Climate change linked to probable cause
To the Editor:
In response to Kevin Hursh’s column in the July 15 issue: Producers do not need a lecture on climate change.
The irritation and disdain in his article was plain, but perhaps misdirected. Kevin finds it “particularly irksome when some armchair quarterback says (the heat and drought) is all because of climate change.”
I suggest what Kevin really needs is a lecture on probable cause and statistics.
We cannot say that climate change has directly caused the weather conditions this year, but climate change increases the probability of extreme weather events like drought, heat and flooding, much like one cannot say that smoking a cigarette will cause death by lung cancer, but it is factually correct to state that the more cigarettes you smoke in your lifetime, the more likely you will develop lung problems that lead to premature death.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
Human activity has raised the global temperature by 1 C. I shudder to think of how often we will experience extreme weather by 2050 or 2100 when we experience two or even four degrees of warming.
I agree on one thing with Kevin: I also don’t know of anyone giving up on farming because of climate change. I do see more producers switching to minimum input, minimum tillage, companion cropping and permanent green cover to reduce risk, diversify, build soil health and to reduce the emissions intensity of production and mitigate the effects of climate change.
I estimate that our farm has reduced our emissions intensity per bushel of grain produced by half. I’m no longer chasing the highest yields, but rather trying to produce food with the least emissions possible, often with a comparable net income but less risk. Given the drought this year, I’m certainly relieved that my input bill is much smaller than it used to be.
It is time to accelerate the transition to sustainability and channel Kevin’s frustration toward positive action.
Illegal drainage reduces neighbourliness
To the Editor:
David Merit, the agriculture minister here in Saskatchewan, recently asked us farmers to assist others during this major drought happening. What a great, fantastic idea to help fellow farmers.
Personally, I would have to state no, and this is why: before 2010, neighbours illegally ditched water onto our legally ditched land, flooding us.
The rural municipality, without Saskatchewan Water Security Agency approval, did reduce the creek flow through our land, down from 72 sq. feet to 20 sq. foot capacity. This action flooded over 100 acres on a quarter and forced water into our 100-year-old house for the first time in its existence.
We also had a neighbour widen their approach, blocking a culvert and flooding our land. When the rural municipality was contacted about that, they stated there was nothing wrong.
Using water, some neighbours have destroyed our property and livelihood, and now we are to assist them when they have a lack of water effecting their livelihood?
Some of my neighbours and government made certain we were injured from water. Now they want help because of lack of water. Sorry, no.
I am hurting from the flooding and now the drought. Others can hurt, too.
