Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This will especially become true if the climate continues to warm. From what I've read, Canada is one of the few countries that will benefit greatly from global warming. Better to get infrastructure in place now, instead of later.
I'd be interested to know what you've read that the anticipated benefits will be. Can you recommend sources you've read that has information explaining how Canada will benefit from global warming? Or can you relate some of what you've read about that?
The climate does continue to change and during the past 5 or 6 years especially it has already caused a lot more environmental and agricultural problems but so far no notable benefits in Canada. Each year has been a little worse than the year before throughout Canada from coast to coast to coast. The droughts in western Canada are taking quite a toll especially now that the snow cover and glaciers in the mountains are disappearing, and the warming has been particularly detrimental to the people and animals living in the Arctic regions.
So, I really want to know what the great benefits of climate change are anticipated to be for Canada. I'm sure a lot of Canadians would like to know.
I understand and mostly agree. Except that several posters said that development was "impossible" because of muskeg or the Canadian Shield. No, there just weren't other reasons to develop those areas. Even if an area is inhospitable, if there is a reason to be there, people will accept the cost and develop there.
You would argue that proves that there was never a reason to develop up there, and that may indeed be true. But then you may miss the point that perhaps now, with modern technologies, remote inaccessible places are not so remote or inaccessible anymore.
.
I'm not saying these areas are impossible just not as practical as areas that are easier to develop and much more sustainable. For a population of only 36 million people - I don't see any rational/logical/financially feasible or sensible explanation for spending resources on completely new settlements in more inhospitable locales.. If Deneb et al are trying to make a business or practical case they are failing miserably.
I will give you a good reason. I have been reading that the Northwest Passage has been open several summers and that it is predicted that it will routinely be ice free every summer by 2020.
Canada has stated that they "own" the waters in the Northwest Passage and ships will be required to "report" to them if they are transiting the passage.
It would seem that Canada would want to build some "monitoring stations" if it intends to be taken seriously.
Also, it may be a good time to start thinking about building a large port on the Northwest Passage. If anything it could be a place for ships to dock and wait out bad weather conditions. In any case, unless you are a global warming denier, a warmer north will mean that a Winnipeg climate will be in Churchill.
As far as Montana, Montana has had relatively robust population growth. It doesn't need my help.
What would be the purpose of a large port in the passage? All your posts seems to be about development simply for the sake ospf having a development. What are you going to ship out of the port or is it just to bring in more people? You did not answer 5he question about the environment and now you wish for our government to spend money on a project that may not be economically feasible, be harmful to the environment and no doubt ignore land claims issues. We can monitor from Inuvik, Tuk, Alert, Resolute Bay, and along the Labrador coast.
I am a physical geographer who has studied pale climates and paleobiogeography. Churchill having Winnipeg s climate may not be good for Churchill in the short and mid term. The flora and fauna do not a just rapidly and the permafrost thawing will cause major obstacles to existing and new development. It is nit as simple as a lille warmer and a better growing season for your garden.
Montana at least the eastern portion is full of dying towns and empty space. You seem to look at maps and tables and want development done based on your shallow understanding of the conditions of a region in cling cultural and political ones. To spend billions building in the north just because there is space is a waste of resources including or especially the resource that is the north with no concerns about the people ot the flora and fauna that is there now.
We do not need your help as it is not help. You just seem th think we should change our country just to change it and not for the better. You have shown that you do not 7nderstand Canada, it's education system, it's First Nations people, the real affects on the North that climate change will bring to it and you think you are offering health.
Do you think that the millions of people you would liketo place in that region would like to have water to drink? I live in that area and it is not considered semi arid without a reason. There is concern that soon there will not be enough for when the glaciers are mostly gone. Towns died in the 20s due to drought, the rivers are small, some summers the South Saskatchewan is so low a canoe becomes run aground and any water storage scheme would be an environmental nightmare. You are proposing destroying the environment, wreck the lifestyle of the current residents and to spend a vast fortune just so you can feel better about helping others. Better and cheaper to aid others where they live now unless it is in a war torn region. The reasons that much of Canada does not have a higher density is because those areas cannot sustain it unless there are resources to extract and resource communities have a limited lifespan. Perhaps send them to Tumbler Ridge, the Kettle Valery ot Trail.
The solution is to build underground pipelines that supply water to the communities from the more well watered areas to the north. Northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan have literally thousands of lakes to draw from. If companies want to spend billions potentially building oil pipelines thousands of kilometres which can severely wreck the environment, then they can certainly build water pipelines which are far less damaging.
But alas.. nothing will ever be done and we'll be left with the status quo. It's sad but I accept it.
I'd be interested to know what you've read that the anticipated benefits will be. Can you recommend sources you've read that has information explaining how Canada will benefit from global warming? Or can you relate some of what you've read about that?
The climate does contine to change and during the past 5 or 6 years especially it has already caused a lot more environmental and agricultural problems but so far no notable benefits in Canada. Each year has been a little worse than the year before throughout Canada from coast to coast to coast. The droughts in western Canada are taking quite a toll especially now that the snow cover and glaciers in the mountains are disappearing, and the warming has been particularly detrimental to the people and animals living in the Arctic regions.
So, I really want to know what the great benefits of climate change are anticipated to be for Canada. I'm sure a lot of Canadians would like to know.
.
Actually its not the first time I've heard that northern countries could actually benefit from global warming over the medium term- not the short term but over the next century or two.. Obviously over the long term we'd all be doomed but over the next century we could be in much better position relationally.
I will give you a good reason. I have been reading that the Northwest Passage has been open several summers and that it is predicted that it will routinely be ice free every summer by 2020.
Canada has stated that they "own" the waters in the Northwest Passage and ships will be required to "report" to them if they are transiting the passage.
It would seem that Canada would want to build some "monitoring stations" if it intends to be taken seriously.
Also, it may be a good time to start thinking about building a large port on the Northwest Passage. If anything it could be a place for ships to dock and wait out bad weather conditions. In any case, unless you are a global warming denier, a warmer north will mean that a Winnipeg climate will be in Churchill.
As far as Montana, Montana has had relatively robust population growth. It doesn't need my help.
Most of Montana s growth is in the recreational areas. What about Judith Gap dropping 23% to only 126 peopke. Advocate to getting a couple of hundred thousand living there, think of that opportunity. Judith Gap needs your help. I wonder if the gas station is still open. The entire High Line is all small towns of hundreds to a thousands but no cities, help the High Line.
The solution is to build underground pipelines that supply water to the communities from the more well watered areas to the north. Northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan have literally thousands of lakes to draw from. If companies want to spend billions potentially building oil pipelines thousands of kilometres which can severely wreck the environment, then they can certainly build water pipelines which are far less damaging.
But alas.. nothing will ever be done and we'll be left with the status quo. It's sad but I accept it.
What is your objective Deneb? To bring millions of immigrants and refugees into the country per year. If that is it why not just invest in cities that are in more sustainable locations.. Its not like we don't have enough room to densify Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Halifax etc etc etc etc.. We could fit 100-200 million more people in already established cities before having to settle a mass number of people in Rankin Inlet. Why are you so horny to develop remote places over existing places where half the job is already done. I don't get your rational/logic at all..
AJ also made a great point before - you create these new super cities in the middle of nowhere and settle people in these places and they decide it is too remote/boring/not established enough and decide to move better located/established cities - well what happens then to all the money you invested in places people don't choose to live and move to places they'd rather live and where investment would have made more sense in the first place?
Actually its not the first time I've heard that northern countries could actually benefit from global warming over the medium term- not the short term but over the next century or two.. Obviously over the long term we'd all be doomed but over the next century we could be in much better position relationally.
I read that. The sole reasons he gives is this, all about energy resources:
"While wreaking havoc on the environment, global warming will liberate a treasure trove of oil, gas, water and other natural resources previously locked in the frozen North, enriching residents and attracting newcomers," said Smith. He continued, “Those resources will become available precisely at a time when natural resources elsewhere are becoming critically depleted, making them all the more valuable."
I don't know when he went trekking through Canada or how he came to these determinations but I disagree with him. Water is going to be one of our greatest most devestating losses.
Global warming means droughts, massive wildfires and deforestation for all of Canada. Just look at what has happened in the west during the past 3 years. Warming in Canada means loss of habitat, loss of natural resources and wildlife including loss of marine and lake resources, massive releases of methane into the atmosphere. To say nothing about cataclysmic weather anomolies that have already started.
All of that has already started happening and now there are deep methane pits and sinkholes opening up throughout all of the Arctic regions in Canada and Russia/Siberia due to permafrost thawing. Warming might liberate a treasure trove of oil and gas but you can't eat or drink oil and gas and it's no good to us if we can't grow anything or run livestock due to drought.
The solution is to build underground pipelines that supply water to the communities from the more well watered areas to the north. Northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan have literally thousands of lakes to draw from. If companies want to spend billions potentially building oil pipelines thousands of kilometres which can severely wreck the environment, then they can certainly build water pipelines which are far less damaging.
But alas.. nothing will ever be done and we'll be left with the status quo. It's sad but I accept it.
So you will pay 40 dollars a barrel for water and devastate the environment of the north of several provinces. There are sound reasons that we avoid InterBase water transfer and once we have pipeline movement of 2ater by corporations will your new cities be able to complete with California?
If you want new large cities why nit a large one on each of the Gulf Islands or build up Bella Coula? Why do you and several others think that we do not need the environment, or food just more and brand new large cities. Land is cheap around Piapot or Robsart, get on and make your pitch on the Dragon's Den .
It's not the status quo you are up against but common sense and patricallity. To put up peopke for the sake of having more peopke you will sacrifice those living there now plus the livihoods of those living in northern SK and MB plus adversely affect the environments at both ends. If people wanted to live here and the area could support that population why are not Brandon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and Brooks not already major cities? If you want an emptier area build your cities south of the Cypress Hills where there is not even a town let alone a city.
You are aware that people use much more water than oil per day and whatever industry these people will be employed by (you were planning on them working at something I hope) would also require water plus other utilities and food. The east coast of Vancouver Island is not totally coveted.
I read that. The sole reasons he gives is this, all about energy resources:
"While wreaking havoc on the environment, global warming will liberate a treasure trove of oil, gas, water and other natural resources previously locked in the frozen North, enriching residents and attracting newcomers," said Smith. He continued, “Those resources will become available precisely at a time when natural resources elsewhere are becoming critically depleted, making them all the more valuable."
I don't know when he went trekking through Canada or how he came to these determinations but I disagree with him. Water is going to be one of our greatest most devestating losses.
Global warming means droughts, massive wildfires and deforestation for all of Canada. Just look at what has happened in the west during the past 3 years. Warming in Canada means loss of habitat, loss of natural resources and wildlife including loss of marine and lake resources, massive releases of methane into the atmosphere. To say nothing about cataclysmic weather anomolies that have already started.
All of that has already started happening and now there are deep methane pits and sinkholes opening up throughout all of the Arctic regions in Canada and Russia/Siberia due to permafrost thawing. Warming might liberate a treasure trove of oil and gas but you can't eat or drink oil and gas and it's no good to us if we can't grow anything or run livestock due to drought.
.
I'm not advocating one way or another other than to say it isn't the first time I've heard that sentiment. I don't think Global warming is in anyone's interest though I think we may have reached the point of no return tbh... Anyway you were looking for a source so that is where people may be getting such sentiment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
