What will Trudeau do when 650,000 angry farmers descend on Ottawa?

Government emissions targets for fertilizer use unrealistic, industry report argues

A new industry-led report suggests Canada’s farmers can likely only achieve half of the federal government’s targeted 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer emissions by 2030.

The report, commissioned by Fertilizer Canada and the Canola Council of Canada, examines what effect a 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers on Canadian farms would have on crop yields and farm financial viability.

What did they discover?

The report concludes that it may be possible to achieve a 14 per cent reduction in emissions from fertilizer by 2030, but that reaching 30 per cent is not “realistically achievable without imposing significant costs on Canada’s crop producers and potentially damaging the financial health of Canada’s crop production sector.”

As if an activist government CARES about such things as COSTS, YEILDS, FINANCIAL HEALTH of the various industries nor of the average Canadian.

“I believe what (this report) is saying is the 30 per cent reduction target is not achievable without putting production and exports in jeopardy, and we’ve been saying that all along,” said Tom Steve, general manager of the Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions.

“It was an arbitrary target that was set somewhere in the government, with no path as to how it was going to be achieved.”

It sounds good in headlines.  30%  wow!

The government has said its 30 per cent target is a goal, not a mandatory enforceable target. It has also said it believes the target is achievable, since many of the required technologies and practices to reduce emissions from fertilizer use already exist.

Without giving ANY examples, or cost associated with it.  How typical.

Still, farmers have warned the goal is too ambitious, especially at a time when Canada’s agriculture industry is being asked to produce more to help address global food security fears.

“It’s really taken our eye off the ball of what is needed in our industry, which is to become more efficient and productive and competitive,” Steve said.

“Most farmers already do whatever they can to reduce their use of fertilizer — it’s their most expensive input.”

And if they are force to convert to an even MORE expensive means to maintain the same production output and margins, expect prices on the consumers to go up.

If they produce LESS because of this, then expect prices on consumers to go up.

Government goal = prices on consumers to go up.

While that’s an aggressive target, she said, it would strike a balance between the needs of the environment and the need for continued increased food production going forward.

Proud said that going beyond a 14 per cent reduction by 2030 would be economically unviable, since many of the changes required — such as working with a certified crop advisor, or doing soil testing — are costly for the farmer.

“We need to be able to allow farmers to increase their productivity to offset the costs of implementing these best practices,” she said.

“The only way to do that is you allow them to increase yields, or the math doesn’t work. You can’t ask farmers to invest in practices at a loss.”

But this is the government we are talking about, where doing business at a loss is what they do.