*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[GGG]

Double post

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bingo. Should we join them?


I'm not sure what thought process of mine would need changing? I'm not saying Canada shouldn't be compassionate for refugees, it's this target of 100 million and the idea Canada would be better for it.

Water for human use is not a concern. We could desalinate, capture carbon and pipeline it from the ocean to Calgary for personal use. It’s just not a meaningful volume.


If you are anti immigration for environmental reasons then really you are just selfish saying that you get to damage the environment while the other person does not. That person is going to exist regardless of our immigration policy. And if the general correlation between income and pop growth holds you actually reduce population of the world through immigration as the average person is richer.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

Water for human use is not a concern. We could desalinate, capture carbon and pipeline it from the ocean to Calgary for personal use. It’s just not a meaningful volume.


If you are anti immigration for environmental reasons then really you are just selfish saying that you get to damage the environment while the other person does not. That person is going to exist regardless of our immigration policy. And if the general correlation between income and pop growth holds you actually reduce population of the world through immigration as the average person is richer.

There's some flawed logic here. Canada has lots of untouched nature that other countries don't have. If you have a person moving from Madrid to Canada, they are potentially harming Canada's nature without helping Spain's.

Canada's current plan is to increase the population to 100 million people. An extra 60 million people is definitely going to strain the environment.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

@Bizaro86 I mean, if we are talking about immigration for ethics...


Mostly I think a lot more thought needs to be put into it than we do.

We're not really talking about immigration for ethics, because beyond a small portion of refugees, the stated goal of Canada's immigration policy is to prop up our public service entitlements... We're not doing this out of the goodness of our hearts; we need these people to help foot the bill. Hardly altruistic.

As for the second part - yup.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's some flawed logic here. Canada has lots of untouched nature that other countries don't have. If you have a person moving from Madrid to Canada, they are potentially harming Canada's nature without helping Spain's.

Canada's current plan is to increase the population to 100 million people. An extra 60 million people is definitely going to strain the environment.

It does depend on each country’s relative footprint which due to climate we are worse. But certainly you are helping spains environment by removing a person at the same abstract level that adding one to Canadas is harming it.

None of the area being populated in Canada is untouched. It’s farmland.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

It does depend on each country’s relative footprint which due to climate we are worse. But certainly you are helping spains environment by removing a person at the same abstract level that adding one to Canadas is harming it.

None of the area being populated in Canada is untouched. It’s farmland.

What countries have both a bunch of undeveloped land and a similar footprint to Canada though? If people are coming from places like India or China to Canada, you're multiplying their footprint several times. If they are coming from Europe, you're subtracting from a developed place with a naturally falling population and forcing more development in Canada.

If Canada loses too much of it's farmland, it's going to have to cut down more undeveloped land to create more garland.

[chemgear]

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/i-can-t-a...away-1.6479169

'I can't afford food': Thousands of Calgarians seek help at produce giveaway

Thursday brought with it proof thousands of Calgarians are struggling under the weight of rising inflation, a housing crisis and high interest rates.

More than 3,000 people turned up to a free vegetable and fruit pick-up event in the northeast.

Some say without help, they won't be able to feed themselves much longer.

"What we're seeing is a pretty significant increase in the number of individuals working who can't make ends meet," said Melissa From, Calgary Food Bank president and CEO.

"I don't have the data for the month of June at hand, but when I look at the month of May, (it's) a 52 per cent increase in the number of households that we provided food for from 2022 to 2023.

"The demand is just up so much, it's hard to know how to state it without sounding alarmist."

[Azure]

I have zero issue with immigration. I can trace my family back to the early 1900s being given free land by the government in exchange for farming and developing it. I know things are different now, but they endured many hardships as well to build up this country.

The issue I see now is that nobody is prepared or has any idea on how to correctly handle the influx of immigrants, and the corporate greed is manipulating the TFW program to bring in low cost workers that just makes a bigger mess of everything.

If we want to continue bringing in so many people, cities, towns, etc need to have a proper plan on how to handle it. You can't just keep building urban sprawl and not develop the infrastructure around it.

Many Canadians will agree. We ALREADY have a crappy health care system, each province is ALREADY deficit spending and can't reduce, food prices are ALREADY high, there is ALREADY a massive housing shortage, we ALREADY struggle building massive renewable energy projects etc, etc. Like how do we expect to handle more people?

Sure, public transit would help, but we clearly don't have the capabilities that a country like South Korea has when it comes to handling a big population in a small area. We just suck at it, and our mindset is clearly still stuck on 'this is my corner, stay away.'

Also, more immigration into big cities means more 2nd generation Canadians will want to move to rural / smaller communities because they don't want to deal with the rat race anymore. And then those small communities have no clue how to handle that. I work in the home building industry, and planning boards are the worst. "Oh you have engineered drawings? Let me just delay that project for another 6 months because you forgot to make 223 designated parking spots for your 35,000 square foot building."

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

It does depend on each country’s relative footprint which due to climate we are worse. But certainly you are helping spains environment by removing a person at the same abstract level that adding one to Canadas is harming it.

None of the area being populated in Canada is untouched. It’s farmland.

Canmore says hi. So does Ricardo Ranch.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1561524095778377729

Not all farmland. And besides, why does it matter if it is already touched? Altering land use from farmland to residential or industrial has drastic consequences and is a loss for nature.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The thing that makes no sense about Ricardo Ranch is that Seton is largely empty. Like it's just a bunch of empty fields, for the most part, that look like they're supposed to contain high density (or... something) but don't.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Canmore says hi. So does Ricardo Ranch.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1561524095778377729

Not all farmland. And besides, why does it matter if it is already touched? Altering land use from farmland to residential or industrial has drastic consequences and is a loss for nature.

It doesn’t have drastic consequences. You are conflating the impact from a person existing with where that person exists. I totally agree the impact of the person existing has real impacts that’s are measurable.

We also control where development occurs. The person being added doesn’t need to be added to Canmore. We could have zero land expansion and double population if we chose to.

[CliffFletcher]

If we’re talking about the moral dimensions of immigration, what’s the calculus of importing trained doctors, nurses, and engineers from less developed countries where that human capital is more scarce than in Canada?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we’re talking about the moral dimensions of immigration, what’s the calculus of importing trained doctors, nurses, and engineers from less developed countries where that human capital is more scarce than in Canada?

I don't know but have to factor in the health of CalgaryPuck. If we can't complain about health care in Canada, that's a big hit to the off-topic forum.

[PeteMoss]

Protect nature has a whiff of Nimby-ism. We are implicitly fine with nature being destroyed for where we live now since I assume most of us aren't living mega high rises that hold 1000s of people in a small net area.

I do agree we shouldn't build outward endlessly when its not needed but that's more because its inefficient to service and requires more driving, etc rather than worrying about a turtle. Not that I don't like turtles, but we crushed endless turtles for my neighbourhood to exist so hard for me to say - no more turtle killing for the new neighbourhood.

[Fuzz]

But at some point there are no more turtles. So if you value turtles, you have to make a decision to protect them. So at some point between zero development and develop everything, there is a stopping point. I think we have reached that for many species, and if we don't discuss and plan for these things, we'll have no more turtles before we realize what's happened.

[DoubleF]

That's why I said proactive and finding a new way to do things more sustainably. Copying what was done before is not a good option because it can be done better and probably more effectively if done earlier with good planning.

[Mr.Coffee]

You’re going to have to excuse me while I call bull#### on protecting nature in a country the size of Canada as to why we can’t develop new places.

Sorry, I think there is space. It’s actually a ludicrous argument, really.

You know how we drive for hours on end going over 100kph and barely make a dent on track across the country? Yeah, there’s some room out there to build new places. It’s quintessential NIMBYism. It’s also what’s wrong with Canadians current view at large with hating anything and everything to do with any development, and in the long run will only make quality of life worse for Canadians (and immigrants).

[Fuzz]

It's really not. Go to the mountains and then imagine all the negative impacts on animals with 3x as many people traipsing around. For starters you'd need more highway lanes, more vehicles cause more negative interactions. Most places in the parks are already overcrowded. Add in increased train transport and it becomes a major barrier to wildlife movement.

I've already mentioned water stresses, which are not bull#### at all, go do some reading on that. Scientists have been sounding alarm bells on that for years.

Then you have increased resource demand, much more land for solar and wind, let alone more gas for electricity, more waste generation and on and on.

All you have to do is travel this province with an eye to our affect on the environment and you aren't going to notice many places undisturbed.

[CliffFletcher]

If it’s selfish NIMBYism to not want the parks and natural areas you enjoy to become overcrowded, then the vast majority of people are selfish NIMBYs. I don’t think it’s shameful to admit that you enjoyed the mountain parks more 30 years ago when you could easily get a camp site and there were far fewer people on the trails than today. And that you don’t welcome the prospect of parks and other natural areas getting even more developed and crowded in the future.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If it’s selfish NIMBYism to not want the parks and natural areas you enjoy to become overcrowded, then the vast majority of people are selfish NIMBYs. I don’t think it’s shameful to admit that you enjoyed the mountain parks more 30 years ago when you could easily get a camp site and there were far fewer people on the trails than today. And that you don’t welcome the prospect of parks and other natural areas getting even more developed and crowded in the future.

People and selfish and hypocrites ? You’ve cracked the code !