|
jsoh posted:cool alberta ohs thing: i was working in bc and i told someone there about how in alberta scaffolds must be inspected by a qualified person once every 21 days and they did a spit take because in bc its every single day in both provinces that inspection amounts to someone with a lot of training and experience reading the tag then signing it
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:Non-farm family businesses have to follow the rules. This is "I want to raise my kids exactly like how I was raised, 21st century be damned." I'm just discussing certain elements, not all of them (and I suspect the law doesn't even actually prohibit them), so I don't know why everyone suddenly felt the need to jump down my throat. There's nothing wrong with involving your child in certain elements of your profession, from time to time, provided it is safe to do so. This is true of every profession, including farming. I'm inclined to think that having a kid ride along on a tractor isn't putting that child in a great deal of danger. Allowing a 10 year old to operate the tractor or a forklift, on the other hand, is dangerous and should be prohibited. It's my belief that these alarmist lists of newly-proscribed actions are nonsense to distract from the fact they don't want to behave like every other industry, but I would like to see each one actually addressed by someone who's read the law and knows the truth of the matter. Is that so unreasonable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Personally I would like to acreet all the world's biomass into giant reactors that can be fed out as a fermented nutrient paste. Once agriculture is gone and the forests are down, the barren land is open for strip mining/the creation of underground habitats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
If your kid couldn't do it at any other workplace then they shouldn't be allowed to do it at the one you own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
flashman posted:If your kid couldn't do it at any other workplace then they shouldn't be allowed to do it at the one you own. I agree, I'm just saying that "taking your kid on the tractor with you" is like a trucker taking their kid on a ride with them. The danger seems minimal, and I don't expect it is actually prohibited, I'd just like it to be clarified so these whiners can get called on their bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I agree, I'm just saying that "taking your kid on the tractor with you" is like a trucker taking their kid on a ride with them. The danger seems minimal, and I don't expect it is actually prohibited, I'd just like it to be clarified so these whiners can get called on their bullshit. This will likely manifest as a liability thing rather than a "don't loving do it" thing where there are actual checks. Like that family that killed it's daughters in soybeans, currently I don't this they were criminally liable? Now it's a workplace H&S thing so the family will be held responsible for it. Which should help convince parents about precautions worth taking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Humans have been curating the land for thousands and thousands of years, even before agriculture. It's usually a good deal for both us and the land! I don't know how you can say that humans have had a net positive effect on the land but I'll bite and ask what exactly you mean by it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Humans have been curating the land for thousands and thousands of years, even before agriculture. It's usually a good deal for both us and the land! Or I was making a simple post because I was tired, but you want to be a dick about it, sure. I believe that the vast majority of farmland should go back to forests, grasslands and the such. I think that we will soon have the capabilities to feed ourselves without have to harvest it miles from urban places, thus saving on transportation costs, waste due to spoilage as well as better distribution methods. I believe that this will be a net gain for the planet and humanity as well. Please go in to tell me how using vast swaths of land for food stuffs for our needs is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Eej posted:I don't know how you can say that humans have had a net positive effect on the land but I'll bite and ask what exactly you mean by it. He is being willfully dense and disregarding all the fun side effects that come from modern farming. The American midwest becoming a barren desert is a thing that is already happening because of climate change and extremely abusive farming practices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Humans have been curating the land for thousands and thousands of years, even before agriculture. It's usually a good deal for both us and the land! Traditional farming is more resource intensive and land destroying than most other means of land usage. They're also inefficient. Indoor farms are not nearly subjected to the same negative conditions that traditional farming are (such as disease, weather, pests and weeds, etc) so far less money is needed to counteract them. They generally use 70% less water and 90% less fertilizer as they self-contained systems where there's no threat of ground leaching/evaporation. Underground Farming bought an old bomb shelter under London and have converted it to a massive farm that puts out roughly 40K pounds of produce a year. Traditional farms are an archaic notion that needs to go away like print media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-le-pen-canada-refugees-1.3340209 Good, we're pissing off other nation's lovely far-right parties. This is the first step to gradually regaining our international repute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-le-pen-canada-refugees-1.3340209 Pissing off Marine Le Pen is probably a sign that you're doing something extremely good and well-reasoned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-le-pen-canada-refugees-1.3340209 I know this is a cliched comment, but Marine Le Pen being against refugees from Muslim-majority areas is not news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
quote:Marine Le Pen, the controversial leader of France's far-right National Front, is scoffing at Canada's plan to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees with open arms, calling it "madness." Every time these positions are attacked for being racist rather than being simply false, it plays into the right's narrative that they are just telling it like it is, as uncomfortable or politically incorrect as it may seem. Rather the proper response is buried more than halfway down the article: quote:Experts say posing as a refugee would be an inefficient way for a person to enter Canada due to the many security screenings required to be granted asylum. I understand it's not the place of the CBC to craft an appropriate response to these sorts of remarks, but I shudder every time the first response to criticism of admitting refugees is to claim that the remarks are racist. It only convinces these people that their true remarks are being buried as un-PC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:I believe that the vast majority of farmland should go back to forests, grasslands and the such. I think that we will soon have the capabilities to feed ourselves without have to harvest it miles from urban places, thus saving on transportation costs, waste due to spoilage as well as better distribution methods. Stretch Marx posted:Traditional farms are an archaic notion that needs to go away like print media. I think that indoor farming and traditional farming are going to exist alongside each other in the future. In the meantime, catastrophic energy costs are going to keep indoor farms uneconomical and unsustainable for developing countries. PT6A posted:Could we actually get a neutral source fact-checking this? Honestly, it seems like some of those things should probably be allowed, while others should not be. I expect it's alarmist nonsense, but on the off-chance that it's not, will kids really be prohibited from taking part in brandings, or riding on tractors with their parents, or "pasture moves on horseback" (honestly, that sounds like it should be an observation-only thing for most kids and early teens working on farms)? I'm curious how much of this is about legitimately not being able to involve your kids in the family business as is appropriate, and how much of it is about "what do you mean, my free labour pool just went away???" I'm inclined to support the ANDP on this, but I think if this graphic is true, they may have gone a bit too far. Bill 6 is focused on expanding worker's rights for adult farm workers. Frankly, I don't think the child stuff is even relevant. The only child-specific change I can find is one that prevents farmers from taking their kids out of school and putting them to work without approval from a school board director. In the meantime, I doubt the province is going to scour family farms with inspectors looking for 15-year-olds violating regulations. If a task is safe, then the provincial government is never going to get involved in it, but at least now the law protects children if they're ever asked to do something dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Bill 6 is focused on expanding worker's rights for adult farm workers. Frankly, I don't think the child stuff is even relevant. The only child-specific change I can find is one that prevents farmers from taking their kids out of school and putting them to work without approval from a school board director. This is what I figured, I just wanted confirmation. To the rest of you: see how Slim Jim Pickens responded to my post in a helpful fashion instead of making bizarre assumptions that I am against protecting workers? It'd sure be nice if the rest of you could've done that. Was it so hard?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Eej posted:I don't know how you can say that humans have had a net positive effect on the land but I'll bite and ask what exactly you mean by it. The primary concern between us and the land is that it's habitable and comfortable for us. Completely raw nature* has a tendency to be inhospitable to humans, and depending on how far you want to take the whole "humans shouldn't have an impact on the land" that can mean ruling out entirely any wilderness adventures or camping or hiking or whatever. Obviously that's an extreme interpretation but I think the line is murkier than most people assume it is. North America was a pretty great, hospitable, and beautiful place to live when the first Europeans arrived here, and it wasn't because of its raw natural beauty, it was because the people who were already living here had intentionally made it a great place to live. *: If such a thing even exists, really. Even the Amazon has been cultivated and curated by humans long, long before Europeans discovered it and before industrial deforestation began. Excelsiortothemax posted:Please go in to tell me how using vast swaths of land for food stuffs for our needs is good. Furnaceface posted:He is being willfully dense and disregarding all the fun side effects that come from modern farming. The American midwest becoming a barren desert is a thing that is already happening because of climate change and extremely abusive farming practices. Please don't jump to conclusions or assume what I believe. I don't like the results of modern industrial farming (and I despise suburban sprawl) and there's clearly a very pressing need to do something about it. I don't think completely evacuating humans from the countryside is the answer, though. Baronjutter made a sarcastic post about complete evacuation and Excelsior agreed unironically with it, prompting my response. I hope you can see why I responded the way I did. You can see for yourselves by clicking Excelsior's quote and following the chain upwards. Stretch Marx posted:Traditional farming is more resource intensive and land destroying than most other means of land usage. They're also inefficient. Indoor farms are not nearly subjected to the same negative conditions that traditional farming are (such as disease, weather, pests and weeds, etc) so far less money is needed to counteract them. They generally use 70% less water and 90% less fertilizer as they self-contained systems where there's no threat of ground leaching/evaporation. I think indoors farming is a great idea and very necessary for human civilization to continue on, especially if we continue insisting on not regulating our population boom. It's not a contest to see how many people we can sustain at any given point, and I worry that increased efficiency will just lead to more people, leading to a need for further efficiency. It's like the highway problem for traffic congestion. That's not something we can meaningfully effect from talking about it in this thread. I think you're doing a really cool thing with your project out east and I hope you're successful with it. By traditional farming, do you mean the modern intense industrial crop/livestock farming? Are you including family farms and ranches or artisan operations under that? I'd be very sad to see smaller farms go away and everyone relegated to living in megacities with the rare visit to the countryside. We live on Earth, we should act like it. We have a symbiotic relationship with our home, our planet, and increasing the degrees of separation from it is going to lead to further malaise and further apathy about the planet for many (not all) people. Many people find it hard to care about environmental impact when they don't actually get to see it directly destroying what would be their home and land. Loin des yeux, loin du coeur. Full disclosure: I live in a city but I grew up among farmers and hunters (who largely were also conservationists), and I intend to retire to a hobby ranch and raise livestock when I'm old, so that colors my perspective on this. I'm also a strong advocate for nuclear power, I think it's one of the most green possible power sources if we're going to continue on the energy consumption trajectory we're on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is what I figured, I just wanted confirmation. Sorry about that next time we will work harder to sooth the concerns stirred in you by the retarded poster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
What the gently caress is with your attitude? What did I say that so offended you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Brannock posted:The primary concern between us and the land is that it's habitable and comfortable for us. Completely raw nature* has a tendency to be inhospitable to humans, and depending on how far you want to take the whole "humans shouldn't have an impact on the land" that can mean ruling out entirely any wilderness adventures or camping or hiking or whatever. Obviously that's an extreme interpretation but I think the line is murkier than most people assume it is. Okay I can see this from the anthropocentric point of view but I'm not seeing how this has been a net positive "good deal" for the land. Even in the conservationally minded 21st century, a relatively mundane issue like overgrazing (as opposed to something more spectacular, like an oil spill) can have negative repercussions for the land. The only time the land benefits is when humans go out of their way to do less to it. I'm not saying we should all live in arcologies that blast off into orbit around the Earth so we can marvel at the natural beauty of the planet we came from at a distance but humans haven't exactly done the natural world a favour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:He is being willfully dense and disregarding all the fun side effects that come from modern farming. The American midwest becoming a barren desert is a thing that is already happening because of climate change and extremely abusive farming practices. Dust Bowl 2: Dust in the Wind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Brannock posted:
I agree that the human population is an issue, but that's better regulated by birth control than limiting food. In a market economy, theoretically, if we control the population through sexual protection then an increase of food production efficiency means cheaper food for all who exist already. Also, thank you.  quote:By traditional farming, do you mean the modern intense industrial crop/livestock farming? Are you including family farms and ranches or artisan operations under that? I'd be very sad to see smaller farms go away and everyone relegated to living in megacities with the rare visit to the countryside. We live on Earth, we should act like it. We have a symbiotic relationship with our home, our planet, and increasing the degrees of separation from it is going to lead to further malaise and further apathy about the planet for many (not all) people. To be honest with you, I would personally prefer that every citizen convert one of their lawns into a vegetable garden. If everyone was supplying themselves with their vegetables, the price of them would bottom out. Part of my project is to create a more contained hydroponics rig that would maximize the amount of plants versus available space. I think my test bed rig design should be able to handle about 10 to 12 plants in a space that's 4 feet wide, 2 feet deep, and roughly 5 or so feet tall using LED lights. I'd honestly prefer everyone have one of those in their homes and just produce food year round for themselves. But we wouldn't need farms if people thought that way. But to answer the question, livestock farming is a horrible contributor (personally I think here in NB we should convert some of our cattle land into ostrich as it supposedly tastes basically the same and is far less resource intensive and matures much faster) but even vegetable and fruit farming. It's worse when people are trying to grow certain things outdoors in conditions that don't really allow it to function without tons of care (like Californian almonds). Again, I want to grow more exotic things hydroponically if I can to help break the import leeching. One of the first (if I succeed with my chilies) is to try coffee. quote:Full disclosure: I live in a city but I grew up among farmers and hunters (who largely were also conservationists), and I intend to retire to a hobby ranch and raise livestock when I'm old, so that colors my perspective on this. I'm also a strong advocate for nuclear power, I think it's one of the most green possible power sources if we're going to continue on the energy consumption trajectory we're on. There's a old hippy who lives about a couple hours from here that hosts a music festival on his land for the last few years called Mestival. He's probably 80 or so but knows more about electronics than I'll ever hope to remember. One of the things about this guy though is that his compound is run off 3 small wind turbines and a couple of moveable wheeled solar panels. When the festival's going, he rents a large diesel generator to run on the main stage. If I ever get my farm going, and he's still alive, I'm going to get him to help me wire as much of it to renewable as I can. Saves poo poo loads of money. Stretch Marx fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Turn Alberta into a giant kangaroo farm and shrug off the consequences of introducing an invasive species from Australia as you eat delicious lean red steaks every day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Turn Alberta into a giant kangaroo farm and shrug off the consequences of introducing an invasive species from Australia as you eat delicious lean red steaks every day. Plus! Kangaroo boxing at Stampede! Everybody wins!  
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Alberta already has an ostrich farm, btw. Apparently it's actually easy to get in Europe. I don't see a negative to something that's healthier than beef and pops out eggs big enough to feed a family of four.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Stretch Marx posted:Alberta already has an ostrich farm, btw. Apparently it's actually easy to get in Europe. I don't see a negative to something that's healthier than beef and pops out eggs big enough to feed a family of four. I've had it. The negative is that is tastes like poo poo and has a worse texture than beef. I've not had kangaroo, though. I'd be open to trying that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I've had it. The negative is that is tastes like poo poo and has a worse texture than beef. That's disappointing. Regardless, I agree with trying Kangaroo. Also, I wouldn't mind going into aquaponics eventually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Burger place near me does exotic meat burgers. The kangaroo was very dry and a bit gamey. Also, ask me sometime about my alligator story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
It always comes back to food chat Not that it's a bad thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Kangaroo tastes like strong beef to me. Like, it's quite gamey. It's one of those meats where I didn't really like it the first couple times, but was always close enough that I knew that after a few times I'd like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:It always comes back to food chat Food is one of the basic human needs so it's not that surprising. Eej posted:Okay I can see this from the anthropocentric point of view but I'm not seeing how this has been a net positive "good deal" for the land. Even in the conservationally minded 21st century, a relatively mundane issue like overgrazing (as opposed to something more spectacular, like an oil spill) can have negative repercussions for the land. The only time the land benefits is when humans go out of their way to do less to it. No, you're right, the land doesn't usually 'benefit' (at least in the way that we normally would perceive it) from our influence -- especially not when we take in account ecological disasters from the excesses and carelessness of post-industrial society. At the same time the land isn't a conscious entity that can evaluate whether what happens to it is Good or not, it just keeps on surviving and functioning as an ecological whole the best it can. Even when ecological disasters happen, like the oil spills example, what happens to the land and whether or not it's negative is evaluated entirely from the perspective of human beings, if you get what I mean? Yes, clearly thousands of animals die and it causes shockwaves throughout the entire ecological chain, and we rightly think that's Very Bad, but what does the system do? It adjusts (or not) to the external input and keeps on keeping on. Similarly, when we adjust the natural world to fit our needs and desires better, the land doesn't care either. It just adjusts and adapts to fit the changes caused by the external (ours) input into the system. I rather doubt we could find any animals or plants that weep for Jimmy Carter's eradication of the guinea worm, or for the transformation of raw primeval European and American forests into safe and secure human habitats. Stretch Marx posted:I agree that the human population is an issue, but that's better regulated by birth control than limiting food. In a market economy, theoretically, if we control the population through sexual protection then an increase of food production efficiency means cheaper food for all who exist already. You're welcome, and, oh, definitely, I agree with you on birth control and education availability, and if I implied that population should be regulated by food availability then I messed up badly. That's an awful thing and I hope we aren't restricted by food again. Still, it's hard to not draw a connection between the explosion in post-Industrial food availability and the explosion in population. Vastly improved medicine obviously plays a large and undeniable factor here as well. Stretch Marx posted:To be honest with you, I would personally prefer that every citizen convert one of their lawns into a vegetable garden. If everyone was supplying themselves with their vegetables, the price of them would bottom out. Part of my project is to create a more contained hydroponics rig that would maximize the amount of plants versus available space. I think my test bed rig design should be able to handle about 10 to 12 plants in a space that's 4 feet wide, 2 feet deep, and roughly 5 or so feet tall using LED lights. I'd honestly prefer everyone have one of those in their homes and just produce food year round for themselves. But we wouldn't need farms if people thought that way. I'm not sure, but I think what you suggest may have the opposite effect. (That's not to say I don't think it's a good idea.) If everyone has vegetables available, then there's no incentive at all to industrially grow vegetables, especially at an exorbitantly cheap price. You'd probably instead see a shift towards artisan and heirloom vegetable crops, with a corresponding spike in price. You want the cheap stuff? Pick it from your garden. You want the fancy purple tomatoes for the special dinner? Pay  at the store. Of course, even in a home grow op, I'm not sure it's possible to grow enough food for a typical 4-person family in a small space, and there would still be a need for supplemental food sources, which would provide the incentive to do those mass farming operations... This is something that an economist is probably better qualified to answer than I am. I agree that livestock farming is a big environmental problem, especially as currently practiced. We just simply eat too much meat, and it's becoming more and more of a problem as the population rises and as more societies elevate their living standards to include a regular meat diet. Even more of a problem, livestock farming is taking up a lot of valuable crop land (when it's not a factory operation). This is just plain inefficient! In fact a lot of farming is very inefficient, in the sense that we're forcing the land to produce something that it's not really suited for just simply because we have the technological resources to do so instead of growing crops (and livestock) that are ideal matches for the land. Take a look over in America, at the staggering amounts of water used for Californian agriculture. Surely a good chunk of that water could be conserved if we didn't try to grow things that aren't suitable for the Californian climate? My idea for my hobby ranch is to take advantage of the fact that grazers can easily convert plant matter into food in areas that would otherwise be totally unsuitable for crop farming. Think hilly, rocky areas, or areas with just simply lovely dirt. Highland cattle are very hardy and require comparatively less antibiotics and careful attention and management than your typical meat breeds that have been selected for maximum production and are nearly incapable of surviving on their own or even reproducing without constant human intervention. Highlands are good eatin', too. Of course this is a few decades off so my personal retirement dreams won't affect any of the crises we're facing those days  What does all this have to do with Canada? As climate change is threatening to turn a good chunk of the American South and other similar climate and latitudinal zones into unlivable heat zones, Canada and other northern areas are going to become much more livable and also will need to take up more of the burden of providing food for the human population. Farming and the health of the land are going to be important to Canada's future and global position. I'd like to see farming stay mostly in the hands of actual people (even as much as that's declined the past century) who can pay close and careful attention to their terroir instead of huge corporations who will brute force the soil until it's exhausted and vanishes in dust storms. The attitude that farmers and other rural people should just give up, pack up, and move to a honeycomb hole in the megacity, let the corporations and Technology take care of it is not conductive to what I'd like to see happen this century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Brannock posted:
This is not at all true, actually. Climate change will have dramatic effects on the Canadian grain belt, straining aquifers in the region, and will result in seasons of unpredictable length and harshness in other agricultural areas. Both will act to reduce Canadas contribution to the global foodchain, though by how much remains to be seen. The idea that we'll be farming anything significant in the NWT or Yukon, without significant facilities investment, is a common yet depressingly ignorant understanding of both the fragility of crops and how climate change will impact our future. jsoh posted:cool alberta ohs thing: i was working in bc and i told someone there about how in alberta scaffolds must be inspected by a qualified person once every 21 days and they did a spit take because in bc its every single day Weird, my carpenter friend worked in Calgary for a year and said it was the opposite. Constantly adhering to safety codes that nobody in BC gives a poo poo about, and aghast at the slack way work sites are run out here. Rime fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Canada and other northern areas [...] will need to take up more of the burden of providing food for the human population. what with all that fertile soil that exists in northern Quebec and Ontario
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Rime posted:This is not at all true, actually. Climate change will have dramatic effects on the Canadian grain belt, straining aquifers in the region, and will result in seasons of unpredictable length and harshness in other agricultural areas. Both will act to reduce Canadas contribution to the global foodchain, though by how much remains to be seen. Upon a hour's reflection, I was too strident in my denouncement of big technology, and your post shows part of why. We've made enormous progress on our understanding of soil systems as well as our ability to work it and enrich it. Automated machinery will do a much better and more consistent job of regulating the growth of crops and keeping them healthy than soft and irregular humans. Though, I think they'll still need to be adjusted and calibrated to each unique farm plot. How will the effects of climate change on Canada compare to other agricultural nations? America is going to be smacked pretty hard. I don't know how much it'll affect Europe, Africa, or South America, I'm not nearly as familiar with those areas -- much less Asia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
It's a pain in the dick to increase soil composition and organic matter. Robots can't do much to make sand not be sand.quote:The Shield is mostly, but not entirely, unsuitable for agriculture. The podzolic soils in this northern region are extremely thin and low in fertility, but are still sufficient enough to support boreal forests. There are only a few areas, such as the clay belts in northeastern Ontario or the Rainy River area in the northwest, where enough farming is possible to create the impression of an agricultural landscape. Clay belt will be nice but it's a mistake to think people don't farm up north just because of the temperature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
There are few things that make me want to become an axe-killer more than talk about how Vancouver will have bananas and palm trees and we will just start farming Nunavut when climate change happens, so nbd .
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:There are few things that make me want to become an axe-killer more than talk about how Vancouver will have bananas and palm trees and we will just start farming Nunavut when climate change happens, so nbd No one has said this. edit: in this thread, at least. I can't speak for how much more ignorant people are when you run into them in real life. Brannock fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:There are few things that make me want to become an axe-killer more than talk about how Vancouver will have bananas and palm trees and we will just start farming Nunavut when climate change happens, so nbd I also used to hear a lot about vast, arctic shipping trade routes opening up and international trading hubs being built when the "poles melt." Which don't really hold up to a few minutes of scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
If there's one good thing about Ikantski's non-stop Wynne posting it's that it's keeping Lowtax's lights on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
