Do you have a link to or remember where you read this? I'd be curious to see their reasoning for why climate change would disproportionately affect poorer farmers.
When I think of poor and/or communal (ie small acre) farms, India comes to mind. The farms in India are extremely small (2.5ac on average, as opposed to 800ac on average in Canada), and they are extremely poor. This is not due to poor growing conditions or under-production though, but rather over-production resulting in over-supply (India has more than quadrupled their crop production since 1950). They are setting production records every other year, so climate change certainly hasn't had a negative impact on their yields either.
I'll take a look around because it's been a while since I studied this stuff, but I'm pretty sure it was in a book or paper I read in university. One thing I remember reading was I think in Tuvalu, where they talked about how rising sea levels were causing salt water to contaminate their fresh water aquifers making it very difficult to maintain their crops.
EDIT: It was definitely in this book, which I obviously don't expect you to read, but some of the scenarios and implications the author wrote about from a legal/policy perspective were pretty interesting.
From what I gather, the climate change we are in store for will be rather devastating and nothing like what we've seen so far. Technology has helped us to grow more and more food but the world in 20 years, supposedly, is going to be far far different from what we know now.
I hope they're wrong. I don't want my kids to live in a wasteland. But hoping something is wrong shouldn't cloud our judgement on the dire situation we may find ourselves in. In these studies a lot of problems are things like runaway heating from permafrost melting, and disease and famine caused by insects that are restricted now in where they can go and the seasons they can spread/breed.
Oh jeez, I can't remember. He was talking about CO2 levels and my bull#### meter was going off so I fact checked. He was wrong.
I think you're talking about Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace. He's an advocate for nuclear and he quite enjoys dispelling the BS scare tactics that the lunatic fringe of the enviro movement use. Such as humanity being on the brink of extinction, that some seriously low IQ people are starting to believe and regurgitate.
No names in the description so you would have to listen. He was quite blustery, and apparently quite wrong.
I think it is this guy:
Steve Larke, energy analyst
I must have missed that, so I guess there's no point in answering my question, as I'd have no reply.
Regardless, Smith's show is pretty good for the most part. She's entirely interested in getting Alberta on track, but also alternative and green energy, and the pros, cons, truth, and lies. I know that QR has a reputation around these parts (CP) as some kind of Fox News equivalent, so I'm sure many have already stopped reading my post, but she's worth listening to.
Canada will be one of the few countries that benefits from climate change. We'll get a longer growing season and more arable farm land.
Water will become a very profitable commodity. Unfortunately that will require new pipelines to be built which might limit our ability to capitalize on this valuable resource. However, if we are able to build the needed infrastructure we are in a unique position to capitalize on the unquenchable thirst of the world.
Climate refugees will unfortunately become a world wide epidemic. Canada will be one of the most attractive destinations. More people = larger economy right?
All in all Canada is a pretty great place to be in a warmer world. Personally I don't think we should be fighting against it so hard. We definitely shouldn't be a "world leader" in the fight against climate change when we're one of the countries that will benefit the most. Why does this country fight against it's own interests? Canada shouldn't be making itself less competitive on the world stage with increased regulatory hurdles. We definitely shouldn't be making the lives of Canadians more expensive with increased taxes.
Climate change doesn’t alter our rotation around the sun. Man.
But it does effect the climate. I think strictly speaking he is right, Canada will become more temperate and arable. But he is ignoring a number of issues.
-hail, floods, drought, grass fires... could reek havoc making it hard to know if we will see a net positive.
-Addressing climate change requires collective action, game theory is clear that if we benefit by breaking from the pack others will follow. its pretty strong value statement that you are willing to blow up many world economies for your own benefit.
-Canada is in a good position to take strong action quickly, a relatively small affluent population, concentrated in small regions, gluts of resources, and direct access to US supply chains.
-We have been among the biggest benefactors of the current world economic order, There is no way our population should demand a seat at the G7. Its probably not the best idea to light fires in the lobby when you live in the penthouse.
-In spite of our excellent natural boarders, the climate and migration driven conflicts that are already starting will reach our board someday, if we don't take steps to mitigate these conflicts. Addressing the causes will be much cheaper than joining up with team america world police
-falling 20 years behind in energy technology because we have our heads in the sand is probably a bigger economic risk to Canadians then taxing them on carbon. It is just hard for people to see.
-there are some health impacts to air pollution that will effect us which haven't really been priced into the Canada Benefits model.
I think you're talking about Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace. He's an advocate for nuclear and he quite enjoys dispelling the BS scare tactics that the lunatic fringe of the enviro movement use. Such as humanity being on the brink of extinction, that some seriously low IQ people are starting to believe and regurgitate.
I'd love to hear what he was wrong about.
Here's another perspective regarding Mr.Moore.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Canada will be one of the few countries that benefits from climate change. We'll get a longer growing season and more arable farm land.
Water will become a very profitable commodity. Unfortunately that will require new pipelines to be built which might limit our ability to capitalize on this valuable resource. However, if we are able to build the needed infrastructure we are in a unique position to capitalize on the unquenchable thirst of the world.
Climate refugees will unfortunately become a world wide epidemic. Canada will be one of the most attractive destinations. More people = larger economy right?
All in all Canada is a pretty great place to be in a warmer world. Personally I don't think we should be fighting against it so hard. We definitely shouldn't be a "world leader" in the fight against climate change when we're one of the countries that will benefit the most. Why does this country fight against it's own interests? Canada shouldn't be making itself less competitive on the world stage with increased regulatory hurdles. We definitely shouldn't be making the lives of Canadians more expensive with increased taxes.
That's just like, my opinion man
Question. What happens as the globe warms and the permafrost melts? It's one of the greatest stores of carbon on the planet, and that carbon is going to be released into the atmosphere. The gas released will increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, outstripping what the small plant life will consume and convert to oxygen. The erosion and land mass from the melting around rivers will filter into the oceans and speed up the acidification of those oceans, doing further damage to a major source of food and the big consumer/capture of carbon.
I know that having a warmer climate is appealing to cold Canadians, but understand the environment you live in and the impacts of that change in climate. I would think the air quality Albertans are suffering through would be a learning opportunity of what climate change can do. Maybe I give people way too much credit. That's just like my opinion, man.
The largest cause of GHG emissions in Canada are the huge gas-hog vehicles we insist on driving and the giant energy-sucking homes we insist on living in. If we started making it easier to use alternative transportation and live in more energy efficient neighbourhoods, we would go a long way to reducing our GHG emissions.
Canada will be one of the few countries that benefits from climate change. We'll get a longer growing season and more arable farm land.
Water will become a very profitable commodity. Unfortunately that will require new pipelines to be built which might limit our ability to capitalize on this valuable resource. However, if we are able to build the needed infrastructure we are in a unique position to capitalize on the unquenchable thirst of the world.
Climate refugees will unfortunately become a world wide epidemic. Canada will be one of the most attractive destinations. More people = larger economy right?
All in all Canada is a pretty great place to be in a warmer world. Personally I don't think we should be fighting against it so hard. We definitely shouldn't be a "world leader" in the fight against climate change when we're one of the countries that will benefit the most. Why does this country fight against it's own interests? Canada shouldn't be making itself less competitive on the world stage with increased regulatory hurdles. We definitely shouldn't be making the lives of Canadians more expensive with increased taxes.
That's just like, my opinion man
Then force Canadians to choose different lifestyles. Have a carbon tax, approve energy projects, subsidize public transportation, and change our zoning laws to allow for the construction of more dense neighbourhoods.
Then force Canadians to choose different lifestyles. Have a carbon tax, approve energy projects, subsidize public transportation, and change our zoning laws to allow for the construction of more dense neighbourhoods.
Millenialsn though annoying will save us from climate change assuming as they get older they don't adapt to Boomer lifestyle of excess.
Millennials are living in cities and avoiding suburbs. Less commuting, less sprawl.
Less inclined to own a car. If own car, drive less. If don't own car live urban and ride share. Can walk to most of live necessities (grocery, work, entertainment).
Lifestyles are more in line with being environmentally friendly. Cars, housing, food, clothing, packaging etc.
If millennials continue this we see cities thrive and suburbs die off. Suburbs converting back to farm land to feed nearby cities. Investment in greenhouses that can grown anything in any climate on this converted farm land.