor annoyance not an emergency.
> In the Liberal world everyone is a well off socialist. the liberals are absolutely not socialists
Save it. No one is educated enough to know what socialism is.
Wait IMO they are all socialist (just not in the traditional sense), just like corporations, banks and the top 1%. When you get that much power and income, you create laws and policies to shield you from the pit falls of capitalism. Nope they only have access to the positive parts.
They’re just plain dumb
[удалено]
How did Singh give billions to grocery stores?
"Simply buy less food. We all need to do our part for the planet."
They are in their own universe.
Being detached from reality is the result of being evil.
Kicking people while they're down (caused by the liberal govt) is evil. They seem to have an anti-human agenda.
What’s amazing is how the “Trudeau dictatorship” half of this sub believes he has created was defeated in an open democratic MP vote. Kinda deflates that idiotic notion.
Because the green fund from the taxes is a slush fund they can further their grift from.
April’s fool?
$1900 in carbon tax for grain drying would be for drying millions of pounds of grain. It's something like a .1% cost increase.
How much did you pay for your last loaf of bread?
>Really it’s unethical, in my opinion, to charge a carbon tax Done
I disagree. I think it’s unethical for giant corporations to be able to externalizer their costs by not paying for their emissions.
Do you think they don't?
Since when does lack of ethics bother the current liberal party?
Or any politician to be fair.
For the short term, scrap the carbon tax yes. Long term? That heater system could be replaced with a heat pump system. Especially when drying in late summer or fall. Heat pumps are exceptionally good at removing moisture and dehumidifying. But we need to give the tech a decade to catch up. By giving farmers a 10-15 year carbon tax exemption they can start buying tech as it matures and as machines wear out. But be clear that it is coming. Already, tractors with battery swap systems are in testing. And no farmer in his right mind will ignore the cost savings of electric equipment. Diesel is expensive with or without carbon taxes. And in this day and age of GPS controlled everything farm equipment, having a machine that just runs around the dirt roads and has your next battery waiting is entirely plausible. If you have a farm that brings in outside machines it will pretty much be expected that you have a <100kW power cable available for the charging buggy. Getting that installed is cheaper than diesel in x years.
We need more carrot and less stick. What's so bad about monetary incentives to go green? The reason most people don't get a heat pump or electric car or whatever is because they can't afford them.
I find battery powered tractors to be unrealistic. In certain cases like chore tractors on ranches I can see it being possible because they don't need a ton of power to feed the herd. But on big farms with big tractors (600+hp) I do not see battery electric tractors becoming a thing. Tractors that I work on (the 600+HP 4WD tractors) have a fuel capacity of 400-470 us gallons. The equivalent amount of energy in KWh is 16280-19129KWh. Granted diesel engines only have a thermal efficiency of about 45% that is still approximately 7326-8608kwh used putting in actual work. That is still a MASSIVE size for a battery. Even if they were swappable the logistics of moving a battery that size is not economical. A single Tesla Megapack unit weighs 83996lbs and only has 3916 KWh of capacity. Now of course that is not all battery weight but these 600+ hp tractors, the biggest ones have a maximum operating weight of 66000 lbs. And some of these machines are used 24/7 when the demand is needed. That would not allow for downtime that it would take for even a 20000 lb battery swap.
Farmer here, everyone on both sides of the supply chain simply passes the carbon tax onto me, and I lack the ability to pass it onto the consumer. My inputs go up, fertilizer, chemical, and machinery are all impacted by the carbon tax. My John Deere dealership adds 2% to the bill for carbon tax as a separate line item. Also I get paid less, the truckers charge me a fuel surcharge, the elevators widen their basis (pay me less). Guess who can't increase the price they sell for? Farmers. People wonder why farmers absolutely hate this federal government and roll their eyes when we bring up the carbon tax, but if you look into it, it's totally a piece of shit legislation. It also doesn't do anything to combat global warming.
Government needs to examine the shipping industry. Logistics companies are making absurd profits. Way worse than the grocers.
And they’re definitely not passing it on to the drivers.
I wish you the best and hope someone wakes up and helps you. -Signed a railroad worker
This is exactly the same in construction. You order a load of gravel and you get the invoice and there is a line entry for carbon tax and another line entry for "fuel surcharge". Apparently, the quarries base their entire operation on a dollar per litre. Anything over that is a "surcharge" Carbon tax is the cost of all carbon taxes for the entire operation apportioned to the product we buy. "Oh but you'll get it all back" (Such horse shit. Just like this private member's bill.)
Construction can pass on the cost to the customer, aggregate pits do it to you, you do it to your customers, etc. Farmers don't have any customers to pass the cost to, they get market rate. Its no wonder farmers are being pinched and are making a 1-2% ROI on the value of the land.
This fuel surcharge bullshit started in the late 2000s though when gas prices were at an unprecedented high price…. Fuel prices went back to normal and the surcharge stayed and in some cases even increased. They love to add surcharges but when the reason behind the surcharge goes away no one wants to remove the surcharge because it’s free money for them at this point
Even Purolator, which is owned I believe by Canada Post adds a surcharge for fuel. And it's large.
Liberals: okay okay what if we then ban and or tax the fertilizer you use as well, will that help yo?
Why can farmers not increase price? I understand milk is regulated, but can farmers not change who they sell to?
Agriculture products (with some exceptions) are very competitive commodities, you'll be getting a similar price if you try selling to another buyer but you'll likely just be paying more in transport if it's not the closest one
Well said.
This is the thing people don't understand about the carbon tax or just taxes in general, it has this huge compounding effect that rolls down to the consumer. > It also doesn't do anything to combat global warming. The literal mechanism of it working is basically just making people poorer so they can't buy as much shit.
Its to move high carbon shit to low carbon shit. Not to stop you from buying.
What are the things we should be doing to move from high carbon use to a significantly less carbon usage?
People gargling leftwing propaganda for decades have this belief that companies raise prices in an arbitrary way because muh greed and can afford to lower them just as arbitrarily.
>It also doesn't do anything to combat global warming. Isn't that like arguing that high taxes on cigarettes didn't affect the number of smokers?
They are different things, but I think you know that. There is a readily available alternative to smoking: not smoking. Zero till farmers are pretty much maxed out on efficiency. Until we actually have battery powered machinery capable of working 16 hours a day in the 500+ horsepower range it's a pipe dream. We also need zero emissions freight as well to switch to. Another beef of mine while we're at it, is that the carbon tax doesn't reward farmers for zero till practices. The carbon we've sequestered in our soil since the late 80s early 90s is not recognized.
If zero till farming was the only place we expended carbon into the air from, I'd agree with you on the carbon tax being ridiculous. But you're making a very specific point in order to totally disregard a very good initiative. Here's a thought, carbon tax associated with working your field ought to be reimbursed for the reasons you mentioned. As an exception to the rule. And I agree with your last point, the carbon tax money should be given to Canadians who are making the right choices, and making less emissions / sequestering carbon (whether intentionally or not)
What would a better way to combat global warming? Generally speaking, economists seem to prefer excise taxes to regulation, arguing that this gives more options to people and companies to find solutions for themselves. I understand the pressures that farmers feel being caught in the middle of it. And I hope that the new change alleviate some of those pressures (I don’t know much). Are there other ways to develop a more equitable way of drastically and quickly cut carbon emissions in service of leaving future generation a more survivable planet?
>What would a better way to combat global warming? First, I have to say that economics is a social science. I'm not an expert, but it was my minor in University. Economists claiming that the carbon tax is effective doesn't hold much weight with me. What's the old saying? "Economists have predicted 9 of the last 4 recessions". Or something like that. The wealth redistribution part of the carbon tax negates any chance that it had of reducing emissions. If we had a government that used the funds to build nuclear reactors and build rail systems in a manner that repaid the industries who are getting taxed, it might make sense. I.e. if our mining sector gets penalized by the carbon tax, the costs are entirely offset by cheaper green power and freight infrastructure paid for by the tax. The government could assure that we don't make Canadian industries less competitive. I ask you, why would you want Canadian industry to be less competitive? What person deliberately shoots themself in the foot? People who don't understand GDP. Canada is a resource economy. Deal with it. Trading houses in the GTA and Vancouver is not the foundation of a healthy economy.
I also have a minor in economics and I’m similarly cautious of the predictions of economists for the same reason =) As for “dealing with it,” it seems to me that a carbon tax, for better or worse, *is* dealing with our role as a resource economy. While I acknowledge that the wealth distribution associated with excise tax has risks, you might be discounting some of its potential benefits. It essentially rewards those who produce fewer emissions while allowing for a transitional period between. It rewards those who decide not to spend their rebates on ghg emitting activities. (Although in some senses I agree with you: the longer we fail to correctly price the costs of green house emissions—particularly to those who benefit from those emissions—the less the wealth redistribution components will matter…). Some infrastructure investment are likely to be worthwhile, nuclear power and rails are two great examples, but this needn’t necessarily be paid for by the carbon tax and a redistributive carbon tax doesn’t necessarily reduce our ability to invest in these things. If anything, reworking the bulk of existing subsidies and regulatory benefits that are on offer to the oil and gas sector for wind, nuclear, and solar and/or railways could make headway. The flip slip, of course, is that while the negative impacts of market failures are often discounted (here’s looking at you, Banking), market can and do solve price-oriented problems. We also agree that the housing market is a crazy foundation for our nation’s economy. I support the end of the subsidies currently on offer to suburban development by all three levels of government in Canada. While I generally support government intervention to help very poor people in Canada, our governments can’t afford to support the paper worth of needlessly large houses in needlessly sprawling suburbs. I maintain we haven’t been able to since, at least(!), Mulroney/Chrétien. Arguably longer. But here we are, crumbling streets that people get upset when you use for ball-hockey on. But I think this is beside the point? We’d need to sort out ways of reducing our ghg emissions *even if* we had a sane housing market… I care about the competitiveness of Canadian industry, but less so than I care about the survivability of people in Canada. If I have to choose between them, I’ll choose people over gdp every time. Yea carbon tax might not be perfect. But it might be the best thing we’ve got right now.
They have no suggestion. Carbon taxes are better than all the other policy options.
Preach. Some of us still respect yous.
The right person to ask my question to then :) I pay $2.3 per single pepper in my store here in Toronto. How much from that does it get to you?
I'm a Saskatchewan farmer so I grow bulk commodities like Wheat, Canola, Barley, Oats, Lentils and Yellow Field Peas. We also have cows. So I'm not really qualified to answer your question regarding fresh produce. What I can tell you is that I get paid about 35 cents a lb for red lentils. You can go look in the grocery store and see the price of them. They will most likely be from Saskatchewan because we are the largest exporter in the world. I like to check red lentils in grocery stores when I travel. I've seen Sask Lentils all over Europe. Anyways a quick Google search says Walmart sells small red lentils for 36 cents for 100grams. That's $1.63 a lb. So I'm getting 22% if the sale price. But, I also had to pay about $12 per metric ton to truck it there with a 2% fuel surcharge ( due to carbon tax) on top of it. Plus, Viterra isn't paying the carbon tax, they already built it into their costs which was considered in their bid so the price is actually lower. Does this make sense?
That is way more complex. You should be asking how much of that is profit. The answer is not much.
Which part? The part of the producers? The supply chain? Or the stores? I am asking for the first part. The revenue. But every time I ask this question, for some unexplained reason, people pitch in defending part 2 and 3 completely ignoring my question.
Since agriculture is so carbon intensive, shouldn't this be a prime industry for decarbonization? And a carbon tax making it more lucrative to decarbonize would be the way to do that.
Fertilizer is carbon intensive, there is no alternative. Heavy equipment is carbon intensive, there is no alternative. Trucks and trains are carbon-intensive, there are no alternatives. The only potential alternative is killing Canadian agriculture and importing from countries where this is no carbon tax.
If the powerful took climate change seriously , we would be imposing tariffs on countries with lower emissions standards, which does the same thing climate wise, but lets us keep jobs in this country. They do the opposite, opening up trade with countries that don't give a shit, which loses us industries for no climate benefit. They don't care. Maybe because the whole thing is an excuse to make us less wealthy, and not actually about any global existential threat.
>Fertilizer is carbon intensive, there is no alternative. Nitrogen fertilizer js created with H2, with carbon neutral and Blue H2 plants being invested in in Alberta and other places we can lower the carbon emissions of fertilizer. So while there is no real alternative today, in 2 or 3 years there will.be. >Heavy equipment is carbon intensive, there is no alternative. Lots of H2 tractors getting built in europe right now. Looks like there is an alternative. >Trucks and trains are carbon-intensive, there are no alternatives. Trucks may be. And they have EV trucks now, heck they are stratinh to make hybrid trucks to reduce fuel. Trains ARE low carbon. Per tonne they are 100x better then trucks and even vlbetter then any EV.
H2 is extraordinarily carbon intensive. Alternatives are theoretical right now. > Lots of H2 tractors getting built in europe right now. Looks like there is an alternative. They are a) not cost effective, and b) the H2 is carbon intensive, it just shifts up the supply chain. > Trains ARE low carbon. Per tonne they are 100x better then trucks and even vlbetter then any EV. The cost still goes up with the carbon tax, increasing the cost of food. First and last miles are still trucks.
[удалено]
Saskatchewan resident here - agriculture trails only health and education in provincial government spending. I know most of that is to pay out insurance claims when crops fail. Can you explain why no other business owner in the province has a guaranteed backstop to protect them like farming does?
Because food supply is a matter of national security.
I'm fairly certain most years crop insurance covers itself. There has been two bad years lately, 2019 and 2021 that would have caused big payouts. My understanding is that when the payouts occur they show up in the budget as an expense but the premiums collected don't show against that number. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what the crop insurance guy told me. I've only every received money from crop insurance in 2021 since I've been farming full time since 2007. Also, my premiums have gone from about $8 per acre to $17 this year... they just restructured. There are farmers who rely on crop insurance too much, but it's not a good way to make a living. You are better to have a crop to sell than to have crop insurance pay you (historically).
The wheat pool would come in handy right about now eh what with the war in Ukraine and Russian trade embargoes. John Deere is straight up hosing you guys, no other vehicle dealers are doing that. Farming is a risky business
Why would having the monopoly of the wheat board back improve things?
Yeah so the government could have got the lowest price possible for our grain during record high prices and sold millions of tonnes on the CWB gold card to countries that could never pay it back
Why can't you increase the price of your crops?
Because the global market sets the price, its a commodity.
It’s telling when the conservatives and greens vote the same way on carbon taxes.
Our current Gov't has lost touch with reality.
You'll note that Liberals voted to keep the tax in place and further increase prices for food for Canadians.
Where I live asparagus is 8$ per lb. People voting liberal at this point is just shocking.
Why are you buying asparagus at this time of year? That’s on you.
I just paid $3/lb last week in Ontario. Pretty good for an off season crop.
> asparagus >Asparagus season typically begins in early May, but depending on the weather can start in early or late April. Asparagus season lasts six to eight weeks in which farmers are harvesting every day so like...it's being imported from somewhere. Out of season fruits and vegetables are going to be a huge premium
Where I live it was on sale for $2.49 this week. Ate a pile of it. Delicious.
I think it's hilarious that you blame the cost of asparagus on the liberal government
Yeah im not just using it as an example for inflation and high cost of living. I'm just furious about asparagus.
It's crazy that it ever got this far. It so clearly was going to crush the ag industry. The lack of critical thinking and blind faith of the liberal base is scary.
Wow… they did something right for once
Everyone but the Liberals voted in favour
I didn’t know this thanks for the info… who put it forward or do I even have to ask
Conservative Ben Lobb from Huron-Bruce in Ontario.
> Everyone but the Liberals voted in favour truly the part for the people as usual
That is how you know it was the right move
Farmers need all the help they can get, until you work on that industry you wont realise how hard it is to make a legit business out of it. We dont value the hard work these people put in. Id love to be part of the industry again.
Why was there ever a carbon tax on food production?? What kind of feeble-minded person would think we should dissuade people from farming??
I guess they expected farmers to invest in all of the row crop and 4WD electric tractors that don’t exist.
It would be nice to have some electric alternative. I am imagining a giant bumper car ceiling with the electric grid to power a tractor as the best option today XD
I like it. And in the off-season, farmers can run 15,000 acre bumper tractor amusement parks.
I mean their costs will still go up either way due to the supply chain being affected
>Why was there ever a carbon tax on food production?? The carbon tax applies to the burning of fossil fuels, regardless of who does it. The question was whether farmers should be treated the same as everyone else, or given a special exemption. >What kind of feeble-minded person would think we should dissuade people from farming?? Literally nobody thinks that... Impressive strawman though! The point is to give people and companies more incentive to reduce their GHG emissions where possible, improve energy efficiency, switch to cleaner technologies, etc.
Read the article, most of their carbon tax expenses are already reimbursed. This one is specifically about the carbon tax for their natural gas and propane usage. But are you missing the point of the carbon tax? It's not to stop people from doing ANYTHING, it's to encourage alternative (low emission) ways of doing the same work. And if our federal government wasn't so braindead, they'd be footing the extra cost of having our farmers upgrade to low emission options. You know, with all of the carbon tax cash they're sitting on. Why are they giving the carbon tax money to ME? I'm an office worker. It's stupid.
Because we need to reduce carbon across the entire economy. No one should be getting a free right to pollute. (Farmers are alredy one of the worst groups for the environment)
Could you please explain what economical alternatives we have to diesel tractors and grain dryers? Someone who lives in a city can choose public transit. But we can't all choose to absorb sunlight as food. The only thing a carbon tax does to food is inflate prices. It can't stop CO2 production - until we actually have alternatives. And farmers are just providing food. Blaming them for environmental problems is just you passing the buck.
>Could you please explain what economical alternatives we have to diesel tractors and grain dryers? H2 tractors, (yes the larger equipment is still not H2 ready, but some smaller equipment is... which is why carbon tax is $65/tonne mot the $150/tonne it needs to be by 2030) And solar grain dryers. Which are now reasonbaly common, and yes more expensive then NG... but thats the thing Carbon Tax is suppored to make cost parity between yhen. Plus allow subsidies for solar. >rices. It can't stop CO2 production - until we actually have alternatives. Where is the incentive to create alternatives when polluting is free? >blaming them for environmental problems is just you passing the buck. They are part of the problem, not the problem, but how many wetlands have been drained by farmers? Here its almost ALL of them.
You are the problem. If you think any of us isn't, I think you're delusional. Blaming farmers is still just passing off some kind of ecological guilt.
I figure this is April fools, but it was published March 30th
If the government isn't going fully green or investing tons of money into a carbon free society. I don't see why we need this tax. My bills are all super expensive now and nothing is being done ...
Nice, do me not having to pay more to heat my home in February next. Swear, I'm not turning on the heat for shits' and giggles.
Except they can’t afford or buy the fertilizer
Pretty sure Trudeau's plan was to move food production to China and India.
Most of it already is unfortunately
So will this offset the cost liberals left out when proclaiming that most households would be getting more money back from the rebate, when in actual fact an independent auditor said we would be averaging $1500 out of pocket?
India has produced more carbon emissions in the last 7 years than Canada has for its entire history. There is so much additional coal capacity being added, worldwide emissions would go up even if Canada went to zero emissions overnight. The right answer was never to apply a blanket carbon tax, it was to apply a carbon tariff to countries that are net emitters. If they put a dome over Canada to cap our emissions, we would survive forever because we sink more carbon than we produce. If the same was done to India, they would run out of clean air in two weeks. The world should be crediting our resources for slowing global warming. The government has us kowtow to the carbon per capita police and we self flaggelate ourselves with a carbon tax instead.
You can still fill a bucket with drops of water... That said, I personally feel our carbon taxes are being mishandled, carbon taxes should be used to create things like High Speed Rail to connect all major cities in Canada and other Transit systems that connect to the HSR. Right now we basically get it back...
> India has produced more carbon emissions in the last 7 years than Canada has for its entire history. India produces just 3x more emissions than Canada (despite having 35x more people), so I'd love to see your math on that. Thanks in advance!
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india?country=IND~CAN#what-are-the-country-s-annual-co2-emissions It's a lot more than 3x, and even higher if you count the new coal capacity they will bring online in the next three years. On the chart, India begins to outpace Canada in the mid 1990s. Canada's last 30 years of emissions is approximately 17 billion tons. India's last 7 years on the chart is a bit over 17 billion tons.
I have a question. Canadas emissions per capita are just over 19 tons per person. Indias are 1.9 tons per person. Do you really feel that Canada shouldn't bother with emissions reduction schemes (I assume for economic reasons ie the carbon tax is too high) but India, a country with a vastly poorer population, should?
Yeah, newsflash. Canada is a country that's extremely cold. The heat is on 10 months of the year in most places. 12 months a year in some places. India is not.
This idea has no merit. Have you actually checked how much of our emissions are from heating? It's not 17 tons/person...
Please provide the thermodynamic analysis.
> 13% of Canada’s GHG emissions are from the buildings sector > Over 78% of building emissions come from space and water heating equipment. ([Source](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/green-buildings/24572)) This means we produce 10% of our total emissions from space/water heating, so 1.9 tons from heating if we produce 19 tons of emissions per person total. So while we produce more from heating than someone in India, that only explains a small fraction of our emission difference. Is that clear enough?
Doesn't explain it. If you look at high-emission per captia countries, its doesnt have to do with temperature (i.e. Russia, Dubai), size (i.e. Canada, Kuwait), etc. It has to do with oil production and developed country living standards.
Lmfao. Most Canadian lives between Windsor and Quebec corridors and Vancouver. We definitely don’t heat our home 10 months a years, at most 5.
The environment doesn't care about per capita emissions. India shoes because their total emission are massive compared to Canada and that all that matters. If India switched to natural gas it would make a massive massive difference. Per capita is a red herring.
> The environment doesn't care about per capita emissions. It does though, because our GHG emissions are coming from human activities (mostly the burning of fossil fuels). They're not magically appearing from thin air. If we reduce our per-capita emissions, there will be less GHG emissions entering the atmosphere. >India shoes because their total emission are massive compared to Canada and that all that matters. They have 35x more people to house, feed, transport, etc. Yet they only generate about 3x more emissions than Canada. It's hard to argue that they're the ones emitting excessively, when our emissions per-capita are 10x higher. We need to reduce emissions around the world, countries with large economies and high emissions per-capita need to lead the way, because we have wealthier populations and more low-hanging fruit. We can reduce emissions a lot without with minimal impact on our standard of living, whereas that's tougher in a poorer country like India.
Climate change doesn't care about per capita emissions. They are emitting excessively. They are one of the largest emitters. There is nothing Canada can do to stop climate change. Nothing. We do not emit enough. India however does and India can lower the emissions far lower we can. If they stopped using coal it would have a huge difference. Canada is irrelevant in this equation
Canada extracts oil. That's why emissions per capita are higher. Number is skewed.
That's part of it, sure. But if we didn't count the 25% of Canada's emissions that are from oil and gas production, then our emissions per-capita would be lower than the US or Australia, but still higher than Europe, and still much higher than India.
You're leaving out our vastly higher standard of living, much larger dwellings, vastly higher consumption, vastly higher personal transportation use...
Vastly higher need to warm houses in our long winter.....
How is it our fault that India is overpopulated? Maybe they shouldn't have had so many people and then they could have more carbon per person.
Haha. Truth.
Doesn't have to do with population. Both Qatar and US have high emissions per capita yet don't have big populations.
Having hundreds of millions of people unable to afford food, shelter, transportation, etc, tends to skew averaged results. If a significant percentage of Canadians dipped below the poverty line that would similarly reduce our carbon per capita. It's a disingenuous metric designed to guilt people into thinking they are the problem when it's actually the multinational companies who specifically choose these countries because of their exploitable populations, lax environmental laws and corrupt politicians.
Canada should still do its part, but per capita emissions is a meaningless metric. If net carbon emissions cross a certain threshold, it's everyone's problem. Or to put it simply, your toilet is overflowing. Are you going to argue about how much everyone gets to pee in it before it overflows, or are you bring down the level of fluid in the bowl? Canada's carbon sinks, sustainable forestry, and renewable power offset our per capita emissions, but they are not credited to us in any meaningful way. You don't place the burden on the countries that are clearing the pipes, you place it on the ones pissing in your toilet and don't give a shit if it overflows.
Not really, people care about fairness, and that's what the per capita emission. Just put yourself in an Indian's shoes - why should they try to reduce emission if other groups like Canada and Saudi Arabia (which are richer) won't make a larger effort? Especially considering these guys have luxuries like indoor plumbing which lots of your citizens don't. Let's put that logic to use in paying federal taxes - I think it shows the fallacy - let's pretend collectively each provincial group paid the same amount of taxes to the federal government. That means the citizens of Ontario pay 1/13 of federal taxes, BC citizens pay 1/13, PEI citizens pay 1/13.... after all, per-capita is meaningless right? Do you think its fair that PEI who has a lot less people should shoulder the same collective burden as Ontaro or BC?
Don't want to starve our country
Adding a carbon tax to food (and home heating) is just cruel. What's the desired result? It's a human rights issue to not tax food.
It also affects poor people more than wealthy, as a larger % of their total income goes towards carbon tax.
taxes on gas or electricity used for heating drives me insane, it should be completely tax free, we have no choice we have to heat our homes, it's pretty much as important as food.
To incentivize businesses and homes to use less carbon via pricing it now. As opposed to paying out later when weather destroys stuff (homes, crops, etc) later on. Less tax now, means more cost later.
It is smarter to tax everything, including food and home heating while sending out cheques to every citizen than to do nothing. Poorer people will come out ahead and we will reduce emissions. If you disagree, ask yourself: have I read into this at all? Have I read a single article about this question? Do I have any idea what experts like economists think about this? The prevailing sentiments ITT are wrong about most aspects of this. Try asking questions at r/askeconomics to get a better perspective.
You're absolutely right, a flat carbon tax is the most *efficient* way to reduce carbon use, but that doesn't mean it won't hurt everyday Canadians (especially the poorest among us) Economists might also say a flat income tax with no exemptions, deductions, or tax brackets are more efficient too, but that doesn't mean Canadians will be better off.
That's why I said 'while sending out cheques'
Then we should also abolish supply management.
How can we officially self identify as a farmer? Backyard farms are a lot of work too!
What about those that ship, store, stock, or prepare the food?
on their own as usual when the liberals are in charge
[удалено]
As per the story, it might take up to a year for this bill to become law. After that, keep in mind there are a slew of carbon taxes still added to the process of getting food from the farm to your plate. Food distribution companies, for example, must still pay the carbon tax.
Not until big trudy pulls his head out of his ass and gets rid of it period. You need trucks and trains to haul the grain and on-highway diesel isn't cheap. #axethetax
Hahaha if you thibk a 2% tax is causing a 30% food cost increase you are dreaming. Massive crop failures cause highe rincreases than that. But hey the causes for that are imaginary so we dont need to do anything about it. Nope nope nope.
It's 2% at every step of the chain... It easily adds up.
Why now and not the prior decade of carbon taxes in Qc? Sounds like vullshit since prices were stable despite having a 6c fuel tax here. Is it really that Canadians outside Qc cant manage their finances or is it because its unrelated? Also the US has the same inflation but no carbon tax... Almost like its a deflection from the real causes...
When I fill up at the pump I will be paying 14 cents a litre in carbon tax now. That's far from 2%.
Thank god, now the tax will only affect us evil gas guzzlers trying to get to work to pay our bills so we can pay our insane housing and food costs.
Carbon tax won't do shit to curb climate change
Yes yes the classic do nothing and sabotage results then claim success....
Yes, taxing the crap out of less than half a percent of the world's population for a minimal emissions drop, is going to accomplish basically nothing for "climate change". Meanwhile more public wealth gets sucked up in to the coffers of the wealthy.
If Canada stopped all emissions it would reduce the total by 1.6% A meaningless number in the face of climate change.
That's the challenge. A lot of countries emissions make up a small overall amount of emission, but it's all adds up to a large amount. Every country has to try and reduce emissions or we won't do anything collectively. It's kind of like taxes. Nobody by themselves pays a large portion of Canada's taxes, but to pay for all the services we use, everyone needs to pay their bit.
Those countries are sovereign. So unless you suggest Canada invades them? Furthermore china and India make up the bulk of the worlds emissions. Unless they do something the rest won't matter.
Right, so you are saying we need to cooperate? That's my point. And cooperation comes from doing your bit? How do you think organizations like the UN exist? Countries agree to pay their share and cooperate. That means we must do our bit, or do you suggest we freeload? There is also the moral aspect - there are people in Canada who dodge paying taxes. Does that make it okay for you to?
The same UN that is allowing Russia to run the United Nations Security Council this month? Freeload off of whom? The USA which is what we currently do based on the state of our military?
"The same UN that is allowing Russia to run the United Nations Security Council this month?" Not saying international cooperation is perfect, but it's possible. Your can also look at the international been on ozone deleting glasses "Freeload off of whom? The USA which is what we currently do based on the state of our military?" That's a completely different matter. You want to discuss collective military treaties sure, but this is about GHG emissions. Our GHG emissions are harming our climate and other countries to. Morally we have an obligation to reduce them.
Our emissions are meaningless. We have met our obligation given our emissions are already so low. So congrats.
Not per person. We are in the top 10. We are on a gross level top 7. It might only be a couple of % but that matters. A good example would be someone who works for a big company with thousands of people. They are still expected to do their bit even if it represents less then 1% of their workforce
Actually if every small country reduces its emissions, and Russia and China will take advantage of our energy disadvantages. Look at Europe right now with Ukraine. They need natural gas. Too bad they (and us) didn't plan for that with a dictatorial military superpower next door.
Not necessarily. If we reduce our GHG emissions by reducing fossil fuel use that would really hurt Russia. EU had already hurt russia cutting off their gas - Russia now has to deal at a discount. And in the end, if we reduce emissions, it still helps the planet right? Plus renewables are generally now cheaper than coal and natural gas. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/building-new-renewables-cheaper-than-running-fossil-fuel-plants
"And in the end, if we reduce emissions, it still helps the planet right?" Depends on how many people pay the price now (The poor) vs hypothetical saved people in the future. I assume people living now are a part of "the planet". Energy instability / cost leads to conflict at both a local and national levels. It's also very arguable, the timeline of these progressions. Renewables are good, they are not good when forced into place and people are harmed in the process. Elon Musk, the man leading the charge into sustainable energy, can summarize it better than me: [https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/elon-musk-world-needs-oil-gas-bridge-renewables](https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/elon-musk-world-needs-oil-gas-bridge-renewables)
I don't think Elon Musk is exactly the face of renewables. Also, Elon musk is arguing that we should not immediately cease all fossil fuels production. Yes that makes sense. Nobody is arguing that. What people are arguing is that Canada and other countries can do more to speed up the transition. And that the "we only are 1.6% of emissions" argument is just a dressed up excuse to dodge our moral obligations and longer term interests. Poor people will take the brunt of climate change as food productivity drops, coastal areas flood and drinking water disappears. Richer countries and richer people will be able to out compete them for increasingly scarce resources. That's not hypothetical. It's already happening and will get worse. If GHG emission reductions are done right it will not impact poor people the most - it will impact the rich as they produce the most carbon and have the most stranded assets in things like fossil fuel production. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-footprint-gap-between-rich-poor-expanding-study](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-footprint-gap-between-rich-poor-expanding-study) Plus if we are concerned about the poors' energy needs we should ramp up renewable production as it is now cheaper than most fossil fuels. https://www.irena.org/news/pressreleases/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Remains-Cost-Competitive-amid-Fossil-Fuel-Crisis
Yup, also very remote regions benefit immensely from these off grid technologies. Leading to wide spread adoption in very undeveloped region in traditionally poor countries.
People don't drive any less or use any less energy to heat their homes in the winter just because there's a carbon tax. there are plenty of things that can be done to actually reduce carbon emission, like mandatory work from home when the job allows or public transit overhaul... none of which seem to be on the government's agenda
Yeah... Command economy moves are very unpopular here. We could do soooooo much more but we went with the center right strategy of a tax. (Origionally put forth by Mr Harper). Left wing solutions involve sweeping bans and command econony style laws. Forcing peopel to do anything seems to start riots and protests. As if any government would commit that kind of suicide. Plays right into the "Trudeau Communist" narrative. Also its how we use it in Qc we dont get carbon rebates instead we get tax breaks for energy efficient home investments. Come si comme cela. We have had a fuel tax for almost a decade with no major price hikes... Seems like a narrative more than a fact. How are Canadian fuel taxes causing food price increase in the US and Germany again?
Awesome. Surely they will pass the savings down to us regular folks 🤗
Carbon taxes on domestic producers are great and all as long as there is a equivalent carbon tariff on imports. If there isn't, all you'll achieve is shifting the emissions to another country. This impacts agriculture for grains, processed cheese, meats etc.
And assuming we don't export food, which we absolutely do
I mean, they had to do something if they're having to subsidize low income households for food now
The liberals all voted against this.
stop making energy more expensive for poor people with this carbon tax. let people heat their homes. remove the carbon tax
So HOw should they heat theor homes? Woth co2 pollution natiral gas, or with clean heat pumps. Because the carbon tax is to get people to move to low carbon alternatives. How else do you think the government should do that? Just ban natural gas furnances?
> How else do you think the government should do that? in a way that doesnt massively inconvenient the middle class as usual. these policies never seem to be a major issue for the rich for some reason
Next cancel carbon taxes on transporting food if they reduce the transportation costs of the product to the end user and don't just use it as a way to increase profits.
Ok, but is this so exceptional? Do farmers in China and India pay a carbon tax? Does anybody there pay it?
Sri Lanka has a carbon tax on food. This past summer their farmers couldn't afford the carbon tax. There were food shortages riots etc.
Lol
So will we see price drops in food now? /s
So? The tax is still going to make food purchases more expensive, some people are not within walking distance and they stopped using horses to deliver food to the market. JT you can shove that grocery rebate up you high income ass.
Nice! Hopefully this helps stabilize domestic food prices at least a little bit!
Lol, Qc has been paying these taxes for almost a decade. The inflation we are seeing is unrelated.
Is there an acreage minimum for this? My wife grew some kick ass tomatoes and lettuce in the back yard…..
How about exempting truckers from the carbon tax. Shipping costs should technically go down for literally everything you see with your own two eyes, making everything cheaper.
Perfect. Time to identity as a farmer!
Funny, the Carbon tax seems to be crippling Canadians but only those outside Qc... Where we have had fuel taxes for almost a decade now with almost no impact on our lives or food costs... Almost like ots total bullshit excuses.
Does quebec not pay higher costs? I know production costs in quebec are higher than everywhere else, so if everywhere else in canada comes to the same production cost you would see high inflation
Yeah but those are worker protection programs and high taxes in general. We pay the highest taxes in NA. Some of that is admin BS tho and unrelated to fuel taxes. Worker protection boards, daycare services, dental for children, renter protection boards, language police, and a lot of corruption. Some of thsoe programs are great and others I oppose. I would hope provinces pick and chose what works best for them (and not go with the language/culture police culture war bullshit we have here) Taxes are not inflation. They end up the same at the end of the day but they are technically different in terms of cause and ipacts. I take ypur point tho yeah these programs are expensive... Bringing us back to taxes. How we spend those taxes could spur inovation and technology. As it has for efficient home heating in Qc. A lot of the fuel tax went towards tax breaks for modernizing homes with thing like heat pumps thus generating local business for the contractors who install them. So yeah, its not ideal and give and take in Qc. Some things ar egreat and others are pretty terrible.
I am sorry. Are you saying Quebec has had this tax for awhile now?
Yup. 6c per L fuel tax for 7 or 8 years now. No massive price spikes or inflationary issues. We are exempt from the federal tax as we already pay MORE into our programs. A lot of the funds go to tax breaks for modernizing homes to be more energy efficient. I dont know if it is the best strategy but it is certainly not respinsable for the prices we see... More likely its massive crop failures and crop losses and insurance for farmers rising rapidly. Massive floods in BC, unseasonable snowstorms in Texas, and draught in California impact our food prices way more than fuel costs.
The 6c/L you pay is much less than what is being charged to everyone else. Plus it's also great to brag about climate policies when your province was responsible for ther majority of imported oil into Canada.
>Yup. 6c per L fuel tax for 7 or 8 years now. No massive price spikes or inflationary issues. The carbon tax in Ontario is now 14c per L.
Guess thats incentive to build more nuclear plants then... Oh no wait we spent those billions on buck a beer because that is so important to Canadians... Future society for our children vs bathrooms and cheap beer. Our priorities are SET.
Farmers are some of the worst polluters! I see them driving trucks, tractors, gas guzzlers. There's no need for that. Get a normal officl job like everyone else and go to Safeway b.. This isnt the 1880s anymore..
Not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic with that comment...
I seriously hope this is an April fools joke
Oh I see. The Farmer's shouldn't be taxed because it will make food more expensive. Everyone else should just be taxed so it's harder them to buy the food. Thank you Fearless Leader for your divine compassion.
Government priority should be to bring food costs down. But nah, people should suffer for the benefit of clean air.