No one gets that wealthy without making some anti climate decisions.
I agree that consumers generally prefer to buy from people who make anti-climate decisions.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can buy from those who make climate-friendly decisions instead. It will no doubt cost a lot more in the typical case as destroying the climate is a lot easier than not, but you can’t have it both ways.
For a lot of people it does have to be that way though. I just saw an article claiming 7 million Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They can’t really decide to take the more expensive climate friendly way. A billionaire could absolutely decide to do that though.
They say it takes around 1.5 acres to sustain a person. Farmland rents for around $300 per acre here, so $450 for the year to access the land you need for food. The food itself just kind of grows from that ground and sinks carbon to boot, so that’s cool. A human emits carbon, so that’s not exactly great for the climate, but you’re probably going to do that regardless so we’ll consider that a wash.
So, there you go, $450 for your yearly food supply – $37 per month – and the only harm to the climate is you! Much, much, friendlier for the climate than having a farmer’s 600HP tractor getting drunk off diesel fuel like it is going out of style, and much more affordable for someone whose time is worthless. And at the same time you have killed agribusiness, bankrupting many once-billionaire executives from John Deere, to Cargill, to Loblaw, and everything in between – preventing them from continuing with their climate destroying activities.
There are always options. The reality is nobody cares about the climate. They may pay lip service to it, but words mean nothing without action. It’s easier to pretend it is someone else’s fault. And when that someone continues to be “at fault”, we can sit back and say “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” while congratulating ourselves for a job well done. If the situation weren’t so sad, it would be hilarious.
The lease contracts sitting on my desk…? Did you have a better source in mind?
Unless you’re suggesting we collectivise agriculture, then sure.
Sure, if you want. I don’t care how you work out the details of your life. All this thread is about is recognizing that if you change nothing, nothing will change. Do you actually want change, or do you only want to talk about change?
Contrary to what you may think, I’m down to work my own single acre. Seems like a good way. I already live in rural Canada.
Land prices are much higher than you indicate around here.
For example, the smallest and cheapest plot I can find for rent is 60 acres. It’s $40 per and also very difficult to access with no water supply either, hence the low price. So, 2.4k minimum. If I organized a community then we could get something done and we for sure aren’t growing fruits and vegetables. But that’s not what you are describing.
Conveniently omitting a lot of factors here. Was going to mention the cost of labour, but that’s barely even scratching the surface of how ignorant this is.
No need. I already did. A large part of the comment talks about cost of labour. It is central to the whole discussion. Weird that you didn’t read anything before replying.
Why even bother if you are not going to take in what is going on around you? Especially when all you could muster was a logic failure. Did even that go unnoticed?
They say it takes around 1.5 acres to sustain a person. Farmland rents for around $300 per acre here, so $450 for the year to access the land you need for food. The food itself just kind of grows from that ground and sinks carbon to boot, so that’s cool. A human emits carbon, so that’s not exactly great for the climate, but you’re probably going to do that regardless so we’ll consider that a wash.
I don’t know when you last tried growing a balanced diet, but I can tell you that growing anything as a crop is quite a way off “just kind of growing itself.”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I agree that consumers generally prefer to buy from people who make anti-climate decisions.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can buy from those who make climate-friendly decisions instead. It will no doubt cost a lot more in the typical case as destroying the climate is a lot easier than not, but you can’t have it both ways.
For a lot of people it does have to be that way though. I just saw an article claiming 7 million Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They can’t really decide to take the more expensive climate friendly way. A billionaire could absolutely decide to do that though.
They say it takes around 1.5 acres to sustain a person. Farmland rents for around $300 per acre here, so $450 for the year to access the land you need for food. The food itself just kind of grows from that ground and sinks carbon to boot, so that’s cool. A human emits carbon, so that’s not exactly great for the climate, but you’re probably going to do that regardless so we’ll consider that a wash.
So, there you go, $450 for your yearly food supply – $37 per month – and the only harm to the climate is you! Much, much, friendlier for the climate than having a farmer’s 600HP tractor getting drunk off diesel fuel like it is going out of style, and much more affordable for someone whose time is worthless. And at the same time you have killed agribusiness, bankrupting many once-billionaire executives from John Deere, to Cargill, to Loblaw, and everything in between – preventing them from continuing with their climate destroying activities.
There are always options. The reality is nobody cares about the climate. They may pay lip service to it, but words mean nothing without action. It’s easier to pretend it is someone else’s fault. And when that someone continues to be “at fault”, we can sit back and say “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” while congratulating ourselves for a job well done. If the situation weren’t so sad, it would be hilarious.
Where did you get your $300/acre/yr figure?
Maybe if you rented 1000 acres.
Unless you’re suggesting we collectivise agriculture, then sure.
The lease contracts sitting on my desk…? Did you have a better source in mind?
Sure, if you want. I don’t care how you work out the details of your life. All this thread is about is recognizing that if you change nothing, nothing will change. Do you actually want change, or do you only want to talk about change?
Can you forward me some info on this?
Contrary to what you may think, I’m down to work my own single acre. Seems like a good way. I already live in rural Canada.
Land prices are much higher than you indicate around here.
For example, the smallest and cheapest plot I can find for rent is 60 acres. It’s $40 per and also very difficult to access with no water supply either, hence the low price. So, 2.4k minimum. If I organized a community then we could get something done and we for sure aren’t growing fruits and vegetables. But that’s not what you are describing.
Conveniently omitting a lot of factors here. Was going to mention the cost of labour, but that’s barely even scratching the surface of how ignorant this is.
No need. I already did. A large part of the comment talks about cost of labour. It is central to the whole discussion. Weird that you didn’t read anything before replying.
Why even bother if you are not going to take in what is going on around you? Especially when all you could muster was a logic failure. Did even that go unnoticed?
I don’t know when you last tried growing a balanced diet, but I can tell you that growing anything as a crop is quite a way off “just kind of growing itself.”