Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[puffnstuff]

But if you cut down the giant old growth trees, you can sell huge slabs so some rich **** can have an unnecessarily large live edge table.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Alright, lets do this...

Trudeau is totally Neelix. Friendly, talks too much, really has no discernable skills, and wears on you after a time. Usually successful by accident.

Freeland will be Kes. Could be powerful on her own, but really stuck on Neelix and only really good after she separates from him.

PP is Lon Suder. Mild Mannered, seems to be intelligent and focused, but really just a psyco under it all.

Jagmeet is a Harry Kim. Totally wants to do good and be the guy.. still an ensign.

Blanchet as Joe Carey. Good enough to do the job but nothing special or flashy

And for fun lets add Danielle Smith in as Seska. Thinks she's all that, and tries to use TBA (The Kazon) but instead ends up being used by them.

Finally Nenshi as the Doctor. Full of himself and thinks he is the smartest person in the room. He usually is, but his bedside manner could use some work.

Good work sir! Top shelf stuff!

[CliffFletcher]

Trudeau’s government ####ed up badly on housing and immigration. They’ll likely get swept out of power over it.

But the conspiracy theorists are out to lunch. Trudeau isn’t a party to some globalist scheme to subvert Canada to a nefarious socialist agenda. His government fell prey to what has become the default mode of governing in this country: easy-way-out-ism.

Worsening dependency ratio in an aging population putting a strain on the delivery of health care and pensions? We could have difficult conversations about taxes, retirement age, and reforming the health care system. Or we could just kick the can down the road by importing loads of working-age citizens to fatten the base of the demographic pyramid.

Universities struggle to keep tuition low because we’ve told everyone they need to go to university to have a decent life, but we cut post-secondary funding in favour of other spending priorities (mainly health care)? We could have difficult conversations about credentialism, taxes (again), or why universities still operate on the same model they did 120 years ago. Or we could just look the other way when universities massively ramp up international enrolment as a way to juice revenue.

Productivity and investment in the private sector lagging behind our peer countries? We could challenge Canadian businesses to up their game, while reforming the tangle of regulatory costs that undermine their efforts. Or we could just paper over their weakness by importing loads of low-skilled workers to keep costs down.

The Liberals couldn’t resist going full-throttle on immigration because it temporarily salves over several chronic issues that Canadian governments don’t have the stomach to grapple with. The problem is, it inflamed the uber-problem of housing affordability.

I do have some sympathy for them, though. Just look at what happened when they tried to mitigate their relentless spending increases with higher taxes on the wealthy. When people saw what the threshhold was, and that it would affect highly paid professionals like doctors, the response was ”No, not THOSE wealthy!”

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blender

Not one of the 10 billion trees planted has grown into the equivalent of an old growth tree, and most likely never will. Old growth forests aren't replaceable. They are are a unique and interdependent ecosystem.

My point was that there an adequate amount of trees being planted that can be harvested, and there is zero reason to touch old growth forests outside of managing the environment to keep it healthy.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We could have difficult conversations about taxes, retirement age, and reforming the health care system.

One of the first things Trudeau did was kneecap the retirement system even more by lowering the OAS age back to 65 from the previous plan to slowly raise it to 67 over time.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blender

Not one of the 10 billion trees planted has grown into the equivalent of an old growth tree, and most likely never will. Old growth forests aren't replaceable. They are are a unique and interdependent ecosystem.

That's what he was saying - you can cut down the new trees for all the wood we need. A mono-culture pine forest is very replaceable - old growth rain forest not so much.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Azure

My point was that there an adequate amount of trees being planted that can be harvested, and there is zero reason to touch old growth forests outside of managing the environment to keep it healthy.

I understand it, but my point is that the trees being planted are not harvestable for timber. Good timber trees take a century to grow in Canada's climate. They are not a substitute for old-growth timber. Old-growth timber is a non-renewable resource

From 1999 to 2007 I planted a million of those seedlings. I also brushed, spaced, pruned and fertilized a bunch of them, and let me tell you, a ten-year old replanted tree is a sorry-ass Charlie Brown Christmas tree. Mortality is high as well. I don't know the numbers but a healthy portion of those Billion trees are not alive today.

I also planted a hundred thousand or so in Australia. There's a place to grow trees for harvest! A Eucalyptus tree can be 30m tall in 20 years. I drove through pine plantations there and also in South Africa that were impressive. But here, it just isn't possible to create timber trees on a timeline that is economical.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blender

I understand it, but my point is that the trees being planted are not harvestable for timber. Good timber trees take a century to grow in Canada's climate. They are not a substitute for old-growth timber. Old-growth timber is a non-renewable resource

From 1999 to 2007 I planted a million of those seedlings. I also brushed, spaced, pruned and fertilized a bunch of them, and let me tell you, a ten-year old replanted tree is a sorry-ass Charlie Brown Christmas tree. Mortality is high as well. I don't know the numbers but a healthy portion of those Billion trees are not alive today.

I also planted a hundred thousand or so in Australia. There's a place to grow trees for harvest! A Eucalyptus tree can be 30m tall in 20 years. I drove through pine plantations there and also in South Africa that were impressive. But here, it just isn't possible to create timber trees on a timeline that is economical.

Something like a white pine can grow 50cm a year. Timbre companies replant with plans to harvest in 40 or so years, from what I recall. Done properly, it can be a sustainable industry on long scale harvest cycles.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Something like a white pine can grow 50cm a year. Timbre companies replant with plans to harvest in 40 or so years, from what I recall. Done properly, it can be a sustainable industry on long scale harvest cycles.

Harvest for pulp or chip products, small dimensional lumber or plywood, maybe.
But don't kid yourself. You can't regrow big timber, and that is what old-growth logging is all about.