The question of who gets to decide and what is and isn’t a “News outlet” is seriously problematic. I also think that journalists ought to maintain an adversarial posture towards government and now we’re creating a system in which “approved” journalists are dependent upon official recognition to receive legislated funding.
Indeed. The hyper-consolidated legacy media empires were unsatisfied with the free advertising they were getting and convinced Pablo Rodriguez and the Liberals that they should in fact be paid for visibility they were being given.
Yeah and so do the companies that are lining up at the feeding trough. Look at the pathetic state of the Canadian newspaper and TV news empires. They shouldn’t be entitled to advertising dollars if they don’t have a sufficiently enticing product to sell to advertisers.
Plenty of small-scale and digital independent news companies were doing fine. It’s the Postmedias and the Torstars that are complaining, as they cannibalize journalism to feed their corporate acquisitions and stock buybacks.
I’m no big fan of the tech monopolies but this whole Liberal thing has been so fucking Liberal, it’s like a parable.
It is by way of nationally recognized organic standards. Otherwise governments tend to be in bed with agrochemical and agribusiness companies.
Relevant section of Canadian organic standards:
5.4.2 Where appropriate, the soil fertility and biological activity shall be maintained or increased, through: a) crop rotations that are as varied as possible and include plough-down crops, legumes, catch crops and deep-rooting plants; b) incorporation of plant and animal matter in compliance with this standard and with Table 4.2 (Column 1) of CAN/CGSB-32.311, including the following:
- composted animal and plant matter;
- non-composted plant matter, specifically legumes, plough-down crops or deep-rooting plants within the framework of an appropriate multiyear rotation plan; and
- unprocessed animal manure, including liquid manure and slurry, subject to the requirements of 5.5.1
Organic is very much the same as about sustainability. The degree to which a particular enterprise succeeds in living up to organic principles and to internationally recognized organic standards is a different question.
Organic standards are available to be read. Here is the Canadian standards. You’ll notice that sustainability is very much the organizing principle.
Organic standards are not the be-all and end-all of sustainability, that is true.
Were those folks in agriculture organic farmers?
Do we use chemical pesticides and stuff. We can, yes. But what do you mean by chemical? Everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical. What we don’t use is synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. Which is actually a big difference from “conventional” agriculture for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, synthetic nitrogen is a major source of CO2 emissions. . Runoff from the over-application of fertilizers is also causing tremendous damage to aquatic environments. . Instead of relying on continuous application of synthetic nutrients, the organic practice is to build organic matter in soil (hence the term “organic”), which improves water holding capacity, reduces leaching, and reduces compaction. Instead we use compost and minerals like rock phosphate. When a more significant dose of nitrogen is needed we use stuff like feather meal or bone meal. These materials have a much reduced risk of leaching because the nutrients only become available in the soil as they are processed by the soil microbiome and are therefore released more slowly over a prolonged period of time.
Next, we don’t use herbicides. That means we don’t have bare exposed soil, which causes erosion, compaction, and top-soil loss (ie those things what caused the dust bowl). Instead we use cover crops, mulching, and mowing. Which builds up the organic matter in soil, promotes biodiversity, prevents erosion and compaction, and builds top-soil. Conversely, take a look at the rates of glyphosate application in contemporary “conventional” production and look at the articles that come up when you search for glyphosate.
Pesticides. Yes, we use pesticides. A pesticide is anything that is applied to remove pests. The difference is in the type and the effect. We do not use systemic pesticides (pesticides which are absorbed by a plant and render it toxic to pests over a prolonged period). We do not use pesticides that persist in the environment. We use things like sulfur and copper. We use things like bacteria and viruses. We use things like oils. We use things that target specific problem species at specific periods in their lifecycle. For instance, in my industry, we need to control for a creature called a coddling moth. When coddling moth levels get out of control, we spray a coddling moth virus. This virus kills coddling moth when applied at the proper time in their life cycle. It does not affect other species, and it does not persist in the environment. The conventional approach would be to spray a broad-spectrum insecticide that kills everything in the orchard. It’s very easy to see the difference for yourself. Simply visit a conventional farm in the summer, then go visit an organic farm. You’ll see the difference.
Finally, at least in my country, organic standards are the only legitimate regulated standards that protect animal welfare. Free range, cage free, whatever, that stuff doesn’t mean anything if there aren’t national or internationally recognized certifiable standards. We have that in organic. Organic livestock are not fed antibiotics and growth hormones, and there is enforcement of humane standards of care. For example, from the Canadian Organic standards:
6.1.3 Livestock production is a land-related activity. a) Herbivores shall have access to pasture during the grazing season and access to the open air at other times whenever weather conditions permit:
- calculated on the basis of dry matter intake, the consumption of grazed forage by ruminants that have reached sexual maturity shall represent a minimum of 30% of the total forage intake;
- consumption of grazed forage shall rise above 30% during high forage growth periods;
- a minimum of 0.13 ha (0.33 ac.) per animal unit shall be devoted to grazing. [One animal unit = one cow or one bull, or two calves each 102 to 227 kg (225 to 500 lb), or five calves, each less than 102 kg (225 lb), or four ewes and their lambs, or six does and their kids];
But we live in a capitalist, industrial society. So yes, not all organic farms are equal. Not everyone is actually committed to the principles of the organic movement. Corporate agribusiness obviously is interested in exploiting the organic sector. That doesn’t mean that “organic” is meaningless or that it’s all a scam. Just like Fair Trade, it’s an important signifier but that doesn’t mean it’s immune from abuse or exploitation.
It’s very important that the national standards oversight bodies are protected from interference from agrochemical companies and industrial farming interests who want to see standards relaxed so they can exploit the organic label for commercial gain. You can look at the beginning of this document to see who sits on the organic standards committee in Canada.
And it’s important that as consumers you consider the type of farms you are supporting when buying food. Support local, small scale, organic producers as much as you can. If you can’t get organic, then at least try to get local, small-scale producers. If you can’t do that, then get local organic. If you can’t do that, get supermarket organic. The most important thing is to have, as much as you can, an understanding of where your food is coming from and the methods by which it is being produced.
Consider this: the sun already provides all the energy required to grow plants, and healthy soils provide the required nutrients. Plants can already harvest solar energy, that’s kinda their whole thing.
Your model requires synthetic nutrients and synthetic sunlight. Producing and maintaining solar panels and the associated infrastructure is not environmentally benign, particularly if as you suggest in your other comment you would want to install solar arrays on former farmland.
How about instead we grow plants properly, in ecosystemically responsible ways that promote soil health, which is directly connected to our health via our gut microbiome. Growing sterile plants in a controlled environment is not an ecological solution at all, it’s a sterile solution.
Our agricultural system isn’t in need of high-tech solutions. High-tech solutions is exactly what has been fucking agriculture up for the past seventy years.
There isn’t “meat industry” farming or “vegan industry” farming. The primary dichotomies in farming are industrial vs small scale, organic vs conventional, and local vs global. If you don’t like monocultural industrial farming, then support the other types of farmers.
I don’t believe the only options are to do nothing or to use horrific weapons which primary kill civilians and which have been banned by over 100 countries, including major U.S allies who, unlike almost everyone in this thread, are quite critical of the United States for sending these munitions to the battlefield.
If the logic of supporting Ukraine and ending the conflict as quickly as possible supports the use of cluster bombs, why not chemical weapons? Why not nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line with this logic of escalation?
What I said was that Western nations funneling increasingly deadly weapons into a brutal war might not be the best of all options, and that maybe, maybe, working towards a negotiated settlement that ends the war, even if it means territorial losses for Ukraine, would be better. That is not “saving lives at all costs”, that is not “blaming the victims for not giving up quicker”. The idea that the only options are complete and unambiguous Ukrainian victory or the extermination of everyone in Ukraine, (an argument being made here by people, incidentally, who clearly have no skin in the game), is the logic of armageddon.
The logical gymnastics here are just astonishing. To suggest an alternative to military escalation makes me a tanky. To suggest negotiations makes me an authoritarian. To advocate for peace is to advocate for “might makes right”. This is the logic of nationalism.
I’m sorry, did you just accuse me of being a far-right tanky for suggesting that a negotiated peace might be the best of bad options?
What exactly do you think the word “tanky” means?
It’s interesting how everyone is anti-war until there’s a war, then everyone is suddenly a nationalist. This isn’t a video game, this isn’t a movie.
There is a very real possibility that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and I’ve not heard realistically say this war will be over soon. In which case a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options. But seems not to be what the United States or Ukraine wants, so. It’s really quite fucked up.
Like I don’t know how I would feel if I were Ukrainian. I absolutely think they are on the right side of this. What the Russian soldiers have been doing to Ukraine is despicable. But with cities being destroyed, nuclear power plants at risk, massive oil pipelines being bombed in the ocean, millions of people displaced…
if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO
Hmm. However justified one feels Ukraine’s struggle is, it’s hard to understand how sending more weapons into a brutal war will result in less violence. NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons is not having the effect of shortening the conflict, it’s having the exact opposite effect. You can make an argument that the U.S and its allies should continue to support Ukraine so that Ukraine can hopefully win this conflict, but that’s a different argument than the humanitarian angle of shortening the conflict.
This is a very, very dangerous game that is being played. Russia has nuclear weapons. It’s a real tragedy what’s happening one way or another.
People will always use this logic to justify whatever horrendous crime their “side” is committing.
This is very cool. My partner works on documenting and preserving languages and I spent a bunch of time recently learning how to create xkbd layouts to get that shit working on Linux. Like the fonts are important but so are the keyboard mappings.
Unicode is a really cool thing.