Several of those are going to be perennial and end up competing with mono-culture crops the following year(s) (not that I’m trying to defend mono-culture crops, but that’s what they’re planting). It’s a good idea, but not necessarily as simple as you’re implying. Still it’s an idea that’s not without some merit. The biggest obstacle to adoption is no one is making a significant profit off of it, so it’s unlikely to see much uptake.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Counter-sue as hate speech that they implied a symbol of a peaceful belief system was definitionally hateful. let them FAFO.

Significant portions of the demographic you identified don’t realize New Mexico is in the US, and couldn’t find Canada on a map, and you’re expecting them to realize there’s more countries than just Mexico to the south?

Think of it in terms of video games. Soft-launch is like an Early Access game. It’s very explicitly not feature complete, lacks the refinement of a finished product, and exists as a kind of crowdsourced quality assurance tool to figure out what works, what doesn’t, and gauge the opinion of people who aren’t professional developers who may have biases and blind spots as someone who understands the product at a deep level. A soft launch usually has minimal if any marketing done, and explicitly targets people with special interest in the product, while the hard launch is the polished final product and gets a much wider marketing push.

They are trying to some degree, but a lot of Canadian Greens also fall on the more conservative side,which under the current circumstances is a wild position, but it’s there all the same.

Also, unless you’re selling literally everything, they can pad their margins on what you don’t provide, and pound you into the ground with loss-leaders, ON TOP of volume discounts. That’s how Walmart destroyed local businesses, by taking “acceptable losses” selling below cost for a while until it broke the competition.

It’s nice when environmentalism and progressivism align, but it’s often circumstantial when it does. Environmental protection kind of floats between parties at seemingly random. Remember the national parks system and wetland conservation were actually initiatives by conservatives. It’s an issue that doesn’t sit comfortably in either left or right wing camps.

First you would need more * people * who cared more about the environment than their pocket book.

I mean, sure, they’re the biggest, but really most of the Azhdarchid Pterosaurs would count as some kind of Dragon.

I mean, other than breathing fire, the difference between a particularly large pterosaur and a dragon mostly down to the shape of the head.

There’s a really simple answer. Many countries have done it before. The best example is the UK “Council Housing” system that they used to clean out the tenements and slums in the late 1800s.

First of all, we have to deal with the the fact that a lot of people have their whole life savings wrapped up in their houses. You issue “Canada housing bonds” and buy them out with bonds. This gives them an investment vehicle that can be traded or held until mature to ensure they’re not losing their shirts and we end up with a bunch of old people who can’t take care of themselves. Then you turn around, transfer those to municipal governments along with a bunch of development loans. Cities manage the properties, the already have massive construction and maintenance contracts on public buildings so by economy of scale they can actually build and maintain buildings at a lower cost than private property owners.

The loans back the bonds, the rents pay the loans, and you can still set rents so low, being a private landlord is no longer profitable and get a reasonable return on the bonds. At the height of the program in the UK the average rent was around 10-15% of monthly income and around 40% of the country had lived some part of their lives in council housing. The system was so effective it basically rebuilt Britain after the German Blitz. We have nearly 100 years data on both the positives, the potential hazards, and how to mitigate them.

We know how to fix this, we just won’t. It doesn’t make rich people richer and so there’s no political will to actually go out and do it.

That’s the problem. Here it would be billed as a “Luxury Tiny Home Experience” and they’d charge $3k/month rent. Corpos know plebs don’t have money, so the only market is the luxury market.

I am Sparticus… er… Banksy!

I mean technically the science of it has been settled for over 100 years. That’s why Alexander Graham Bell sunk his fortune into early solar energy. That we are going over the cliff into warming the likes of which haven’t been seen in 250 million years is what has been settled for at least 20.

It’s been settled for 20 years that the world is warming. The efforts at this point are entirely focused on containing and limiting the damage. The fight to stop it is long over, and there’s absolutely nothing that can stop some level of catastrophic damage.

Translation: “We’ve had our fill of screwing you around for today and invite you to cordially go screw yourself.”

When it comes to HP, just say no.

For general consumers? Probably complete industry collapse and regression. Specialized industries and national security use will continue to develop, but broad market access is going to likely stagnate for a decade at least if not more.

I wouldn’t let my family get within a mile of the US these days. Not fit for human habitation.