Better Pork - 2016 December

Better Pork

December 2016

SECOND

LOOK

elieve it or not, a “fart tax”

(essentially a tax on green-

house emissions from animals

– especially ruminants and including

pigs) has been seriously discussed in

several countries. Indeed, in Septem-

ber, the California legislature ap-

proved legislation which will regulate

emissions on dairy farms, according

to the Associated Press.

At times, don’t you just want to

shout “the emperor has no clothes

on?”

Let me remind you of the eminent

Hans Christian Andersen story. A

vain emperor ordered his weavers

to make him the most unique gar-

ment ever. Two weavers spent a lot

of time doing nothing. They claimed

that only the wise and loyal would

be able to see the unique garment. In

reality, no garment existed at all. No

one would admit that the emperor

was naked for fear of being seen as

unwise or disloyal. Until one day,

when the emperor was on parade, did

a little boy from the audience shout

“the emperor has no clothes on.”

Let me shout – I don’t believe in

the severity of climate change.

Before we get into the arguments

of the hundreds of pros and cons on

this controversial topic, let’s set the

guidelines on analysis and admis-

sible evidence, without the fear of the

“lack of wisdom or loyalty.”

For example, it’s not that I fully re-

fute climate change; it’s not that I am

being a contrarian; and it’s not that

I haven’t spent a lot of time studying

the subject that I doubt the severity

of climate change. After all, the Ice

Age ended about 11,500 years ago,

so we know that climate changes. It’s

not that there aren’t good arguments

on both sides. But let’s remove the

emotion and “business dealing” and

rely on the facts. Like Sargeant Friday

from Dragnet would say, “just the

facts ma’am, just the facts.”

The first parameter in decipher-

ing factual information is to apply a

statistical analysis on the scientific

data surrounding the topic. Just be-

cause two things happened together,

doesn’t mean one caused the other.

Just because events are clustered

doesn’t mean they’re not still

random.

I believe that while carbon dioxide

levels are increasing, this does not

mean that temperatures are rising.

The provincial Climate Change

Mitigation and Low-carbon Econo-

my Act, 2016 (Bill 172) wants us to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by

15 per cent by the end of 2020.

Carbon dioxide levels rise and fall

over time (but statistically insigni-

ficantly). A temperature’s rise isn’t

necessarily related to increased

carbon dioxide levels. However, ris-

ing carbon dioxide levels do mean

an increase in plant growth. In fact,

OMAFRA’s “Carbon Dioxide in

Greenhouses” factsheet recommends

supplementing up to 1,000 ppm of

carbon dioxide into greenhouses to

support plant growth.

What troubles me is that carbon

dioxide is so necessary for plant

growth (photosynthesis) yet we want

to limit it so intensively in our atmo-

sphere. Yes, there are other gases – so

why not focus on those?

So, I don’t believe that carbon

dioxide, an invisible gas that we all

exhale or expel and that makes up

less than a tenth of one percent of

the atmosphere, could be affecting

earth’s climate to the severity that is

proclaimed.

I am a doubter of the severity of

climate change. Possibly a regulation

such as the “fart tax” should also be

imposed on vain policy makers like

the emperor and his senate.

Richard Smelski has over 35 years of

agribusiness experience and farms in

the Shakespeare, Ont. area.

Theemperor hasno clothes on

Weighing in on the “fart tax” and the climate change debate.

by RICHARD SMELSKI

kadmy/Creative RF/Getty Images photo

Possibly a regulation such as the

“fart tax” should also be imposed

on vain policy makers.