I'm very impressed by the compassion of your response. It would have been so much easier to downvotes and move on, my first instinct.
jadero
joined 1 year ago
That makes me think that there need to be dedicated locations, perhaps with a few critical utilities already in place. The numbers of people living there and their reasons for living there would be a useful measure of how well we're doing in providing proper shelter.
Those locations need to have ready access to various services, not parked on the outskirts. Maybe it's worth giving up a park or two. Keeping them central and visible would be an important part of getting communities on board with proper social housing programs.
I have no doubt that, in certain climates or certain times of year, some people would deliberately choose to live there for adventure or lifestyle reasons, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
Which is disgusting! Their job is supposed to be about doing what is best for the people who live here, not whatever best serves the interests of their party. If there were a system that was good for the people while eliminating the concept of parties, every party should be glad to do the work of implementing it.
Where I live in Southern Saskatchewan, farmers are digging out shelter belts very rapidly. I would imagine that their low till, zero till, and high-cut headers (leaves taller stubble) are even better at keeping the soil and capturing snow over winter than a row of trees every few hundred metres.
I remember vaguely an article from a few decades ago that claimed Montreal was the only Canadian city that at least tried to do snow clearing right.
Saskatoon, for example, is abysmal and always has been.
I once heard that property taxes would have to increase by a lousy $50/year to bring Saskatoon snow clearing up to Montreal standards. That's when I finally realized that governments at all levels, as they are currently organized, are basically useless when it comes to figuring out how to best serve the population.
One thing to watch out for is that anyone with an iPhone or using something like Air Guard on Android can easily discover that your bike is tagged. If well hidden or inaccessible, that might deter the thief. If not well hidden, it might take only a moment to deal with.
I was completely out of school before the peanut bans kicked in. A good thing, too, as I basically lived on peanut butter. Still do. :) Even when I was working and packing my own lunches, it was either leftovers or peanut butter sandwiches. Food of the gods (or demons, I suppose...)
How about Saskatchewan as an example? With Alberta, we are the butt cheeks of Canada, yet in Saskatoon, you can go to the city hall website, click the accessibility button, and get the site served in 19 different languages. Yes, they're just using Google Translate, so there are no Canadian Indigenous languages, but it's a start. In addition, I think those languages and more are available for in-person service through an interpretation contractor.
There are plenty of efforts to prevent languages from disappearing. I have no problem with Quebec doing things to preserve their French, but I'm not sure it should be via removal of other language services.
On the other hand, I have no language I'm trying to preserve, don't live there, and haven't visited in decades, so I'm willing to let them make their own decisions.
Oh yeah, it has a lot of holes! Despite the effort I put in, I should have called it what it is: back of the envelope analysis. The only reason I did it was to satisfy my curiosity regarding the initial statement, then felt compelled to share it. :)
I doubt they let the logs dry at all, but the only caloric content I could find for logs assumed air-dried to 20%. I don't know enough to consider other methodologies like carbon content, etc.
My 100 km was intended as a rate of energy consumption, not an actual hauling distance, but I didn't make that clear.
There's no way cutting down a tree, shipping it and processing it requires a tree-worth of fuel.
Let's fact check that:
(TLDR: it seems you're right)
(Note on gross vehicle weights. I found everything from 80,000 kg at the high end in Canada and 80,000 pounds consistently in the US. That wide range, especially the huge difference between Canada and USA, makes me somewhat suspicious of the following calculations. But I think it still works out in favour of the original assertion.)
1 m³ of diesel contains 38.68 GJ of energy.. That means 38.68 MJ/litre.
Air dried logs (20%) moisture have 14.7 GJ per tonne. That's 14.7 MJ/kg.
Ballpark empty weight of a semi truck and trailer is 35,000 pounds (15,876 kg).
Canadian maximum weight limit for semis is 80,000 kg. I've seen numbers varying from about 35,000 kg to 80,000 kg, depending on jurisdiction, trailer configuration, and permits, so I'll use the biggest number.
That leaves an estimated payload of about 64,000 kg. That amount of wood contains about 940,800 MJ of energy.
Average fuel efficiency is 39.5 L/100 km as of 1999. That's 1,527.86 MJ.
The payload contains over 600 times the energy required to haul it 100 km. Obviously, there are considerations of actual distance, round trips, logging equipment hauling and use, etc. The numbers can change dramatically based on actual payloads, too, but it seems the lumber has "energy to spare" so to speak.
[The industry association] wants a more competitive fiscal framework for B.C. mines and smelters in line with what exists in Ontario and Quebec, saying the B.C. industry pays too much in carbon tax despite having lower emissions in comparison to other mining operations globally.
Translation: Nobody else is paying their share, so why should they?
It also wants faster permitting processes; more funding to help First Nations involvement in land-use decisions; investments to help electrify and power mines; and improvements around how to train and retain more workers.
Translation: They want to cut corners. They want help convincing First Nations that they have no choice anyway, so they might as well play along. The mines won't be as profitable or maybe not even viable if they have to pay for basic infrastructure or to develop their own stable workforce.
How about building your own carbon-free power plants and we'll consider building transmission lines to take excess production?
Maybe set up your own training centres to meet existing standards for transferrable certification. Not like the railroads that have their own welding schools, but the training and certification is not recognized on the free market. Then pay new employees to get the necessary training.
Put 50% (or whatever, recalculated annually) of revenue (not profit) into an escrow account for clean-up and remediation. Payments monthly. Missed payments come with a fine equal to double the payment. Missed payment on the fine means closure and forfeiture of the escrow. All in clear, simple, and direct language that means going to court over the issue is basically pointless. If there is money left over afterwards, we'll split it 50/50, assuming that the business is still operational, not merely shuttered and sold in a way that is designed to retain assets and eliminate liabilities.
If all that works for you, then maybe it's worth talking about how to deal with the rest in actually sensible ways. But there is no point going further if you can't make even the simplest business case without public funding.
Alternatively, if this is such a social good, then maybe it should be a social project. We can hire the relevant expertise as easily as you.
Parking garages would be perfect!
As much as I love golf, I agree about the courses. I now play only on "pasture courses". Basically a chunk of unirrigated land with 9 flags surrounded by sand for a "green". $5/round, $50/season. They may be just a Saskatchewan thing, but I love them.