Farms.com Home   Ag Industry News

Griffin: Carbon taxes hurt Cdn. producers

Griffin: Carbon taxes hurt Cdn. producers

The Senate agriculture committee released recommendations to avert federal carbon pricing

By Diego Flammini
Staff Writer
Farms.com

The federal government should consider alternative measures to cut carbon emissions rather than simply taxing Canadians.

That’s the message members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry delivered today following the release of its report, titled Feast or Famine: Impacts of climate change and carbon pricing on agriculture, agri-food and forestry.

“What happens to producers who may end up paying higher (production) costs?” Senator Diane Griffin, chair of the committee, told reporters. “If it costs more to grow food, producers will have to pass on those costs to consumers or eat them as part of their business.”


Diane Griffin

Farmers who can’t be profitable may have no choice but to leave the industry, she added.

“The profit margins in agriculture are not large to start with,” she said. “So, if a farmer is in a competitive market dealing with farmers in other countries who do not pay a carbon tax, that farmer is at a disadvantage in our country.”

As part of its report, the committee released 16 recommendations for the federal government to help the agriculture and forestry sectors cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The suggestions include increasing national ethanol levels in gasoline and investing more into climate change research.

Imposing a carbon tax is one way of encouraging industries to reduce their environmental footprints, but it isn’t the only way, said Ron Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

“The tax is just one tool,” he told reporters. “What can we actually do to reduce that carbon input? I think we need to find a mechanism to incent the investment and innovation that can really do a lot to reduce the carbon footprint. Taxes alone aren’t going to do it. Research is critical (and) there’s a lot of work that can be done looking at new plants and new planting techniques.”

A carbon tax may also deter others from entering the industry.

The average age of a Canadian farmer is 55, the 2016 Census of Agriculture found.

If becoming a farmer is more expensive, workers may look for careers in other industries, Griffin said.

“We’re having a problem in our country with not enough young people going into the farming industry, so (the carbon tax) potentially will make it even worse,” she said. “We heard from a lot of people about problems getting enough labour and so many foreign workers being needed because we can’t get enough local people.”

Orientaly/iStock/Getty Images Plus


Trending Video

Dr. Levi Johnson: Advancing Swine Care | Ep. 96

Video: Dr. Levi Johnson: Advancing Swine Care | Ep. 96

In this continuation of "The Swine Health Blackbelt Podcast," Dr. Levi Johnson explores the nuances of swine management, highlighting the critical importance of meticulous attention to finishing phases and the value of technology in remote monitoring. Discussing everything from basic husbandry, such as feed, air, and water, to advanced tools like feed scales and listening technologies, this episode provides valuable insights into optimizing swine health and productivity. An indispensable discussion for those looking to enhance their care and management practices in the swine industry, revealing significant opportunities for improvement.
 

Comments (2)


Your email address will not be published

The consumer will end up paying for all the carbon tax. In other words those who are producing the most carbon are not going to change their operations, because realistically it will not cost them anything in the long run. Mr Trudeau is so out of touch with reality; it literally sacres me. One more term with him and Canada will be bankrupt.
Mel Podaima |Dec 13 2018 1:19PM
We all know that the carbon tax is a money grab.The fact is that carbons are in many cases naturally produced i.e. dead trees decaying ect. We also know that carbons are necessary for crops to produce. There are forms of pollution that need (and are) being curbed. I can't understand why the experts try to blindside us with unsubstantiated assumptions and present them as fact. What baffles me, why is "green" assumed to be so environmentally friendly? In many cases carbons are produced to promote a product that by all scientific evidence should be banned if reducing carbons is the saviour of the planet, I.e. ethanol. We know that every bushel of corn for instance yields approximately 1/3 CO2, 1/3 DDGS and 1/3 ethanol. Further, greenhouse operators partner with ethanol producers to harvest the CO2, because plants thrive on it. All I can say "go figure".
Cor Harder |Dec 13 2018 7:40AM