Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Dang there's a lot of fertilizer usage for a small area in Quebec. The cynic in me thinks this isn't likely going to be overly enforced on them.

Probably has a lot to do with the amount of dairy farms.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scc...sion-1.6535127



Makes sense. Good ruling for sexual assault cases.

I agree, I think its a long overdue and pretty common sense ruling.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

According to the graph on the discussion document - https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/abo...culture-sector

a 30% reduction takes us back to like 2006 levels of synthetic fertilizer.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about it, but at least at a surface level its not that far back where we using less.

Graphs also show less emissions in the west compared to Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.

I don' pretend to know anything about it but how does our food production (volume) in 2006 compare to today? We may have used less in 2006 but did we produce 30% less food compared to today? I have no idea btw.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

I don' pretend to know anything about it but how does our food production (volume) in 2006 compare to today? We may have used less in 2006 but did we produce 30% less food compared to today? I have no idea btw.

The discussion article says yes - we do produce more now. Some of the gains are because we produce a lot more canola and corn now than we did before and less grains and canola/corn are more fertilizer intensive. But they do make that point that production has improved.


Its a good document and makes most of the points you'd expect. Its not just 'we are reducing this by 30% and screw you farmers'.

[Stranger]

Yields are up since 2006. We have better varieties that produce more per acre.

[Doctorfever]

Save the environment. Eat beef.

No artificial fertilizer. Much less fossil fuels to produce. Great carbon capture.

It’s kinda funny how people see beef as being so bad, but in reality, it’s not.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Save the environment. Eat beef.

No artificial fertilizer. Much less fossil fuels to produce. Great carbon capture.

It’s kinda funny how people see beef as being so bad, but in reality, it’s not.

Is this supposed to be in green text? You couldn't be more wrong if not.

From the article: It takes about 54 calories worth of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie worth of beef protein, while it takes only two calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie worth of soy protein.

Not to mention the methane and water use

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/sc...ntal-cost-meat

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by chedder

Is this supposed to be in green text? You couldn't be more wrong if not.

From the article: It takes about 54 calories worth of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie worth of beef protein, while it takes only two calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie worth of soy protein.

Not to mention the methane and water use

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/sc...ntal-cost-meat

Pretty sure that post you're replying to was made to... Ahem... Trigger the libz.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Pretty sure that post you're replying to was made to... Ahem... Trigger the libz.

Ah. Right over my head. And I love a good steak.

[Northendzone]

But what about all those kids at bovine u?

Please somebody think of the children

[CroCop]

30% reduction in fertilizer use is a joke. Farmers these days are stewards of their land and are more business minded than ever. Bottom line is fertilizer that is being applied now is what a crop needs for optimal yield and health. With the cost of fertilizer what it is, good farmers are not over applying and leaving left over mostly in regards to N. Phos levels are usually applied to what a crop typically uses in a season and it’s critical for germination and plant vigor. No farmer is going decrease what they think is needed for their crop to be successful and profitable. Can’t see how it could possibly be enforced in a free market either. Cute law but farmers will continue to operate how they see fit.

[CroCop]

Double post ��

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CroCop

30% reduction in fertilizer use is a joke. Farmers these days are stewards of their land and are more business minded than ever. Bottom line is fertilizer that is being applied now is what a crop needs for optimal yield and health. With the cost of fertilizer what it is, good farmers are not over applying and leaving left over mostly in regards to N. Phos levels are usually applied to what a crop typically uses in a season and it’s critical for germination and plant vigor. No farmer is going decrease what they think is needed for their crop to be successful and profitable. Can’t see how it could possibly be enforced in a free market either. Cute law but farmers will continue to operate how they see fit.

I mean, I agree with you that this is ridiculous. But the government could limit the amount of fertilizer applied if they wanted to - either by taxing it to reduce use or by a simple quota system where there is a maximum amount of fertilizer that can be sold in Canada.

[Nufy]

Who kidding here. Of course it will be a tax.

Isn’t that how the they do everything ???

[Azure]

Originally Posted by chedder

Is this supposed to be in green text? You couldn't be more wrong if not.

From the article: It takes about 54 calories worth of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie worth of beef protein, while it takes only two calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie worth of soy protein.

Not to mention the methane and water use

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/sc...ntal-cost-meat

He actually locally grown grass fed beef. If you take time to research where your food comes from and make a point to buy it from farmers & ranchers that practice sustainable land management, your carbon footprint is MUCH lower.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I agree with you that this is ridiculous. But the government could limit the amount of fertilizer applied if they wanted to - either by taxing it to reduce use or by a simple quota system where there is a maximum amount of fertilizer that can be sold in Canada.

It will almost certainly be a tax.

And everyone thought they would stop with the carbon tax....

lol.

[Macman]

Isn’t this nitrogen debate currently going on in the Netherlands, it was on talk radio last weekend and the first I heard about it. They’re actually trying to buy out farmers, and where is food supposed to come from.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CroCop

30% reduction in fertilizer use is a joke.

30% reduction in emissions from fertilizer doesn't need to equate to a 30% reduction in fertilizer use.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Azure

He actually locally grown grass fed beef. If you take time to research where your food comes from and make a point to buy it from farmers & ranchers that practice sustainable land management, your carbon footprint is MUCH lower.

For sure. But not the industry as a whole. The very tiny number of consumers and farmers that operate this way doesn't make a dent in the global livestock industry's emissions.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Macman

Isn’t this nitrogen debate currently going on in the Netherlands, it was on talk radio last weekend and the first I heard about it. They’re actually trying to buy out farmers, and where is food supposed to come from.

They’re going a lot further than our government. A permanent 30 per cent cull of livestock is no joke. These sorts of heavy-handed measures are going to be increasingly contentious.

Dutch government proposals for tackling nitrogen emissions indicate a radical cut in livestock - they estimate 11,200 farms will have to close and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock.

Other proposals include a reduction in intensive farming and the conversion to sustainable "green farms".

As such, the relocation or buyout of farmers is almost inevitable, but forced buyouts are a scenario many hope to avoid…

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62335287

In June, the Netherlands unveiled a world-leading target to halve emissions of the gasses, as well as other nitrogen compounds that come from fertilizers, by 2030, to tackle their environmental and climate impacts. The government said it was leading an “unavoidable transition” for agriculture. Farmers can reduce the release of nitrogen compounds by changing how they manage their cows: feeding them less protein, or using water to dilute manure, for example. But the target is expected to require a 30% reduction in overall livestock numbers, and experts say many farms will have to shut down. Farmers are demanding that the government rethink the plan before it becomes law later this year.

Trienke Elshof, a dairy farmer with 250 cows in the northern province of Friesland, says farmers feel blindsided: for decades, governments have encouraged them to increase yields. Meanwhile, other high-polluting industries, such as aviation, construction, and transport, have yet to face such severe environmental rules. “We know we have to do something about nitrogen, but not in this top-down way, and not at this speed,” she says. “It feels like they want to get rid of all the farmers in the Netherlands.”

https://time.com/6201951/dutch-farme...limate-action/