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.
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?
I agree and I think there is large amounts for existing cities to grow even here in Vancouver. The area south of Richmond all the way to the US border can be densified. Winnipeg could easily support up to 5 million people like I said in another post. Toronto area could be 20 million.
I agree and I think there is large amounts for existing cities to grow even here in Vancouver. The area south of Richmond all the way to the US border can be densified. Winnipeg could easily support up to 5 million people like I said in another post. Toronto area could be 20 million.
The GTA has loads of opportunity to densify. It may be dense by Canamerican standards but not by Asian/European or S.A standards. Anyway If the objective is to simply house more people than I think there are smarter ways of doing it Deneb - including in places that already have the flesh and bones in place.
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 don't think these water pipelines would damage things nearly as much as you think. Do you have any idea how much water there is in Northern Canada? We could easily supply most of the world with fresh water in theory and have enough left over. By only supplying a few tens of millions through pipelines, we'd barely make a dent.
Look at it this way, how many millions live around and draw from the great lakes and they are not in danger of drying up anytime soon and there is far more water in Northern Canada than all the great lakes combined. I also don't think water will cost $40 a barrel if delivered through a pipeline. It will be much much cheaper than that as water filtration is far cheaper than oil extraction.
I agree and I think there is large amounts for existing cities to grow even here in Vancouver. The area south of Richmond all the way to the US border can be densified. Winnipeg could easily support up to 5 million people like I said in another post. Toronto area could be 20 million.
Ain't never going to happen. That area is protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve protection acts, as is the Fraser Valley and some other parts of BC. The designated ALR's everywhere in British Columbia are all vital to BC's import/export ag economy and cannot / will not be developed for anything except increasing agriculture.
Why do you suppose it's all farmlands, vinyards, orchards, dairy lands and commercial greenhouses? Did you think they were all gentleman hobby farmers just playing on their land for the fun of it?
I don't think these water pipelines would damage things nearly as much as you think. Do you have any idea how much water there is in Northern Canada? We could easily supply most of the world with fresh water in theory and have enough left over. By only supplying a few tens of millions through pipelines, we'd barely make a dent.
Look at it this way, how many millions live around and draw from the great lakes and they are not in danger of drying up anytime soon and there is far more water in Northern Canada than all the great lakes combined. I also don't think water will cost $40 a barrel if delivered through a pipeline. It will be much much cheaper than that as water filtration is far cheaper than oil extraction.
Do you know where all that water comes from? Do you know how it gets replenished every year? It doesn't come from the ground, you do know that, right?
Ain't never going to happen. That area is protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve protection acts, as is the Fraser Valley and some other parts of BC. The designated ALR's everywhere in British Columbia are all vital to BC's import/export ag economy and cannot / will not be developed for anything except increasing agriculture.
Why do you suppose it's all farmlands, vinyards, orchards, dairy lands and commercial greenhouses? Did you think they were all gentleman hobby farmers just playing on their land for the fun of it?
I never said any of this would happen and said so before. I just think it would be nice to welcome more people in this country. The amount of farmland that exists in the lower mainland is very tiny compared to other areas in the province and I think it can be used for housing.
I never said any of this would happen and said so before. I just think it would be nice to welcome more people in this country. The amount of farmland that exists in the lower mainland is very tiny compared to other areas in the province and I think it can be used for housing.
Canada is welcoming more people into the country.
The amount of farmland that exists in the lower mainland may be tiny by comparison with the size of the whole province but it is all vital to BC's economy as farmland because the Fraser Basin is the only truly fertile delta region in the province. None of the other land anywhere in BC has the right kind of fertile soil or appropriate topography or climate suitable for large scale agriculture.
You know, I have to say the title of this topic "Culture Cringe" is appropriate because I am cringing with shock in discovering how little, as a Canadian, you actually know about the true nature of the land and its resources in this northern part of the continent that we call Canada. I hope you aren't representative of the knowledge of most Canadians about this land because if you are then this nation is doomed.
Seriously, before you go promoting bringing more people and infrastructure to Canada you need to study up and learn what Canada actually is, how the land got to be the way it is and how the environment functions.
The amount of farmland that exists in the lower mainland may be tiny by comparison with the size of the whole province but it is all vital to BC's economy as farmland because the Fraser Basin is the only truly fertile delta region in the province. None of the other land anywhere in BC has the right kind of fertile soil or appropriate topography or climate suitable for large scale agriculture.
You know, I have to say the title of this topic "Culture Cringe" is appropriate because I am cringing with shock in discovering how little, as a Canadian, you actually know about the true nature of the land and its resources in this northern part of the continent that we call Canada. I hope you aren't representative of the knowledge of most Canadians about this land because if you are then this nation is doomed.
Seriously, before you go promoting bringing more people and infrastructure to Canada you need to study up and learn what Canada actually is, how the land got to be the way it is and how the environment functions.
.
I understand fairly well how things work in Canada. I just don't agree with many ways things are done here. Nobody has to agree with me but I'm entitled to my opinion.
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.
.
Somebody quoted an article above, but these are anticipated benefits that have not been mentioned:
1. Summer round ice free Northwest Passage. This will be a boon to shipping industries. The Canadian Government has expressed an interest in "monitoring" the Northwest Passage, it will require more personnel up there and I suspect an eventual road to service the area. It is estimated that the NW Passage shipping will be much preferred to the Panama Canal shipping as it shaves hundreds of miles off the distance.
2. More easily accessible minerals.
3. Longer growing season. This is already being felt in southern Manitoba where corn is now a viable crop instead of wheat. Wheat will be able to be grown further north. Soybeans will also be a viable crop in southern Manitoba. Vancouver area will have a Mediterranean instead of Oceanic climate which means there will be a Central Valley of sorts along the West Coast with vineyards and every crop under the sun capable of being grown.
4. Less need for heating oil/natural gas as the winter will be warming.
5. Plentiful water supply in the north, more droughts in the south so a lot of population will be forced north.
There are many other but these are some salient points.
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.
By your logic we should have never developed Ft. McMurray or Sept-Iles, eh?
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.
