ANALYSIS: European Farmer Protests a Warning as Ottawa Looks to Cut Cattle Emissions

Alberta cattle feeding on a ranch outside Calgary, Alta., in a file photo. David Buston/AFP/Getty Images

As Ottawa eyes Canadian farms and cattle as a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be quelled, the European experience is a cautionary tale.

In Europe, policies that affect farming operations, including the Netherlands’ plan to massively reduce livestock to cut emissions, have sparked widespread protests.

Other European countries are also pondering whether to greatly reduce their number of cattle—Ireland considered culling as many as 200,000 dairy cows—to prevent GHG emissions. When cows pass gas, they release methane, and their dung and urine emit nitrogen. Therefore, fewer cows equals fewer emissions, policymakers say.

Dutch farmers famously drove their tractors en masse to The Hague—the seat of the Dutch Parliament—for multiple protests in recent years. A newly formed farmer’s party saw resounding success in March’s provincial elections, which gave it more seats than any other party in the Senate. And the winner of November’s national election, Geert Wilders, has vowed to axe climate policies.

In July, farmers from across Europe similarly gathered at the European Parliament in France, many arriving on their tractors. They faced off with a crowd led by climate activist Greta Thunberg. Parliament was voting at the time on a bill to reduce agricultural emissions; it did pass, but just barely.

While Canada’s Parliament Hill hasn’t seen a large gathering of tractors yet, some farmers did protest the effects of a carbon tax there in November. Some farmers told The Epoch Times that the carbon tax is costing them more than $100,000 a year each and could triple in the coming years.

While farmers are exempt from carbon tax on fuels for farm machinery, a bill that would exempt grain drying and barn heating has met with Liberal opposition and is currently the centre of much debate. Amendments made in the Senate have significantly dialled back the exemptions and the bill has headed back to the House for approval.

Ottawa’s attempts to mitigate cattle emissions are milder than Europe’s cow-culling plans. But University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick says he wouldn’t be surprised if the Liberal government takes it nearly as far as that.

“It comes down to how zealous the government is,” Mr. McKitrick told The Epoch Times. “And right now, we have an extremely zealous government that has determined to eliminate a lot of essential economic activity because it’s tied to greenhouse gas emissions.”

The move to decrease cattle methane emissions could be a first step in taking greater control of the beef industry, he said.

Ottawa announced on Dec. 10, during the COP28 global climate conference in Dubai, that it would offer incentives for beef farmers to reduce methane emissions.

Farmers are encouraged to feed their cattle certain substances—including growth hormones, yeasts, essential oils, and more—to increase feed efficiency and reduce their methane emissions. Farmers will be rewarded with carbon credits they can sell to companies looking to offset their emissions.

The policy is voluntary, unlike the emissions cap that the government recently announced for the oil and gas industry. The government will cap methane and carbon dioxide emissions for oil and gas, giving companies maximum allowances for their emissions. If they go beyond the allowances, they must buy carbon credits to offset the extra emissions. Though they can pay to offset some emissions, they must still significantly lower their emissions from current levels.

Mr. McKitrick says the oil and gas cap is one of several examples of how much control over an industry the Liberal government is willing to take.

“This is a fundamental problem with climate policy,” he said. “Now, they can point to it and say, ‘Well, you guys are a source of greenhouse gas emissions. So we have to take over.’”

Agriculture, including livestock, accounts for 10 percent of Canada’s GHG emissions, based on 2019 figures, according to the federal 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan published last year.

The Canadian Cattle Association (CAA) told The Epoch Times via email that it’s not sure yet how the methane-reducing incentives will affect the industry. CCA says it’s studying the plan and will be in talks with Ottawa until Feb. 6, 2024, when the consultation period ends.

Mr. McKitrick says climate policies could increasingly affect farmers, including beef farmers, and food prices in Canada. Environmental policies are hitting food production in many ways in Canada and abroad, and some say this may significantly diminish the global food supply.

Farmers gather with their vehicles next to a Germany–Netherlands border sign during a protest against the Dutch government's emission-cutting plans on June 29, 2022. Vincent Jannink/ANP/AFP via Getty Images

A recently released Epoch Times documentary titled “No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs?” looks at a “global war on farmers.”

It includes testimony from Dutch dairy farmers who could have lost most of their cattle under their government’s plan to reduce emissions. It includes evidence from Sri Lankan farmers whose crops failed when the government decided in 2021 to ban agrochemicals imports, sending the country into turmoil. And it includes statements from farmers in California who rely on the Iron Gate Dam but are seeing it being removed to save a breed of salmon not native to the region.

Meanwhile, the United Nations, world leaders, celebrities, and many media outlets promote edible insects, the documentary notes. Edible insect producers are springing up all over the world, including in Canada, despite a lack of enthusiasm from consumers.

“As the price of staples goes through the roof, people will say, ‘OK, I’m really hungry, my kids are really hungry, I can’t afford a steak anymore. So, all right, I’ll eat your stupid crickets,'” says journalist Alex Newman in the documentary.

Impacts on Agricultural Land

In Canada, some prime agricultural land has been taken out of service and used for wind and solar farms instead.

A wind turbine earns a landowner $30,000 annually, and solar pays $1,500 per acre, according to Daryl Bennett, a farmer and the director of the landowner advocacy group Action Surface Rights.

Mr. Bennett is from Taber, Alberta, part of a region that the province is looking to expand as an agri-food corridor, a major centre for Canada’s food production. He told The Epoch Times in August that he knows landowners in the region who have opted for wind and solar because it’s more lucrative. But the wind turbines also make aerial spraying of crops impossible within a certain radius.

Some Canadian farmers have seen a business opportunity in climate change policy, treating carbon credits as another product of their land. No-till farming, for example, leaves a lot of carbon sequestered in the soil, and farmers who do this can get carbon credits.

However, the new carbon credit market has some uncertainties. It doesn’t always apply consistently, for example. Some farmers have complained that they can’t get the credits because they can’t show that their no-till practice is new, and the credits don’t apply to farmers who have already long opted for no-till.

Economist and University of Calgary professor Jack Mintz told The Epoch Times in a Dec. 11 interview that carbon credits come with some uncertainty in general. “Right now the price is not well-known,” he said.

While the industry figures out how to adjust to climate policy, it faces another kind of upheaval. About 40 percent of Canada’s farmers are set to retire in the next decade, according to RBC, and there’s no indication that a younger generation is coming in with enough force to replace them.

“These gaps loom at a time when Canada’s agricultural workforce needs to evolve to include skills like data analytics and climate-smart practices that enable us to grow more food with fewer emissions,” states an April 2 RBC report.

Fisheries

Another federal environmental policy that may affect food production is a planned network of marine-protected areas (MPAs) that cover many of the current fishing spots along Canada’s West Coast. Documentary-maker Aaron Gunn interviewed fishermen and experts about the potential impacts of the plan for his film “No Fishing Allowed,” released in August.

The MPAs would remove up to 40 percent of the fishing areas, Mr. Gunn, who’s now a federal Conservative candidate, says in the documentary, adding that these fisheries feed millions of Canadians.

Dennis Rutherford, a retired biologist formerly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, told Mr. Gunn he doesn’t see what the government will accomplish.

“We’ve got the current stock assessment going on, we’ve got the precautionary approach and sustainable fisheries framework—so these pieces are already there to ensure conservation,” he said. “What they’re attempting to do is unclear to me.”

The government’s plan says the region “is home to endangered whales, ancient corals, iconic salmon, sea birds, and many other ecologically, culturally, and economically important species.” The MPA network will “protect this unique marine area for present and future generations,” according to the plan.

Commercial fisherman Walter Fitzpatrick told Mr. Gunn that he has already reduced his operation because “the red tape is just piling up” and it’s costly to meet all the regulations.

“The government is just regulating us out of business,” he said.

Mr. McKitrick said environmental policies often sound good and have popular support until the impacts become evident.

“That’s pretty much been the picture all the way along with climate policy,” he said. “Governments think they have a popular mandate, but they haven’t really been honest with people about the costs. And when the costs become clear, that mandate evaporates.”