Fertilizer Emissions Reduction Targets

My colleague Lloyd Longfield, MP for Guelph and member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture, wrote the following piece in the Toronto Sun:

“Canada’s emissions reduction plan is the first to credibly explain how Canada can reduce emissions sufficiently to avoid catastrophic climate change — the kind that would make reliably feeding the world’s population almost impossible within a lifetime.

Part of that plan involves reducing emissions from fertilizer by 30% between 2020 and 2030 — an ambitious goal that can be achieved using techniques that many farmers across the country already use. This includes utilizing variable rate fertilizer application, nitrification and urease inhibitors, split applications of fertilizer, along with other practices known collectively within the agriculture sector as 4R nutrient stewardship, which is used to some extent by over half of Canadian farmers.

Notably, this plan does not include a “fertilizer ban” or require that farmers use less fertilizer, it requires that emissions be reduced. In the discussion document released as part of the consultation being conducted by the federal government, it is explicitly stated that “actions to achieve emissions reductions will focus on improving nitrogen management and optimizing fertilizer use, and not on a mandatory reduction in the use of fertilizers.”

Farmers are all-too-familiar with the practical consequences of climate change being felt right now across Canada. Severe drought across the prairies, disastrous flooding in British Columbia, and generally more frequently volatile weather are not theoretical consequences to be worried about decades from now; they are here right now. It’s the opposite of the regular, moderate weather crops need to thrive and for farms to remain consistently profitable.

In conversations with producers both on their land and in my previous role as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I know they are some of Canada’s most reliable land stewards and are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Ministers of Agriculture across Canada representing many different political perspectives and parties also recognized this when they met last year, in the riding I represent, to agree to the Guelph Statement. As Canada’s next agriculture policy framework, it set out a common policy direction for agriculture ministries across the country for the next five years, which is especially important given agriculture’s shared jurisdiction between the provincial and federal governments. It was also welcomed by farmers already adopting management practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who feel that they were doing their part.

But you wouldn’t know that if you were listening to commentary by some politicians seeking to stoke division for political gain this past week.

This depiction of climate action as a polarizing choice between the livelihoods of farm families and reducing emissions is not only inaccurate, it also distracts from the important conversation that the ongoing consultation is attempting to have — specifically, what emissions reduction measures do producers perceive as higher-risk, and what can governments do to both reduce this risk and incentivize emission reductions. Equally important is hearing from the industry on how emissions can be accurately monitored without burdening farmers with additional paperwork and increased reporting requirements.

While there is significant disinformation on this topic, equally harmful are efforts to undermine the consultation process by some, including Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture who went as far as to allege that she had never been consulted on reducing emissions associated with fertilizer application, despite ample evidence to the contrary. All Canadians, including Ministers, have the opportunity to engage in consultations that are open until August 31st — which I hope they do.

Farmers are some of the world’s most innovative, adaptive business owners. That same innovation has allowed Canada to become one of the most productive food producers in the world. I am confident that despite the political rhetoric, the innovative spirit of Canada’s agriculture industry will prevail in improving the sustainability of our food production systems. There is room to debate how we get there, but the fact remains that starving the world in pursuit of emission reductions is an unviable plan only being discussed by Conservatives.

The federal government recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to meeting the proposed target, and Canadian farmers will continue to be better served by leaders who think rationally about reducing emissions rather than those seeking to use climate change to divide Canadians.”