Many prairie grain farmers think they should be exempt from any national policy on carbon pricing because they have significantly reduced their carbon emissions over the past 25 years.
Unfortunately, there are many problems with this argument.
Climate change hysterics are driving the political agenda these days, and that makes carbon pricing an important issue. On the political spectrum, green is the new red. Climate change is a new club for bludgeoning big business.
While there seems to be general consensus among scientists that human activities are contributing to climate change, scientists also tell us that the climate has been continually changing for hundreds of thousands of years.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Some warming would seem to be less of a problem than another ice age. Interestingly, world food production continues to increase despite the forecasts of impending disaster.
Here in Canada, we could stop fossil fuel production and consumption entirely and huddle together in caves and it wouldn’t make much of a dent in world greenhouse gas production.
Still, moving to cleaner energy sources is a commendable initiative, and it’s the direction the world is heading. If we’re going to convince China to curb its massive air pollution, we must also take steps to reduce emissions.
One effective tool could be a small carbon tax with the money going to support alternative energy technologies.
Lots of people say they want action on climate change, but there’s tremendous resistance to the idea of a new tax. Sorry folks, there’s no free lunch.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume a carbon tax of five cents a litre on gasoline and diesel. I can hear the cries of protest already, but the price often fluctuates that much in a matter of days. A five cent tax wouldn’t cause the sky to fall.
However, it would be an incentive to use less fossil fuel, and the money collected could be used for greener technologies, including incentives for best management practices within agriculture.
Some form of carbon pricing seems inevitable, and farm organizations are astutely posturing to say that prairie growers of grains, oilseeds and pulses have already done their part. The huge reduction in tillage and summerfallow has sequestered carbon in the soil, and this contribution should make us exempt from any carbon pricing pain, they say.
Fuel use has been cut, fertilizer is used more efficiently and we have more diverse crop rotations.
That’s mostly true, but the switch to direct seeding and reduced tillage occurred long ago, and cutting carbon emissions wasn’t the main driver. It was economics. If anything, there’s likely to be a bit more tillage in the years ahead to deal with herbicide resistant weeds and soil compaction issues.
Many sectors could argue for exemption. Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient. Low income people can’t afford to pay another tax. Businesses shouldn’t be taxed because they create jobs.
It’s best that no one is exempt so we keep the carbon tax as small and simple as possible.
Should we leave the oil in the ground as the radical Greens propose? Of course not. What a stupid idea.
Should we build pipelines to efficiently and safely carry oil and natural gas to market, particularly within our own country? Of course we should.
Should we continue to reduce our carbon emissions while promoting viable alternatives? Yup. And one of the easiest and fairest ways to move in that direction might be a small carbon tax applied without any exemptions.
