It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
>In a complex year for the agri sector, Canada plans to reduce 30% of its
fertilizer use by 2030 in order to meet climate targets.
>Canada plans to reduce 30% of it's fertilizer use
>30%
>Thirty percent
🇺🇸Straight 🇺🇸
✝️ Christian ✝️
🇺🇸American🇺🇸
🇺🇸🇦🇴Libertarian party🇦🇴🇺🇸
🇺🇸🚩Trump 2024🚩🇺🇸
🇺🇸Southern Pride🇺🇸
🇺🇸🇺🇳Blue Lives Matter🇺🇳🇺🇸
🏳️🌈Let’s go brandon!🏳️🌈
🇺🇸God bless Desantis and Trump!🇺🇸
[/url]
🇺🇸Come stand with me brothers!🇺🇸
🇺🇸Let us take our BEAUTIFUL and PERFECT country back from the evil radical communist socialist democraps!!!!!🇺🇸
🇺🇸We need to fight for unaffordable healthcare and the limiting of women’s rights🇺🇸
🇺🇸Help donate to the Trump-Musk presidential campaign today!🇺🇸
What does fertilizer have to do with insects? Wouldn't that be pesticide? Or is the implication that a reduction in fertilizer=reduction in grain produced=creating insect farms=in 10 years people will only eat bugs
Also, reading around it appears that it is not a 30% reduction in fertilizer use like OP said. It's a 30% reduction in emissions.
That 30% hard target could mean only 10% less fertilizer is used, or it could be 60% less. I haven't been able to find something yet that says exactly how much fertilizer is going to be reduced.
Just that there needs to be a 30% reduction in emissions which is a little different than a 30% reduction of fertilizer. Unless those things are exactly 1 to 1, which I doubt
Jems🇺🇸Straight 🇺🇸
✝️ Christian ✝️
🇺🇸American🇺🇸
🇺🇸🇦🇴Libertarian party🇦🇴🇺🇸
🇺🇸🚩Trump 2024🚩🇺🇸
🇺🇸Southern Pride🇺🇸
🇺🇸🇺🇳Blue Lives Matter🇺🇳🇺🇸
🏳️🌈Let’s go brandon!🏳️🌈
🇺🇸God bless Desantis and Trump!🇺🇸
🇺🇸Come stand with me brothers!🇺🇸
🇺🇸Let us take our BEAUTIFUL and PERFECT country back from the evil radical communist socialist democraps!!!!!🇺🇸
🇺🇸We need to fight for unaffordable healthcare and the limiting of women’s rights🇺🇸
🇺🇸Help donate to the Trump-Musk presidential campaign today!🇺🇸
LonelyAlso, reading around it appears that it is not a 30% reduction in fertilizer use like OP said. It's a 30% reduction in emissions.
That 30% hard target could mean only 10% less fertilizer is used, or it could be 60% less. I haven't been able to find something yet that says exactly how much fertilizer is going to be reduced.
Just that there needs to be a 30% reduction in emissions which is a little different than a 30% reduction of fertilizer. Unless those things are exactly 1 to 1, which I doubt
example of someone with a brain and some critical thinking, take notes OP
S.J.WYou’re not paying attention or are intentionally ignorant that climate change is a global issue and restrictions on emissions must be implemented.
Oh, please, do go on about how Canadian agriculture is the problem
**This post was edited on Jul 26th 2022 at 10:53:37pm
HiHowAreYouOh, please, do go on about how Canadian agriculture is the problem
**This post was edited on Jul 26th 2022 at 10:53:37pm
This is such a stupid take. It’s going to take a global effort to reduce emissions, this means putting pressure on the high emissions countries like China and the US but also enacting legislation on the local/ province and national level by government.
This idea that x countries pollutes more than y country so y country doesn’t need to do anything is counter productive and districts global co-operation in tackling the issue.
Nitrogen in the water sources leads to so much algae that no other species can compete for oxygen in the water thus creating massive dead zones like in the gulf of mexico at the Mississippi river delta.
As someone who hates seafood i say fuck them fish.
As someone who enjoys a health ecosystem, fuck fertilizers. The run off is insane.
As someone who is against terrorist attacks such at the Oklahoma City Bombing, fuck fertilizer. (That one was a stretch lol)
partyandBSNitrogen in the water sources leads to so much algae that no other species can compete for oxygen in the water thus creating massive dead zones like in the gulf of mexico at the Mississippi river delta.
As someone who hates seafood i say fuck them fish.
As someone who enjoys a health ecosystem, fuck fertilizers. The run off is insane.
As someone who is against terrorist attacks such at the Oklahoma City Bombing, fuck fertilizer. (That one was a stretch lol)
Umm sweaty I don’t think you know but 90% of farmland on earth requires fertilizer. Otherwise the worlds food supply would be dependent on- gasp, rural wypipo in central Asia and American Midwest. That would be a tragedy. Alternatively you can be a good sustainable goy and eat bugs. You do care about climate change right?
mobadisUmm sweaty I don’t think you know but 90% of farmland on earth requires fertilizer. Otherwise the worlds food supply would be dependent on- gasp, rural wypipo in central Asia and American Midwest. That would be a tragedy. Alternatively you can be a good sustainable goy and eat bugs. You do care about climate change right?
I thought we preferred our water without cyanobacteria? Less cancer is usually better. Surprisingly there is a middle ground between 3-eyed fish and eating nothing but insects.
I don't think anyone is advocating for the removal of all fertilizers, but where, how, and how much we use them is probably a worthwhile topic of discussion. Some of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world seeing rapidly increasing quantities of some pretty nasty shit as a result of where, how, and how much fertilizer we use (at least in NA) is at least a little concerning.
I want my inexpensive bread, but I also want to be able to eat the fish that I catch. There's a balance to be struck there.
HiHowAreYouOh, please, do go on about how Canadian agriculture is the problem
**This post was edited on Jul 26th 2022 at 10:53:37pm
If you look at the per capita of the list you posted Canada is the second highest CO2 Per Capita.
Not sure why we are sorting by total output when populations are involved. Post the image again but click on per capita as the filter? That would seem to go against your point.
Seems like per capita Canada produces the second most., but in total produce less, probably because they are one of the smallest countries by population listed in that image.
Seems a little disingenuous if you ask me
**This post was edited on Jul 27th 2022 at 12:11:26am
mobadisUmm sweaty I don’t think you know but 90% of farmland on earth requires fertilizer. Otherwise the worlds food supply would be dependent on- gasp, rural wypipo in central Asia and American Midwest. That would be a tragedy. Alternatively you can be a good sustainable goy and eat bugs. You do care about climate change right?
Synthetic fertilizer was first created in 1903. Jesus Didn’t have fertilizer. The founding father’s didnt have fertilizer. In fact 99.999% of human existence lived on this earth with no fertilizer. I think we can find a way to cut back juuusssstttt a lil bit for cleaner water and healthier habitats
i mostly eat plants. Although imma sucker for queso dips lol. Did eat a bug on the trail today though
I think the most sustainable thing you could do is to eat some fertilizer
Not being disingenuous. I believe total is more important to focus on than per capita.
LonelyIf you look at the per capita of the list you posted Canada is the second highest CO2 Per Capita.
Not sure why we are sorting by total output when populations are involved. Post the image again but click on per capita as the filter? That would seem to go against your point.
Seems like per capita Canada produces the second most., but in total produce less, probably because they are one of the smallest countries by population listed in that image.
Seems a little disingenuous if you ask me
**This post was edited on Jul 27th 2022 at 12:11:26am
HiHowAreYouNot being disingenuous. I believe total is more important to focus on than per capita.
Perhaps, but I guess presciptively it doesn't make much sense not to focus on per Capita. If we are talking about making changes and expecting people to make changes per Capita seems the way to go.
Telling a country of 1.4 billion to cut back drastically, when a country of 40 million people produces almost double the CO2 per person is a hard sell and probably not a great approach if we want some actual change.
I've got no love for China but it seems like it would be a stupid choice from their perspective to get on board with that.
LonelyPerhaps, but I guess presciptively it doesn't make much sense not to focus on per Capita. If we are talking about making changes and expecting people to make changes per Capita seems the way to go.
Telling a country of 1.4 billion to cut back drastically, when a country of 40 million people produces almost double the CO2 per person is a hard sell and probably not a great approach if we want some actual change.
I've got no love for China but it seems like it would be a stupid choice from their perspective to get on board with that.
Hard to have a large carbon footprint in a highrise 40sqft 'apartment' you also have the pleasure of working in.
Icant_kfedDon’t get me wrong, I’m all for 2a rights, but can you explain what keeping guns has to do with fertilizer?
WEF backed politicians are pushing ESG legislation in countries across the world.
They're demanding illogical/dangerous reductions in nitrogen based fertilizers to "curb emissions" because "climate change".
Nitrogen based fertilizers are necessary (short-medium term) or else the whole planet starves.
Instead of incentivizing regenerative agriculture practices ESG seeks to punish people for blaspheming their new religion.
They're doing this on purpose. They want chaos, they want starvation, they want population reduction to save the planet.
OP is insinuating that if governments have the power and ability to decimate agriculture industries that keep everyone's bellies full, that the people should have the ability to fight the governments trying to starve them.
T.L.WEF backed politicians are pushing ESG legislation in countries across the world.
They're demanding illogical/dangerous reductions in nitrogen based fertilizers to "curb emissions" because "climate change".
Nitrogen based fertilizers are necessary (short-medium term) or else the whole planet starves.
Instead of incentivizing regenerative agriculture practices ESG seeks to punish people for blaspheming their new religion.
They're doing this on purpose. They want chaos, they want starvation, they want population reduction to save the planet.
OP is insinuating that if governments have the power and ability to decimate agriculture industries that keep everyone's bellies full, that the people should have the ability to fight the governments trying to starve them.
T.L.WEF backed politicians are pushing ESG legislation in countries across the world.
They're demanding illogical/dangerous reductions in nitrogen based fertilizers to "curb emissions" because "climate change".
Nitrogen based fertilizers are necessary (short-medium term) or else the whole planet starves.
Instead of incentivizing regenerative agriculture practices ESG seeks to punish people for blaspheming their new religion.
They're doing this on purpose. They want chaos, they want starvation, they want population reduction to save the planet.
OP is insinuating that if governments have the power and ability to decimate agriculture industries that keep everyone's bellies full, that the people should have the ability to fight the governments trying to starve them.
So somewhat like the govt paying farmers to destroy/not grow crops
Instead of the farmer getting paid by the government to subsidize their business, the farmer is instead having to pay to meet new regulations. They're going to have to either cut their land usage to meet the requirements, which means selling their land, or buying more expensive, eco-friendlier fertilizer to meet the emission standards.
A very similar scenario is currently playing out in the Netherlands when their government announced they also want to reduce emissions from nitrogen fertilizer by 50%.
One of the theories is that it's a land grab backed by the WEF members of parliament to repurpose it into housing as their is currently a housing shortage. Mark Rutte in the image below is the current Dutch PM.
Icant_kfedSo somewhat like the govt paying farmers to destroy/not grow crops
