Misinformation should never be encouraged, but questioning intent and speculating on the future can be helpful and insightful.
Calling the federal government’s target of a 30 percent reduction in fertilizer emissions a fertilizer ban is misinformation. However, speculating that the target could lead to fertilizer reduction policies is fair comment and has been a useful way to get the government on the record about its intentions.
Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has made it clear in numerous recent interviews that restricting fertilizer use is not her government’s plan. It’s unlikely she would have been so unequivocal had the “misinformation” not been so widespread. She and/or the Prime Minister’s Office decided that she should quell the fear campaign.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Sometimes policy papers and government targets are trial balloons. They’re meant to test the water and gauge feedback. The 30 percent fertilizer emissions reduction target has been around for a long time, but it’s taken until now to clear up the “misinformation.”
Many will not take the minister at her word, but at least she is on the record and that will make it more difficult for the government to backtrack in the years ahead. Unfortunately, this federal government is obsessed with all things carbon and could at some point decide that the ends justify the means.
Just consider the initial implementation of the carbon tax. Policy analysts said it would need to be much higher than $50 a tonne to actually change consumer habits, but the government promised at the time that no further increases were planned. Plans changed and those promises were forgotten. By 2025, the carbon tax will be $95 per tonne and that will increase to $170 a tonne by 2030.
Governments need to be judged on their actions and not their assumed intentions, but you shouldn’t be labelled a conspiracy theorist for worrying the same about-face could happen with fertilizer. This policy debate has been useful for agriculture because it’s a sign to government that all hell would break loose if something akin to a fertilizer ban was ever implemented.
However, future actions would likely be more nuanced than an outright ban, while having a similar effect. Very few farmers would be upset with subsidies to encourage the use of more slow-release nitrogen fertilizer products. Or money for more soil testing. Or support services for effective variable rate application.
But imagine a requirement where every farmer needs a management plan to meet a 30 percent absolute reduction in fertilizer emissions. Otherwise, a surcharge would be added to your fertilizer bill. This wouldn’t actually be a fertilizer ban, but the effect would be similar.
This is just an example. Rest assured that backroom policy wonks will be considering all sorts of scenarios.
Consider the recent change announced for AgriInvest. By 2025, any producer receiving the maximum government contribution will need to have an Environmental Farm Plan. Watch for fertilizer emission reductions to be a requirement of that plan.
It should be noted that policy flipflops happen with governments of every political stripe. Situations change and so does public opinion. What will be more important a year or two from now — worldwide food security or greenhouse gas emission targets?
Will the Canadian public become uneasy about the Liberal government’s environmental obsession in the face of high inflation, rising interest rates and a health care system in crisis?
Stay tuned and stay vigilant. Yesterday’s “misinformation” is all too often tomorrow’s policy direction.
Kevin Hursh is an agricultural journalist, consultant and farmer. He can be reached by e-mail at kevin@hursh.ca.
