|
|
Post by Bigtalk on Mar 28, 2021 18:22:42 GMT -6
Read an article in the Western producer Sask government is excluding zero tillage from its carbon offsets program. From what i understand the sask government claims zero tillage is already adopted by 40 percent of growers hence it does not qualify for carbon credits. This really is upsetting because we are paying big money for better technology to conserve moisture and make less of a foot print. I doubt 40 percent are zero tillage farmers in Manitoba. Here in the Red River Valley its vertical tillage this and that for heavens sake. I am completely for being awarded carbon credits for my business. It is a crock that our nature of our business is ignored for the consumption of carbon and the release of oxygen. We are taking steps to prevent runoff of nutrients. Heck the City of Winnipeg actually admits to pumping shi t into the Red River. No fines get written. No grace was given to drying grain which is ridiculous. The up coming carbon tax over the years is very concerning and is balked by the liberal party. I do more for the climate than any city person or suburb alone. Dont get me started with all the emission garbage that I have to delete on my equipment. I have seen other videos of farmers with a pile of plastic jugs or totes of diesel exhaust fluid. Maybe a better idea is to fine tune the engines for better fuel consumption. Yeah you can recycle the jugs but you are just creating another energy expense for nothing. I think they should pay us for our good stewardship and tax the concrete cities .better yet just forget the carbon tax altogether. Yep! Doesn't surprise me! You're not the type they want the wealth to go to, so they will manipulate it however they want. Just another cunning scam, as we already guessed! |
|
|
|
Post by iamwill on Mar 29, 2021 22:23:24 GMT -6
With the recent win by the Federal government at the Supreme Court in regards to the constitutionality of the carbon tax I have a few questions. Firstly how can there be a split decision. Either it is or it is not constitutional not both. So were three judges wrong or were six. If the decision was split because of ambiguity in the constitution shouldn't the legality of it not just be a matter of contract Law? Since the province is not the party that drew up the contract (constitution) should the court not have sided with them due to the fact that the contract is open to interpretation? I am definitely not a legal expert but I am definitely confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmb on Mar 31, 2021 18:00:09 GMT -6
The way the Supreme Court works is a big question for me. All constitutional matters should be fairly cut and dry. The intent should be pretty clear, so when it comes to a split decision, it tells me you are seeing the personal views or paid for views of the judges being expressed. And that gets us to the question that if the Supreme Court is so pivotal in setting direction of a country, like carbon tax, how is it that we have judges who hold the position for decades if they have a track record of not being able to understand the things they are asked to rule on. Seems to me the right and procedure to levy taxes would have been clear on day one.
Instead of getting caught up in how close a decision is, we need to look at WHY it was close, and how we get rid of those who end up making it close. Oddly enough,there really is no way to remove them. Certainly the public has no say, yet the public is who is effected by all decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Apr 3, 2021 16:10:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Apr 6, 2021 21:28:44 GMT -6
Holy f*ck, and they call us deniers because we deal with facts.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigtalk on Apr 7, 2021 5:46:37 GMT -6
Holy f*ck, and they call us deniers because we deal with facts..... LOL! Such a skeptic AB?  New Scientist is commonly referred to as the Non Scientist...and for good reason! It's credibility rating is slightly below zero! |
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Aug 12, 2021 18:56:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by northernfarmer on Aug 13, 2021 22:49:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigtalk on Aug 14, 2021 0:58:16 GMT -6
Climate change is a globalist political agenda, turned new age religion, masquerading as an environmental savior, from an an evil that does not exist and supported by a gravy train of Govt scientists, carbon trader elite and well meaning, but climatologically challenged urban greenies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Aug 25, 2021 16:40:57 GMT -6
Come in for a coffee and did some searching about a massive climage change caused event I saw explained in a documentary on PBS late last nite.
Small scale stuff to what we have seen in recent years, but then back in 1910 I guess its just that they didn't keep very good records of the fires, and I suspect when they recorded them as burning 3 million acres, they really meant 3 football fields...I mean after all, we keep getting told how these fires in California and BC are "record breaking" and how one summer of drought is again, "record breaking"...
I did find the original PBS video however unless you are subscribed online it don't work. I did find this vid which is about the same fire. Have to give the guys who did try to control things credit for having some balls, as they were out there with hand tools and horses. Some make reference that it burnt for two days, thats not quite true, it was during a two day period thousands of fires that had been burning for months had converged and created what became a horrendous fire storm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigtalk on Sept 3, 2021 2:26:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by shmiffy on Sept 30, 2021 11:41:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by generalchaos on Sept 30, 2021 21:42:57 GMT -6
I heard on the radio the other day the announcer calling Environment Canada, Environment Canada and Climate Change.
|
|
|
|
Post by garyfunk on Sept 30, 2021 21:46:27 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure the government changed the name to that a few years back.
|
|
|
|
Post by generalchaos on Oct 1, 2021 10:14:39 GMT -6
Huh.
Never heard that before.
|
|
