• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trudeau 2030

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    $350/tonne carbon tax on oil and gas producers coming soon to western Canada. How is that not scary. I still want my $100/acre for carbon sequestration

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by GDR View Post
      Really not that scary or life altering for any of us.
      Why does Trudeau want to confiscate 17% of Canadas land mass in the name of environmental protection?

      JHC the entire country is rocks, ice, water and trees. How much more environmental is grabbing land going to get us? Only 4% of the country is actual arable habitable land. I would bet he is grabbing some of that and not tundra and mountains.

      GDR, the smoke fire analogy is clearly in play here. Trudeau is is the first politician to speak reset, agenda 2030 and build back better in the same speech all while referencing the UN.


      https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-nature-emergency-triple-protected-land-1.5213650 Canada needs to triple the amount of protected land and water to tackle 'nature emergency': report

      It argues Canada must adopt aggressive measures beyond current targets by promising to protect and restore 30 per cent of all the country's land and inland waters by 2030 — about 330 million hectares.

      That proposed goal would almost triple the amount of land currently protected through measures by federal, provincial and Indigenous governments. As of 2019, 11.8 per cent of Canada's land mass had been set aside for conservation.

      But the advocacy group says Canada shouldn't stop at 30 per cent — that it should commit to protecting half the country's landmass from development (including extractive industries like logging and oil and gas) at some point over the next century.
      Last edited by jazz; Nov 15, 2020, 22:44.

      Comment


        #13
        Protecting land? Oh how hypocritical....maybe start around those metropolitan cities....that gobble up land around them instead of making the best possible use of what they've already got covered in concrete and pavement!

        How much under-utilized space is in cities? Empty mall space but new development continues. Some cities are like donuts...an unhealthy doughy mess with a hole in the middle.

        Build up not out. But there is unlimited space and little concern over urban development.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by farmaholic View Post
          Protecting land? Oh how hypocritical....maybe start around those metropolitan cities....that gobble up land around them instead of making the best possible use of what they've already got covered in concrete and pavement!

          How much under-utilized space is in cities? Empty mall space but new development continues. Some cities are like donuts...an unhealthy doughy mess with a hole in the middle.

          Build up not out. But there is unlimited space and little concern over urban development.
          Yes I agree and no more expansion outward when there is plenty of land not used within the city limits. But many times it’s just people wanting to move away from the downtown crime because downtowns were not rejuvenated and kept up so to speak inviting almost gangs etc to take over. Deal with those issues and build up and redo should be imposed on cities.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by jazz View Post
            Why does Trudeau want to confiscate 17% of Canadas land mass in the name of environmental protection?

            JHC the entire country is rocks, ice, water and trees. How much more environmental is grabbing land going to get us? Only 4% of the country is actual arable habitable land. I would bet he is grabbing some of that and not tundra and mountains.

            GDR, the smoke fire analogy is clearly in play here. Trudeau is is the first politician to speak reset, agenda 2030 and build back better in the same speech all while referencing the UN.


            https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-nature-emergency-triple-protected-land-1.5213650 Canada needs to triple the amount of protected land and water to tackle 'nature emergency': report

            It argues Canada must adopt aggressive measures beyond current targets by promising to protect and restore 30 per cent of all the country's land and inland waters by 2030 — about 330 million hectares.

            That proposed goal would almost triple the amount of land currently protected through measures by federal, provincial and Indigenous governments. As of 2019, 11.8 per cent of Canada's land mass had been set aside for conservation.

            But the advocacy group says Canada shouldn't stop at 30 per cent — that it should commit to protecting half the country's landmass from development (including extractive industries like logging and oil and gas) at some point over the next century.
            Why do you choose to prove Chuck, Agstar, Dml and tweety's point over and over again about misleading info? Read your own article you posted! Confiscate? Kind of a trigger word isnt it while the article clearly discusses buying the land which has been going on for a long time, it's not a new concept and your article is old also. It is also not the government buying the land either, granted they have donated money to the cause.

            Personally I think it's great to protect more land from development. How can a farmer not want to see nature prosper it's kinda what we do? Used to be programs in the USA to set aside land for nature and farmers were paid not to produce in an effort to help ag prices. I would rather see a version of that here than cash payments that are often asked for by farmers.

            Comment


              #16
              How can a farmer not want to see nature prosper?

              Well.... I think more people like the idea of helping nature prosper then the execution. Or as long as nature can prosper within their ROI and management decisions. It’s been my observation that very few actually consider nature in their decisions.

              They may think along the lines of “how damaging will this be” but they seem to rarely think “how beneficial could this be”. And even those thoughts have their limits.

              Had a Twitter discussion earlier this year when someone in the Special Areas thought the rain this year proved they could be a very productive area and irrigation would be a good idea for out there. I didn’t like the idea, that would make the Native Prairie there extremely vulnerable to break up. I was told there’s “lots of it” and “not everyone would break it up” and “it’s not a concern” (because there’s still lots of Native Prairie left in areas that can support good crop production?)

              Temperate Grasslands are considered to be the most endangered ecosystem on Earth. Ahead of even the Rainforest and Coral Reefs.

              Does anyone think about that when they buy a new quarter and go out and break it up?

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by Blaithin View Post

                Does anyone think about that when they buy a new quarter and go out and break it up?
                Very little new land is being broken up. Everything not broken in Canada is now either marginal or too far north. They can protect all the boreal forest and mountain climes all they want. Knock yourself out.

                Its when that policy stretches into personal land ownership is the slipper slope. The article says lands that have logging operations and oil and gas. Last time I check a lot of oil and gas is on farmers land.

                Maybe they should protect the urban sprawl around vancouver and Toronto where we are stuffing in an extra million people a year.

                If land is going to be set aside for whatever reason thats a decision canadians get to make, not the UN.
                Last edited by jazz; Nov 16, 2020, 10:51.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Enjoy seeing bush on some of our quarters, it is going to stay as is, had more than enough of picking sticks and stones. Good wood is going to be worth a lot of money, may have to do a little selective harvesting one day.


                  This is for you Blaithin, just a follow of what you had mentioned regarding native grasslands.

                  The Manitoba Tall Grass Prairie Preserve is located in southeastern Manitoba near Gardenton and Vita, this is about 50 kilometres (31 mi) south of Steinbach, Manitoba. It is one of the last remaining stands of tallgrass prairie in Manitoba and is part of the Tallgrass Aspen Parkland conservation area in Manitoba and Minnesota.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Maybe where you are very little is being broken.

                    Go where there’s still stuff to break and there’s lots being done. Especially the last couple of years.

                    Theres a map of Alberta, can’t remember who put it out though, that showed quarters of Native left. It’s sad how little is left, but even more so that you can drive and find land that has been broke up since the data was compiled.

                    All I can find is this one http://www.albertapcf.org/native-prairie-inventories/npvi from 1991-1993 however the one I seen was a provincial one. Either way you’re not going to go find the same ratio in that area now.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Every stick standing is being taken out here except on my fields. it’s bad then guys complain their canola blew 20 miles down the road. Lol

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...