To The Editor,

I am copy and pasting a news article from Ontario Farmer that had the header, “Calculations surrounding gas emissions are complicated. The goal of the proposed standards is to reduce greenhouse emissions by 30 megatonnes by 2030 or 30 per cent of 2005 levels”. Of note is the paragraph that states:

“While additional land will be required for agriculture, “the cultivation or production on this new land could result in higher GHG emissions if the land had previously held captured carbon stocks, such as in the case of forested land,” stated the report.”

Ontario Farmer
Tue Jan 9 2018
Page: A21
Section: Business
Byline: Ian Cumming
Source: Ontario Farmer
The Canadian Government’s Regulatory Framework on the Clean Fuel Standard was posted in the Canada Gazette on Dec. 23. Public consultation of the proposed standards begins in January.A recent GAIN report provides a detailed analysis of the framework. The overall goal of the proposed standards is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 30 megatonnes by 2030, which will reduce GHG emissions to 30 per cent of 2005 levels.

However, “a transition period has not been announced,” stated the report.

The method of measurement for driving the Canadian biofuels regulations will follow the “carbon intensity approach.”

“Carbon intensity values would be expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per unit of energy in megajoules, and would account for GHG emissions over the lifecycle of a fuel.”

Both baseline carbon intensity values, and carbon intensity requirements “would be set for either fuel in a stream (liquid, gaseous, solid) or for groupings that include some or all fuels in a stream.”

Present ethanol requirements will remain in force “for the short term.”

A committee will be formed in January under the oversight of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).

A technical working group will also be established “which will consist of a smaller group of experts, including individuals familiar with GHG emissions forecasting, that will meet regularly and engage in development of the regulatory text.”

“At this time it is difficult to determine the potential impact of a carbon intensity approach on biofuel consumption,” stated the report.

These committees “will have to determine the rate at which fuel suppliers are obliged to reduce GHG emissions,” stated the report. “Government will attempt to link emission reduction commitments to economic aspirations.”

A lesson can be learned from mistakes that were made in Germany, which failed to meet its mandate resulting in “a decrease in biofuel consumption,” stated the report.

The proposed clean fuel standards (CFS) “will separate carbon reduction targets for transportation, building and industry,” noting that 80 per cent of Canadian liquid fuel was used for transportation.

“Trading of credits below fuel streams could offer compliance flexibility across fuel types within separate fuel streams,” stated the report.

The report detailed how the calculation in the overall equation for carbon reduction will not include the land clearing involved to grow more corn for more ethanol production. Leaving it out of the equation would “improve predictability.”

Under the heading Exclusion of Indirect Land Use Change Impact (ILUC), the report said “under the proposed CFS framework, carbon intensity values would not include an estimate of the impact of indirect land use change in GHG emissions.”

While additional land will be required for agriculture, “the cultivation or production on this new land could result in higher GHG emissions if the land had previously held captured carbon stocks, such as in the case of forested land,” stated the report.

“Some stakeholders estimate that emissions for ILUC could outweigh energy savings from biofuel utilization,” it stated.

“While the exclusion of ILUC impact can be a contentious issue, opposition to the proposed CFS framework appears limited,” stated the report.

The land clearing/clear cutting that is underway is a DIRECT RESULT of Liberal green energy policy! and nothing to do with “greedy” farmers collecting subsidies as is the fallacy that is repeated over and over again in your paper!

Sincerely yours,

Cathy McNaughton

Dalkeith, Ontario