Federal emission targets require 'drastic cuts' to fertilizer use and would jeopardize 'economic viability' of farming: report

A new agriculture report by the University of Calgary disproves claims by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the impacts of farmers using less fertilizer to reduce carbon emissions.

The report, titled Planning to Fail: A Case Study of Canada's Fertilizer-Based Emission Target, concludes a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions would only be possible with drastic cuts to fertilizer use. 

"The proposed target (is) unachievable without drastic reductions in nitrogen fertilizer use," wrote researchers, adding that it would not be possible unless farmers are willing to jeopardize their economic viability.

Trudeau's reduction target which was first announced in 2020, adds additional strain on farmers. While a reduction up to 15% is possible using existing efficiency methods, the remaining cut would have to come from reduced fertilizer use.

"Provincial governments and organizations should be encouraged to develop regional solutions to meet national objectives, with the [federal government] providing coordination and support," said report co-author Dr. Guillaume Lhermie. 

"It is putting [much] pressure on producers to decrease their emissions and fertilizer use. This could open the door to less sustainable practices in other countries because we still need to feed people," he said.

The Trudeau Liberals announced a plan to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% by 2030, devastating for Canadian agriculture.

Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland comes out and says:

"there are no people in the world who work harder than farmers."https://t.co/2OvQ5xI55f pic.twitter.com/C4N1dyOkDQ

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) August 6, 2022

In February, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers (WCWG) accused the federal government of basing their emissions reduction target on ideology, not science. 

WCWG President Gunter Jochum said Ottawa should have considered how the policy would impact farm yields. 

However, as first reported by True North, the federal government knew these targets would decrease crop yield for farmers in Western Canada. They proposed a carbon tax-like regulatory backstop to enforce their fertilizer emission reduction targets. 

Earlier this year, Trudeau told farmers not to believe the web of "disinformation and misinformation" circulating social media.

"I want to be clear, we are consulting with farmers in the industry about a voluntary, not mandatory reduction in emissions from fertilizer, not in the use of fertilizers," he said. 

Trudeau says "there's a lot of disinformation and misinformation" online about his plan to cut emissions.

It's a "voluntary, not mandatory reduction in emissions from fertilizers," the PM claims. pic.twitter.com/Rp4hxR1sfQ

— Rebel News Canada (@RebelNews_CA) March 6, 2023

According to Stuart Smyth, associate professor in agricultural and resource economics, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) did not use factual information when setting a 30% fertilizer reduction target.

He called the targets an "unscientific" appeal to voters, adding the ECCC "[doesn't have] the agriculture industry's best interests at hand." 

A study by Smyth revealed that farmers used 44% more fertilizer but applied it differently in 2016/19 compared to 1991/94. Roughly 70 farms converted 7.2 million acres of summer fallow to crop production, with total crop production rising from 1.3 billion bushels to 2.1 billion bushels.

"At a time of food insecurity and skyrocketing consumer prices for basic food staples, to fail to consider the impact on the food supply of fertilizer reductions is frankly appalling," added Jochum.

"It will reach approximately 0.0028% of total greenhouse gasses [internationally]. Is this even worth it?" 

Trudeau denies that he will be mandating a 30% reduction in fertilizer for Canadian farmers. He claims there is "a bit of misinformation out there around going after farmers."https://t.co/PHR7jF0lJM pic.twitter.com/xPPpFU2NEb

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) March 2, 2023

In the University of Calgary paper, researchers argued for provinces to take the lead on reducing agricultural emissions.

"For example, a made-in-Alberta strategy will likely focus on large-scale grain and oil seed production for dryland and irrigated production systems. Recommended [best practices], current levels of adoption, and barriers to increasing adoption will likely differ from those developed for Quebec or PEI," it read.

"Provincial targets may also receive greater buy-in as regional differences and producer concerns are more likely to be reflected in regional targets than at the national level."

Smyth maintains the only way the feds would achieve its target is to either farm less land or use less fertilizer.

However, Jochum claims farmers are already "deeply incentivized" to make their operations sustainable.

"We want to produce the most outputs, with the fewest inputs, and keep our operations going long enough to pass them to our children and grandchildren," he said in December.

After repeated calls to cancel the carbon tax, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is raising the alarm as farmers will be hit with a costly clean fuel regulations tax this summer.

READ MORE: https://t.co/wW1PWXHWjW pic.twitter.com/4gIwT5CVtS

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) June 8, 2023

Using in-crop and with-seed applications at different rates, farmers have sequestered carbon, reducing carbon emissions by removing summer fallow.

"That's the definition of sustainability," said Jochum.

"Without government regulations, directives, mandates, targets, whatever you want to put in there, farmers have significantly increased their fertilizer efficiency," added Smyth.