Agriculture
Australia ignoring the solution to government-induced malaise
Australian PM Chris Bowen
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Alan Moran
Conscious of the imperative of self-preservation, European governments and the EU Commission itself have already taken baby steps to dilute and delay carbon emission-abating and economy-crushing agricultural and energy policies.. Not so in Australia
Studying last month’s Davos meeting of the world’s (largely self-appointed) elites, Walter Russell Mead sees an inflection point.
He says that when they listened to Argentinian President Milei promoting free market capitalism, the Davosies’ applause was more than polite clapping. There was a sense that all was not well in the supposed government-planned China, and a recognition that the more hands-on EU governmental approach has resulted in Europe slipping behind the US with its lighter government touch over the economy. This was coupled with a concern that the farmer revolts around Europe reflected a sudden rejection of trust in the establishment. Above all, Ukraine has made the Euro grandees ‘uncomfortably aware of how dependent the global system is on the leadership that only a prosperous and self-confident America can provide’.
Conscious of the imperative of self-preservation, European governments and the EU Commission itself have already taken baby steps to dilute and delay carbon emission-abating and economy-crushing agricultural and energy policies.
Not so in Australia, where governments remain totally focused on reducing the economy’s productive potential.
The Albanese government, under the Svengali and serial ministerial failure of Chris Bowen, has turbocharged carbon abatement programs crippling energy. It has:
- Vastly increased direct and regulatory-enforced expansion of the transmission lines in an attempt to allow wind and solar to work.
- Introduced a requirement for the top 215 businesses to reduce their emission levels by 30 per cent over and above reductions made necessary by the subsidies generally.
- Put in place measures to combat objections to intrusive wind farms and transmission lines.
- Refused to introduce requirements for the rectification of land and safe disposal of the materials used in wind and solar facilities.
- Vastly expanded the budgetary assistance to wind, solar, and hydrogen.
- Introduced costly requirements on firms to identify the emissions of their own activities and of those of their suppliers and customers.
The measures have been put in place by politicians, hardly any of whom have any knowledge of the energy sector, how it works, and what its costs are. Politicians have been pressed in this direction by the so-called experts, a professional elite supported by and bankrolled by subsidy-seekers, who see the global warming con as a means by which they can get paid for promoting particular forms of energy.
But the outcome is already apparent in the loss of competitiveness of our industries. The bellwether is smelting and all three of the major aluminium smelters are now in hospital care, relying on government support to offset the imposts they incur from government penalties on cheap electricity. The distress is also seen in agricultural and mining industries, which in addition to being buffeted by ever-increasing environmental costs, with their prices set globally, are seeing their margins come under pressure.
Every week brings another measure – last week we saw requirements on car retailers to ensure more fuel-efficient – higher cost cars are sold with penalties on sellers that fail to meet these requirements, penalties that will certainly increase the price Australians pay for motor vehicles.
This week, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek boasted of spending $205 million of taxpayers’ money to buy back another 44 gigalitres of water from Murray irrigators. This is part of a process to divert 2,700 gigalitres per annum (out of 7,000 gigalitres ‘high security’ water available) from productive agriculture to uses designated as ‘environmental’. These measures massively reduce the productivity of the Murray-Darling region, responsible for 35 per cent of the nation’s farm income. They were originally justified to respond to environmental agitators’ spurious claims that irrigation was creating salt infusions, claims that were reinforced during the ‘millennial’ drought of 1997-2008 by specious assertions that climate change would drastically reduce the available water. These original rationales having been disproven, politicians’ and activists’ hostility to productive enterprise have lent the programs an ongoing inertia.
We also saw a new $100 billion a year in additional carbon tax floated by Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims; their study’s funding source was not revealed but the beneficiaries would likely be, in my opinion, subsidy-seeking economy wreckers. While ostensibly rejecting that proposal, the Prime Minister has foreshadowed extensive new decarbonisation spending programs. Nothing is being learned from the collapse of Australia’s nickel mining industry, which cannot compete with overseas mines favoured by the low-cost coal-generated electricity that Australian governments are closing down.
In addition to the current $10 billion a year in subsidies through regulations forcing the use of wind and solar, and billions of dollars spent on revoking the productive use of irrigation water, governments provide huge sums to groups that promote such waste. Unlike squandering through inefficiency that is endemic in government programs, all this spending is aimed at poisoning once highly competitive low-cost industries. Adding to measures that load the dice against employers in workplace relations, it is akin to government forcing the nation to manufacture bombs to be dropped on the people financing them.
Has anybody put the solution more succinctly than Trump-aligned Presidential hopeful, Vivek Ramaswamy? His answer was, ‘Drill. Frack. Merit over “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”. Stop paying people to stay at home instead of work. Fire bureaucrats. Shut down corrupt agencies. End lobbying.’
Alan Moran is a noted economist who has analysed and written extensively from a free market perspective focusing on environmental issues, housing, network industries, and energy markets. First published here.
Agriculture
Farm for food not fear
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Fall harvest is in the storehouse. Now, let’s put away all proposals to cap fertilizer inputs to save the earth. Canadian farmers are ensuring food security, not fueling the droughts, fires, or storms that critics unfairly attribute to them.
The Saskatoon-based Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) did as fulsome an analysis as possible on carbon emissions in Saskatchewan, Western Canada, Canada, and international peers. Transportation, seed, fertilizer and manure, crop inputs, field activities, energy emissions, and post-harvest work were all in view.
The studies, published last year, had very reassuring results. Canadian crop production was less carbon intensive than other places, and Western Canada was a little better yet. This proved true crop by crop.
Carbon emissions per tonne of canola production were more than twice as high in France and Germany as in Canada. Australia was slightly less carbon intensive than Canada, but still trailed Western Canada.
For non-durum wheat, Canada blew Australia, France, Germany, and the U.S. away with roughly half the carbon intensity of those countries. For durum wheat, the U.S. had twice the carbon intensity of Canada, and Italy almost five times as much.
Canada was remarkably better with lentil production. Producers in Australia had 5.5 times the carbon emissions per tonne produced as Canada, while the U.S. had 8 times as much. In some parts of Canada, lentil production was a net carbon sink.
Canadian field peas have one-tenth the carbon emissions per tonne of production as is found in Germany, and one-sixth that of France or the United States.
According to GIFS, Canada succeeds by “regenerative agriculture, including minimal soil disturbance, robust crop rotation, covering the land, integrating livestock and the effective management of crop inputs.”
The implementation of zero-till farming is especially key. If the land isn’t worked up, most nutrients and gases stay in the soil–greenhouse gases included.
Western Canada has been especially keen to adopt the zero-till approach, in contrast to the United States, where only 30 percent of cropland is zero-till.
The adoption of optimal methods has already lowered Canadian carbon emissions substantially. Despite all of this, some net zero schemers aim to cut carbon emissions by fertilizer by 30 percent, just as it does in other sectors.
This target is undeserved for Canadian agriculture because the industry has already made drastic, near-maximum progress. Nitrates help crops grow, so the farmer is already vitally motivated to keep nitrates in the soil and out of the skies–alleged global warming or not. Fewer nutrients mean fewer yields and lower proteins.
The farmer’s personal and economic interests already motivate the best fertilizer use that is practically possible. Universal adoption of optimal techniques could lower emissions a bit more, but Canada is so far ahead in this game that a hard cap on fertilizer emissions could only be detrimental.
In 2021, Fertilizer Canada commissioned a study by MNP to estimate the costs of a 20 percent drop in fertilizer use to achieve a 30 percent reduction in emissions. The study suggested that by 2030, bushels of production per acre would drop significantly for canola (23.6), corn (67.9), and spring wheat (36.1). By 2030, the annual value of lost production for those crops alone would reach $10.4 billion.
If every animal and human in Canada died, leaving the country an unused wasteland, the drop in world greenhouse gas emissions would be only 1.4 percent. Any talk of reducing capping fertilizer inputs for the greater good is nonsense.
Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Agriculture
Canadian pandemic bill wants to regulate meat production, develop contract tracing
From LifeSiteNews
Included in Bill C-293 are provisions to ‘regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,’ produce ‘alternative proteins,’ and ‘enable contact tracing of persons.’
A “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill introduced by a backbencher MP of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party would give sweeping powers to “prevent” as well as “prepare” for a future pandemic, including regulating Canadian agriculture.
Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is now in its second reading in the Senate. The bill would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.”
Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.
A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.”
Text from the bill also states that the government would be able to “promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk,” which includes the “production of alternative proteins, and phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species.”
It is not clear when Bill C-293 will proceed to the third reading in the Senate. When it was in the House, it took over a year for it to go from the second to the third reading. Should an early election be called this year, or the bill not get to its third reading before the fall of October of 2025, the bill will die.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The Great Reset of Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF) has as part of its agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints.
Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption.
Bill would give the government powers to ‘enable contact tracing’
Bill C-293 would allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.”
It would also allow the minister of industry to procure the “communications capacity and infrastructure for electronic platforms and tools,” which includes electronic applications that “enable contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics.”
The bill will also “take into account the recommendations made by the advisory committee following its review of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.”
The federal government, and most provincial governments, during COVID, pushed and enacted contact tracing to monitor the general population. Any Canadians who traveled out of the country had to also use the government’s much maligned and scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app, which had a contact tracing feature.
Also during COVID, the Trudeau government took a heavy-handed approach when it came to enacting laws or rules under the guise of “health.” For example, in October 2021 Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. He also announced that the unvaccinated would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.
This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Biden-Harris Admin’s Multi-Billion Dollar Electric School Bus Program Is A Huge Gift To China, House Report Finds
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
East Anglia educated environmental scholar says it’s time to “Scrap Green Energy Handouts Once And For All”
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Union Bigwigs Decline To Endorse Anyone For President Despite Rank-And-File Members Overwhelmingly Backing Trump
-
National1 day ago
Liberal House Leader tells gov’t-funded media they must ‘scrutinize’ Conservatives
-
Alberta22 hours ago
JK Rowling defends Central Alberta politician against LGBT activist: ‘Bully’
-
National2 days ago
Conservatives plan non-confidence vote against Trudeau gov’t next week, setting up possible fall election
-
COVID-1923 hours ago
Democracy Fund defending Ontario Amish community against quarter million dollars in COVID fines
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
The Explosive Cost of Canada’s Civil Service Hiring Binge