Agriculture
Australia ignoring the solution to government-induced malaise
Australian PM Chris Bowen
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Alan Moran
Conscious of the imperative of self-preservation, European governments and the EU Commission itself have already taken baby steps to dilute and delay carbon emission-abating and economy-crushing agricultural and energy policies.. Not so in Australia
Studying last month’s Davos meeting of the world’s (largely self-appointed) elites, Walter Russell Mead sees an inflection point.
He says that when they listened to Argentinian President Milei promoting free market capitalism, the Davosies’ applause was more than polite clapping. There was a sense that all was not well in the supposed government-planned China, and a recognition that the more hands-on EU governmental approach has resulted in Europe slipping behind the US with its lighter government touch over the economy. This was coupled with a concern that the farmer revolts around Europe reflected a sudden rejection of trust in the establishment. Above all, Ukraine has made the Euro grandees ‘uncomfortably aware of how dependent the global system is on the leadership that only a prosperous and self-confident America can provide’.
Conscious of the imperative of self-preservation, European governments and the EU Commission itself have already taken baby steps to dilute and delay carbon emission-abating and economy-crushing agricultural and energy policies.
Not so in Australia, where governments remain totally focused on reducing the economy’s productive potential.
The Albanese government, under the Svengali and serial ministerial failure of Chris Bowen, has turbocharged carbon abatement programs crippling energy. It has:
- Vastly increased direct and regulatory-enforced expansion of the transmission lines in an attempt to allow wind and solar to work.
- Introduced a requirement for the top 215 businesses to reduce their emission levels by 30 per cent over and above reductions made necessary by the subsidies generally.
- Put in place measures to combat objections to intrusive wind farms and transmission lines.
- Refused to introduce requirements for the rectification of land and safe disposal of the materials used in wind and solar facilities.
- Vastly expanded the budgetary assistance to wind, solar, and hydrogen.
- Introduced costly requirements on firms to identify the emissions of their own activities and of those of their suppliers and customers.
The measures have been put in place by politicians, hardly any of whom have any knowledge of the energy sector, how it works, and what its costs are. Politicians have been pressed in this direction by the so-called experts, a professional elite supported by and bankrolled by subsidy-seekers, who see the global warming con as a means by which they can get paid for promoting particular forms of energy.
But the outcome is already apparent in the loss of competitiveness of our industries. The bellwether is smelting and all three of the major aluminium smelters are now in hospital care, relying on government support to offset the imposts they incur from government penalties on cheap electricity. The distress is also seen in agricultural and mining industries, which in addition to being buffeted by ever-increasing environmental costs, with their prices set globally, are seeing their margins come under pressure.
Every week brings another measure – last week we saw requirements on car retailers to ensure more fuel-efficient – higher cost cars are sold with penalties on sellers that fail to meet these requirements, penalties that will certainly increase the price Australians pay for motor vehicles.
This week, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek boasted of spending $205 million of taxpayers’ money to buy back another 44 gigalitres of water from Murray irrigators. This is part of a process to divert 2,700 gigalitres per annum (out of 7,000 gigalitres ‘high security’ water available) from productive agriculture to uses designated as ‘environmental’. These measures massively reduce the productivity of the Murray-Darling region, responsible for 35 per cent of the nation’s farm income. They were originally justified to respond to environmental agitators’ spurious claims that irrigation was creating salt infusions, claims that were reinforced during the ‘millennial’ drought of 1997-2008 by specious assertions that climate change would drastically reduce the available water. These original rationales having been disproven, politicians’ and activists’ hostility to productive enterprise have lent the programs an ongoing inertia.
We also saw a new $100 billion a year in additional carbon tax floated by Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims; their study’s funding source was not revealed but the beneficiaries would likely be, in my opinion, subsidy-seeking economy wreckers. While ostensibly rejecting that proposal, the Prime Minister has foreshadowed extensive new decarbonisation spending programs. Nothing is being learned from the collapse of Australia’s nickel mining industry, which cannot compete with overseas mines favoured by the low-cost coal-generated electricity that Australian governments are closing down.
In addition to the current $10 billion a year in subsidies through regulations forcing the use of wind and solar, and billions of dollars spent on revoking the productive use of irrigation water, governments provide huge sums to groups that promote such waste. Unlike squandering through inefficiency that is endemic in government programs, all this spending is aimed at poisoning once highly competitive low-cost industries. Adding to measures that load the dice against employers in workplace relations, it is akin to government forcing the nation to manufacture bombs to be dropped on the people financing them.
Has anybody put the solution more succinctly than Trump-aligned Presidential hopeful, Vivek Ramaswamy? His answer was, ‘Drill. Frack. Merit over “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”. Stop paying people to stay at home instead of work. Fire bureaucrats. Shut down corrupt agencies. End lobbying.’
Alan Moran is a noted economist who has analysed and written extensively from a free market perspective focusing on environmental issues, housing, network industries, and energy markets. First published here.
Agriculture
Ottawa may soon pass ‘supply management’ law to effectively maintain inflated dairy prices
From the Fraser Institute
Many Canadians today face an unsettling reality. While Canada has long been known as a land of plenty, rising living costs and food insecurity are becoming increasingly common concerns. And a piece of federal legislation—which may soon become law—threatens to make the situation even worse.
According to Statistics Canada, rising prices are now “greatly affecting” nearly half of Canadians who are subsequently struggling to cover basic living costs. Even more alarming, 53 per cent are worried about feeding their families. For policymakers, few national priorities are more pressing than the ability of Canadians to feed themselves.
Between 2020 and 2023, food prices surged by 24 per cent, outpacing the overall inflation rate of 15 per cent. Over the past year, more than one million people visited Ontario food banks—a 25 per cent increase from the previous year.
Amid this crisis, a recent academic report highlighted an unforgivable waste. Since 2012, Canada’s dairy system has discarded 6.8 billion litres of milk—worth about $15 billion. This is not just mismanagement, it’s a policy failure. And inexcusably, the federal government knows how to address rising prices on key food staples but instead turns a blind eye.
Canada’s dairy sector operates under a “supply management” system that controls production through quotas and restricts imports via tariffs. Marketing boards work within this system to manage distribution and set the prices farmers receive. Together, these mechanisms effectively limit competition from both domestic and foreign producers.
This rigid regulated system suppresses competition and efficiency—both are essential for lower prices. Hardest hit are low-income Canadians as they spend a greater share of their income on essentials such as groceries. One estimate ranks Canada as having the sixth-highest milk prices worldwide.
The price gap between the United States and Canada for one litre of milk is around C$1.57. A simple calculation shows that if we could reduce the price gap by half, to $0.79, Canadians would save nearly $1.9 billion annually. And eliminating the price gap would save a family of four $360 a year. There would be further savings if the government also liberalized markets for other dairy products such as cheese, butter and yogurt. These lower costs would make a real difference for millions of Canadians.
Which brings us back to the legislation pending on Parliament Hill. Instead of addressing the high food costs, Ottawa is moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, sponsored by the Bloc Quebecois, has passed the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. If enacted, it would stop Canadian trade negotiators from letting other countries sell more supply-managed products in Canada as part of any future trade deal, effectively increasing protection for Canadian industries and creating another legal barrier to reform. While the governing Liberals hold ultimate responsibility for this bill, all parties to some degree support it.
Supply management is already causing trade friction. The U.S. and New Zealand have filed disputes (under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) accusing Canada of failing to meet its commitments on dairy products. If Canada is found in violation, it could face tariffs or other trade restrictions in unrelated sectors. Dairy was also a sticking point in negotiations with the United Kingdom, leading the British to suspend talks on a free trade deal. The costs of defending supply management could ripple farther than agriculture, hurting other Canadian businesses and driving up consumer costs.
Dairy farmers, of course, have invested heavily in the system, and change could be financially painful. Industry groups including the Dairy Farmers of Canada carry significant political influence, especially in Ontario and Quebec, making it politically costly for any party to propose reforms. The concerns of farmers are valid and must be addressed—but they should not stand in the way of opening up these heavily regulated agricultural sectors. With reasonable financial assistance, a gradual transition could ease the burden. After all, New Zealand, with just 5 million people, managed to deregulate its dairy sector and now exports 95 per cent of its milk to 130 countries. There’s no reason Canada could not do something similar.
Bill C-282 is a flawed piece of legislation. Supply management already hurts the most vulnerable Canadians and is the root cause of two trade disputes that threaten harm to other Canadian industries. If passed, this law will further tie the government’s hands in negotiating future free trade agreements. So, who benefits from it? Certainly not Canadians struggling with food insecurity. The government’s refusal to modernize an outdated inefficient system forces Canadians to pay more for basic food staples. If we continue down this path, the economic damage could spread to other sectors, leaving Canadians to bear an ever-increasing financial burden.
Author:
Agriculture
2024 harvest wrap-up: Minister Sigurdson
As the 2024 growing season comes to a close, Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation RJ Sigurdson issued the following statement:
“While many Albertans were enjoying beautiful fall days with above-average temperatures, farmers were working around the clock to get crops off their fields before the weather turned. I commend their continued dedication to growing quality crops, putting food on tables across the province and around the world.
“Favourable weather conditions in August and early September allowed for a rapid start to harvest, leading to quick and efficient completion.
“The final yield estimates show that while the South, North West and Peace regions were slightly above average, the yields in the Central and North East regions were below average.
“Crop quality for oats and dry peas is currently exceeding the five-year average, with a higher rate of these crops grading in the top two grade categories. In contrast, spring wheat, durum, barley and canola are all grading in the top two grades at rates lower than the five-year average.
“Crop grading is a process that determines the quality of a grain crop based on visual inspection and instrument analysis. Factors like frost damage, colour, moisture content and sprouting all impact grade and affect how the grain will perform during processing or how the end product will turn out. Alberta generally produces high-quality crops.
“Farmers faced many challenges over the last few years and, for some areas of the province, 2024 was a difficult growing season. But Alberta producers are innovative and resilient. They work constantly to meet challenges head-on and drive sustainable growth in our agricultural sector.
“Alberta farmers help feed the world, and I’m proud of the reputation for safe, high-quality agricultural products that this industry has built for itself. Thank you to our producers, and congratulations on another successful harvest!”
-
Business1 day ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
ESG23 hours ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Daily Caller22 hours ago
Los Angeles Passes ‘Sanctuary City’ Ordinance In Wake Of Trump’s Deportation Plan
-
John Stossel21 hours ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
COVID-192 days ago
Dr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market
-
Business2 days ago
Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
-
MAiD1 day ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data