Experts say Sask. RMs’ vote against climate change policies not rooted in fact | CBC News

Representatives of Saskatchewan’s rural municipalities voted overwhelmingly at a recent convention in favour of a resolution saying carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant and calling on the province to step away from climate change initiatives.

Some experts who study agriculture and climate change say the resolution isn’t rooted in fact and missed out on why farmers should want to address climate change.

The resolution on CO2, made at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) in mid-March, says “policies that vilify CO2 are illogical and unpredictable and will undoubtedly create an uncertain amount of negative impact to our existing crop production systems and economy.”

“Be it resolved that SARM will ensure that any policies that unduly target naturally occurring CO2 will be deemed as illogical and dangerous. We move that Saskatchewan remove itself from any national or international agreements that reference net zero.”

The resolution is written with misleading, confused language about climate change and policy, said Darrin Qualman, director of climate crisis policy and action with the National Farmers Union.

“It talks about vilifying natural CO2 and of course no one is vilifying that. And indeed, the whole focus on natural CO2 is a red herring. The CO2 that’s causing the climate problem isn’t natural CO2, it’s CO2 from human sources,” Qualman said in an interview on CBC Saskatchewan’s Blue Sky radio show.

He said the real issue is that there’s too much CO2 being put into the atmosphere, regardless of the source.

Ryan Brook, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan college of agriculture and bioresources, agreed with Qualman. Brook said statements like SARM’s are harmful because they can mislead the general public and promote misinformation.

He covers climate change in some of his university courses and has heard comments from some of his students that echo SARM’s resolution. He said his goal is to focus on facts: human-caused climate change is real and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that drives climate change.

“We need [CO2] to survive, but we’ve pumped thousands upon thousands of tonnes of it, from fossil fuels and other things, into the atmosphere — and so we’ve overloaded that with too much carbon dioxide.”

Another common argument he hears from deniers is that the climate has always changed and will always change, so worrying about it now is pointless.

“Many people think of that as a ‘gotcha point.’ It is not,” Brook said, adding the speed of climate change happening now is basically unprecedented.

“It’s about changing very rapidly, beyond perhaps our scope to fully adapt.”

Underlying this whole resolution is just inadequate recognition of just how much trouble we can all be in here as farmers.–  Darrin Qualman 

SARM’s resolution states that “any policies that are designed to punish the critical natural CO2 cycle are not only illogical but dangerous to the balance of natural food production.”

Brook said this assumes all things natural are inherently good.

“Let’s be clear, arsenic and grizzly bears are natural as well. That doesn’t make them safe,” Brook said.

“The key component is [that] something can be fine at low levels but can be very dangerous, and indeed catastrophic, at very high levels. So drinking a few glasses of water a day is perfectly fine, but at some level consuming too much water can literally kill you or certainly make you ill.”

Understanding net zero

The SARM resolution also targets net zero policies and asks Saskatchewan to back out of agreements that involve them.

“We don’t want a net-zero policy. We’re not sure what that means. We don’t know why the federal government is targeting the oil and gas sector as much as they are. Agriculture too,” SARM president Ray Orb told CBC shortly after the CO2 resolution was passed.

Canada’s government has joined dozens of other countries in committing to reaching net-zero by 2050. It defines net-zero as when the economy either emits no greenhouse gas emissions, or offsets all emissions using technology such as carbon capture or methods like planting trees.

“We feel our agriculture producers are already lowering emissions or sequestering carbon. In a lot of cases, they actually meet net-zero requirements already, but they’re not being credited for it,” Orb said.

Orb said farmers feel they aren’t being compensated for their efforts and are hoping for a new federal government that will loosen climate-driven policies.

Qualman said SARM’s net-zero resolution is irresponsible.

“Net zero isn’t a bad thing. Net zero just means we stop adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere and stop making climate change worse,”  Qualman said. “In fact, it’s absolutely critically necessary that we reduce our excess emissions.” 

Why should farmers care about climate change

Qualman said he agrees with Orb that some farmers are taking positive action. Qualman has heard many are talking about emissions and best management practices, and thinks they should be compensated and financially supported through that.

However, he said it isn’t true that farmers are sequestering more carbon emissions than they emit and that minimizing the potential risks of climate change slows adaption.

“I think really underlying this whole resolution is just inadequate recognition of just how much trouble we can all be in here as farmers,” Qualman said.

“We do need braver leadership here to talk about this. The best estimates by scientists are that the world is on track for nearly three degrees of warming.”

Qualman said science shows the Prairies will likely experience even higher levels of warming without intervention. The land has been prone to droughts in the past, he said, adding it’s uncertain how the Prairies will handle another drought amid even hotter world temperatures. 

“The tree ring data and other things show that over the last thousand years there’s been droughts that have lasted two to three or four decades, and that was before climate change,”  Qualman said.  

“There’s already a lot of inbuilt risk in the Prairies, and to add five or six degrees of warming to that is just completely reckless.”

Working toward solutions

Qualman said people and governments need to work together toward solutions.

“As people see solutions in front of them, the fear and the resistance will decrease.”

He said it’s important that adaption to and mitigation of climate change is accelerated — not halted — to reduce crop loss and impacts. Farmers must remain financially viable and economically secure as emissions are lowered, Qualman said.

Qualman said there are some positive initiatives from the federal government, like the Farm Climate Action Fund, but more support is needed.

Provincial and federal governments could learn from the 1930s drought response that saw governments create the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), he said.

“PFRA worked with farmers, went out into the country, provided information, assistance, tools, helped them develop water supplies, plant trees, farm better, etcetera.”

He said a new farm resilience agency could help producers move forward with the best science-informed practices to reduce emissions and protect operations.