What kind of infrastructure spending would you like to see?

[Francis2004]

" To populate the countryside, we'd have to move people from the cities."- Exactly what I had in mind, you could move 1/2 million people out of the lower mainland (of B.C.) and redistribute them between Cache Creek and Prince Rupert, drastically reducing the need for more infrastructure in the L.M. and without need for much new infrastructure throughout the new location. The smog and pollution in the L.M. would also be greatly reduced.

OK so what Industry will you put in your back yard as most people in those communities are NIMBYs ?

To have that many people live in those communities with no jobs seems pointsless. Why do you think they all live in the Lower Mainland where the bulk of the employment is ?

I would much rather live in a small 200 people town then where I am now but can I get a job that would sustain me as I have today ?

 

[L Gilbert]

Most people don't want to be rural. They like the convenience of citylife. Besides, there are those of us who prefer to be rural so we don't have to deal much with city people.

 

[Francis2004]

Population growth is pure idiocy. Fresh water supply is dwindling as it is. The planet will not be able to feed us indefinitely. All people have done so far environmentally is shoot ourselves in the foot. We have done nothing except crap in our own nest since we evolved. Yeah, plug up Canada with people and watch the environment suffer even more. Brilliant.
Did it ever occur to you that more people means more money must be spent on them and their wants and needs? More people = more roads, more healthcare, more education, etc. less environment, less food, less freshwater, etc.

Update and upgrade what we have and look at what more intelligent countries are doing..

I remember hearing that when I was in primary school that by the 1980's the world would starve..

Then again in the 1980's I remember hearing that by 1990 the world would run out of food..

In the 1990 I heard we would run out of food by 2000 and not reach the Millennium..


In 2008 I heard we would use up all the grain for fuel and that the Earth would starve to fuel our cars..

I am not being sarcastic here but does anyone see a pattern here ?

 

[L Gilbert]

Yes, I see a pattern; people shouldn't suggest years when they make predictions. Increasing world population, decreasing farmland makes for starving people. If we don't starve we'll die of thirst if population keeps growing. Ever look at how much impact human activity has had on the planet's freshwater supply? Notice the Okanagan lately? It used to be one of the world's largest suppliers of apples and fruits. Now what does it have? Grapes for wine and a growing number of gated communities. The lower mainland is growing outwards. That means less farmland. Do the figuring. Dwindling farmland and more & more people means ..... ?

 

[Francis2004]

Yes, I see a pattern; people shouldn't suggest years when they make predictions. Increasing world population, decreasing farmland makes for starving people. If we don't starve we'll die of thirst if population keeps growing. Ever look at how much impact human activity has had on the planet's freshwater supply? Notice the Okanagan lately? It used to be one of the world's largest suppliers of apples and fruits. Now what does it have? Grapes for wine and a growing number of gated communities. The lower mainland is growing outwards. That means less farmland. Do the figuring. Dwindling farmland and more & more people means ..... ?

Well I do know the Okanagan has dropped a lot of fruit trees but as I recall a lot of that has a lot to do with [FONT=&quot]vineyards[/FONT] and the value of making wine..

I cannot disagree that fresh water is going down in parts of the world and that food supplies will get more tight. I think Climate Change / Pollution will not help certain regions of the world that's for sure..

I guess we are due to a WWIII to lower the population back down and get the world economies back in order.. Who cares about deficits / debt if it solves two other major factors right ?

Just kidding..

 

[L Gilbert]

lol Need a few nukes dropped alright.
Serially,
I think if I was hungry for weeks on end, I'd rather have apples than wine, unless I had enough wine to kill my liver. Fresh water supply isn't going down in parts of the world. It's going down period. Climate change will actually benefit some parts of the world, but pollution doesn't do ANY good ANYWHERE.

 

[JLM]

"OK so what Industry will you put in your back yard as most people in those communities are NIMBYs ?"
Good point. A few resource based, based on the local resources, but most of ours in B.C. are down. Ranching is one for sure as I'm sure there will always be a market for things like beef. Xmas tree farms would be another. I think B.C rail is under utilized so shipping shouldn't be a problem. Tourist facilities is another as we have gorgeous lakes, rivers and mountains for outdoor activities. Computer services could thrive just about anywhere, but yes it would take some imagination, initiative and work.

 

[Francis2004]

lol Need a few nukes dropped alright.
Serially,
I think if I was hungry for weeks on end, I'd rather have apples than wine, unless I had enough wine to kill my liver. Fresh water supply isn't going down in parts of the world. It's going down period. Climate change will actually benefit some parts of the world, but pollution doesn't do ANY good ANYWHERE.

Who said anything about Nukes 8O... WWIII could well all be in space or just people walking with bombs tied to bodies ( already a sport in some countries ). Limits are endless and nukes I think will be last resort..

I have seen the reports as well as talked to people who have been to the area from mainland China and Climate Change is not helping..
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Climate change 'affecting' China

As to Wine compared to Apples, well that is a business choice done by the owners of the land.. Not me as I I could care less of wine.. I do love Green Apples tough..

 

[L Gilbert]

Who said anything about Nukes 8O... WWIII could well all be in space or just people walking with bombs tied to bodies ( already a sport in some countries ). Limits are endless and nukes I think will be last resort..

But most spectacular.

.......Not me as I I could care less of wine.. I do love Green Apples tough..

Me, too.

The amount of farmland and ranchland is shrinking, though, JLM. Most people tend to like living on the best land for farming. They don't like living on mountain sides or mid desert. Tree farms need good land, too.

Tourism is a good industry but it doesn't pay much unless you own a hotel or something. If you work in a hotel you aren't likely to get rich.

I agree with IT tech being good. Alt energy product manufacturing is good.

 

[Liberalman]

Using farmland to grow food will have competition from large urban centers.

It’s called vertical farming where you build a high-rise greenhouse to grow the food

http://www.verticalfarm.com

Advantages of Vertical Farming


Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)


No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests


All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers


VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water


VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services


VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface


VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of evapotranspiration


VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals


VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)


VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers


VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers


VF creates new employment opportunities


We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on earth


VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps


VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical
LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.


VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water
and land for agriculture

 

[Machjo]

Population growth is pure idiocy. Fresh water supply is dwindling as it is. The planet will not be able to feed us indefinitely. All people have done so far environmentally is shoot ourselves in the foot. We have done nothing except crap in our own nest since we evolved. Yeah, plug up Canada with people and watch the environment suffer even more. Brilliant.
Did it ever occur to you that more people means more money must be spent on them and their wants and needs? More people = more roads, more healthcare, more education, etc. less environment, less food, less freshwater, etc.

Update and upgrade what we have and look at what more intelligent countries are doing..

Hmmm... you seem to have neglected something. Immigration requires emigration. Thus overall population doesn't actually increase, it just relocates from where resources are more limited to where there are more, thus solving overpopulaiton in one area while solving underpopulation in another.

But by definition immigration, unlike birthing, has absolutely no net effect on overall planetary population growth.

 

[Machjo]

Remember too that I proposed immigration as a solution to maintaining roads in the middle of nowhere. Of course if we were willing to promote more population density by concentrating the populaiton in key centres and then abandoning the rest of the road system to nature, then we wouldn't need such population growth to maintain such a massive road network.

Remember, we often praise Europe's quality transportation infrastructue, but they can do it because of density. If we want the same quality, we must then achieve the same density.

 

[JLM]

"Fresh water supply is dwindling as it is."- Actually it isn't (with the exception of what's pumped into the ground to replace oil that is extracted)

 

[Machjo]

I see nothing wrong with a small population, but I do believe that if we want quality transportation at low cost, we need to maintain population density at least. A town with 20,000 people is not a bad thing per se. But a town of twenty thousand people covering a land mass of 100 square km is a big problem, few people to pay taxes for lots of roads.

Now imagine these same 20,000 people living in an area 2 square km. The place would look somewhat urban, with townhouses, condos and apartments. Nature would be near, you could walk to the farms and shops, and road construction would be cheap.

That's the idea I'm getting at. Total populaiton isn't important. It's the density that matters. Just look at Ottawa. It could afford to cover half the landmass it covers now and we'd still be comfortable. Build fewer single family houses, and start building more townhouses, condos and apartments. Maybe we could convert soem fo the suburbs bakc into farmland, and some fo teh farmland back into forests that could be harvested for lumber.

 

[Machjo]

Of course promoting higher density would have to come grdually, but it could be done. Maybe make townhouses, condos and apartments tax free, while making single family houses highly taxed. or simpler yet, just raise property taxes, making land more valuable and so people will want to use less of it.

 

[JLM]

I see nothing wrong with a small population, but I do believe that if we want quality transportation at low cost, we need to maintain population density at least. A town with 20,000 people is not a bad thing per se. But a town of twenty thousand people covering a land mass of 100 square km is a big problem, few people to pay taxes for lots of roads.

Now imagine these same 20,000 people living in an area 2 square km. The place would look somewhat urban, with townhouses, condos and apartments. Nature would be near, you could walk to the farms and shops, and road construction would be cheap.

That's the idea I'm getting at. Total populaiton isn't important. It's the density that matters. Just look at Ottawa. It could afford to cover half the landmass it covers now and we'd still be comfortable. Build fewer single family houses, and start building more townhouses, condos and apartments. Maybe we could convert soem fo the suburbs bakc into farmland, and some fo teh farmland back into forests that could be harvested for lumber.

I hear you loud and clear but there's another side to it. Some roads are very necessary, people or no people, one for resource access and removal and two all land has to have some accesses for things like fire fighting, rescues and for just keeping an eye on inventory etc. Not as elaborate as city streets granted but the infrastructure still has to be there.

 

[Machjo]

I hear you loud and clear but there's another side to it. Some roads are very necessary, people or no people, one for resource access and removal and two all land has to have some accesses for things like fire fighting, rescues and for just keeping an eye on inventory etc. Not as elaborate as city streets granted but the infrastructure still has to be there.

If the forest fire is far from any settlement, or in a mountain, we're going to need fire helicopters either way. We do already. I'd witnessed one countain fire in a residential suburb of Victoria years ago. The only way to fight it was with fire helicopters and planes. Canada's big; there's no way we can have roads covering every area of the country. If we want to do that, then we'll need mass immigration.

If we don't want mass immigration, then let's compact the people a bit, keep the population close to the rivers so we can build water distribution systems more cheply, and beyond that we should build only those roads that are absolutely neceesary to access natural resources, and those roads ought ot be paid for though a tax on natural resources. This will make them more expensive, but at least it will no longer mask the true cost of these resources on road construction.

If you want to own your one-family house, you should clearly pay more tax to road construction, fire, police and ambulance (they'll have to travel farther out to get you) than the guy living in a town house, condo or apartment, where the road is always busy and emergency transport hasn't far to go. Why should the condo owner pay extra tax for the gas emergency services use to go to the suburbs. Let property taxes pay for that. Again, as a way to reflect real cost rather than masked cost. If the urbanites are subsidizing the suburbs, then the suburbanites thinkg erroneously that suburbs are inexpensive when in fact they're bloody expensive to maintian owing to all the roads (which could be paid for by gas tax) and travel distance for emergency services (property tax woudl be fair for that, imho). If we did that, then suburbanites woudl think twice about their large houses that we who live closer to work subidize.

Make it user pay, rather than so much income tax. The Green Party had a point there, and in that respect was even more conservative than the Conservatives! Many suburbanites support the Conservatives precisely because they know that income tax helps to subsidize suburban inefficiencies, and masks them in the process.

 

[Francis2004]

"Fresh water supply is dwindling as it is."- Actually it isn't (with the exception of what's pumped into the ground to replace oil that is extracted)

JLM, water does not disappear regardeless.. Pollution or what we do to it reflects on how much of it is available to us.. If you have 2 people in a room with a Jug of water how long will it last compared to having 8 people in the room. I guess that depends on how much each person drinks right ?

The point is Canada has about ~30 Million people. Bring in many more people from countries that have little to no water and our reserve will go down much faster..

I am not sure if you heard about the "Rice" shortage this summer.. But in many countries rice is a staple of life and people would trample each other for a bowl of rice. Much the same happens for "Clean Fresh" water and in fact it is even more so as you can live longer ( up to 30 days with water ) then if you had food ( no water only 7 days ).

So yes, the Earth has as much water today as it did centuries ago, but how much is "clean, fresh and unsalted" for us to drink ?

Today, the Earth contains the same amount of water as it did when dinosaurs were the most advanced lifeforms on the planet. Water is constantly being cycled (via the hydrological cycle) and it is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes states between solid, liquid and gas. Around 97% of the water found on Earth is saltwater, found in the planets oceans, seas and bays. This leaves 3% (around 8.5 million cubic miles!) of Earth’s water as freshwater, of which 70% is in the unusable form of ice in glaciers, ice caps and as permanent snow. This means the remaining minority of available freshwater is stretched for use by Earth’s 6 billion people for agriculture, industry, recreation, tourism and municipal use!

http://www.freshwaterlife.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0yODc1JjY9ZW4mMzM9KiYzNz1rb3M~

 

[darkbeaver]

There are a lot of ideas here that fail to address the root problems or accept the drastic economic changes now underway. Bio-regionalism as explained in deep ecology is already a very real and very necessary transition that must be persued immeadiately. Food security is the primary concern for the immeadiate future as is primary industries all following the bio-regional approach, in other words the food and manufacturing must be wrested back from the mutinationals and spread throughout the country. So while we do have alternatives to the present system we still have the overriding political and social problems right at the top, lead by those who have different ideas definately not in tune with reality but overwhelmingly concrened with maintenance of the status quo.

 

[Machjo]

There are a lot of ideas here that fail to address the root problems or accept the drastic economic changes now underway. Bio-regionalism as explained in deep ecology is already a very real and very necessary transition that must be persued immeadiately. Food security is the primary concern for the immeadiate future as is primary industries all following the bio-regional approach, in other words the food and manufacturing must be wrested back from the mutinationals and spread throughout the country. So while we do have alternatives to the present system we still have the overriding political and social problems right at the top, lead by those who have different ideas definately not in tune with reality but overwhelmingly concrened with maintenance of the status quo.

We have been making reference to protecting resources here, in various ways. Have you not been reading the posts?

As for the rich, yes we agree that they should pay their fair share towards infrastructure, but we've been talking more about the infrastructure itself in this thread. Who should pay for it is a separate matter.