Pitting Diminished GHS Against Food Production

"So, let's review: A policy of cutting fertilizer use in Canada, a country that leads the world in prudent fertilizer use already, will hurt farmers, cut production, starve the poor, raise food prices for everyone, benefit other grain growing countries and ... increase GHGs."

"Farmers are stoic people. We have to be. We deal with an impossible Canadian climate, prices that are set globally, already high taxation and regulations."

"We've already borne the brunt of carbon taxes on fuel. But now, we are looking at a fertilizer reduction policy that not only will hurt us, but hurt everyone. Especially the poor."

"With no net global benefit."

Gunter Jochum president, Western Canadian Wheat Growers

Canada's Liberal-led government with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the helm has decided it makes eminently good sense to increase the price of food staples. It is in the process of consultation around a policy mandating a 30 percent nitrogen fertilizer reduction. A move that would have the effect of disproportionately affecting Prairie farmers where grain is the major crop. Grain just happens to require greater amounts of fertilizer to cultivate and extract larger crops from rolling plains of wheat.

 

This Trudeau government is fixated on the environmental impacts of climate change. Inflicting carbon taxes on the nation that also impacts more detrimentally on those living in rural areas, and even more so, farmers, keeping their farm machinery running and trucking out their crops.  Greater operational costs and less use of fertilizer leads to a diminished food supply. Which effectively counters the government's own goals on agricultural exports. The most basic staples in Canada and worldwide would see a rise in growing and production costs.

Fertilizer just happens to be the most expensive investment in crop farming. Farmers are accustomed to using just enough fertilizer and no more, in reflection of the cost involved; in other words there is full consciousness of conservation of resources at play without government intervention. Wth a 30 percent cut in fertilizer-based emissions, the outcome will be less food producing, greater strain on the supply chain and higher prices for basic foodstuffs. And Canada is a major exporter of grains.

 

Harvested wheat fields near Cremona, Alta.. In Manitoba, which is facing tens of millions of dollars in damages as a result of flooding and wet weather this spring, some farmers haven't even been able to get out onto their land yet. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

 

There is a vicious cycle at play here where inputs into grain production becoming more expensive results in fallen production. With scarcer products available, prices increase. Those most affected are always the poor wherever they are, in Canada itself and internationally as well. Government policy highlights the need to see that Canada's abundant crop yields help feed the world at large. A goal not possible to reach while reducing the fertilizer supply. 

Calculating a 30 percent cut in the use of nitrogen fertilizer reflects the StatsCan data of Canada producing 1.5 percent of global Greenhouse Gas emissions. This is a reflection of the entire agricultural sector; grains, livestock and every aspect of agricultural production, producing 10 percent of Canada's GHG. Under half of the Canadian total of GHGs is produced by nitrogen fertilizer, the remainder represent burning fuel and cow burps. Should Canada's fertilizer emissions be cut by 30 percent, global GHGs would fall, but by a mere negligible 0.02 percent.

Reduced export crops to the global community resulting from a mandated 30 percent reduction in fertilizer will leave a gap that will be swiftly filled by other grain growing and exporting countries such as China and India, both of which countries use greater amounts of fertilizer more intensively than Canadian grain farmers; effectively shifting production to countries with higher GHG production. Badly thought-out environmental plans that serve to diminish the effective potential of good farming.