Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saving Canada's only desert

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#11

Post by pipio21 »

There is the opposite problem, which for me is way more serious: The desert growing. In Spain it grows each year in the South East.

But Spain's desert is small compared to Sahara's, that is as big as Europe. Its dunes are as big as buildings, with pictures you can't really grasp the enormity of this dessert. When Sahara grows each year it literally engulfs entire villages.

In Egypt and center of Africa there are cities that were prosperous in the past that were engulfed by dessert and disappeared.

Honestly I would not shed a tear for big parts of the big dessert going away. When solar energy and desalination becomes cheaper I expect Sahara to be one of the most fertile places on Earth.

You can probably preserve the biodiversity freezing eggs and sperm of the creatures that live there. There are not so much. I believe that with pesticides and herbicides we have destroyed way more biodiversity of our world(not the desert but our forest) and nobody has complained.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#12

Post by oneloop »

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts.

Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#14

Post by gambiting »

afarrell wrote: post #10
gambiting wrote: post #7

Not really related, but I just wanted to share - there's another desert that almost no one knows about, and it's right in the middle of Europe - in Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82%C4%99d%C3%B3w_Desert It's slowly disappearing though.

Why would you want to conserve that? Isn't reverse-desertification a good thing?

I guess it's because it's one of its kind, and it's a relatively small area - so it's worth keeping as a tourist attracting, if nothing else.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#15

Post by kuschku »

oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

Well, there are two movements there:

One, to conserve current state of nature because it is worth something - see UNESCO Natural Reserves, etc

Two, because profits would be threatened by change. (Look at the constant work to keep the island Sylt from moving, for example)

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#16

Post by codesterling »

happyslobro wrote: post #9

Our only desert? There is a small desert in Yukon, as well: Carcross Desert. At least by my definition of a desert: wind blown sand dunes with little patches of hardy shrubs and scrawny trees. Maybe the fact that it formed from a lake bed makes it not a real desert?

Sounds like some swaths in Saskatchewan. Even the badlands in Alberta has areas like that. I wonder what the distinctions are?

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#17

Post by randlet »

happyslobro wrote: post #9

Our only desert? There is a small desert in Yukon, as well: Carcross Desert. At least by my definition of a desert: wind blown sand dunes with little patches of hardy shrubs and scrawny trees. Maybe the fact that it formed from a lake bed makes it not a real desert?

I knew about the Okanogan but not Carcross. Looks like it's not a 'real' desert though[1] (too humid).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcross_Desert

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#18

Post by ommunist »

oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

This is because social parasites, calling themselves 'environmentalists' want their piece of taxpayers money, no matter how bullshit their ideas are. They have to pay for college for their kids, sort of. And the mortgage. Do not get me wrong, I worked with US EPA, Environment Canada, Japanese JICA and swedish SSNC on a number of projects. I know what I am talking about. Humanity is not geological force. Everything changes. This is natural. UPD: for those interested, this interest to this desert has only one reason, Environment Canada wants some budget. And I am calling these guys parasites from pure ecological point of view. They inhabit intestines of the state system providing no value in return. Because those who can provide value work in business.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#19

Post by ommunist »

pipio21 wrote: post #11

There is the opposite problem, which for me is way more serious: The desert growing. In Spain it grows each year in the South East. But Spain's desert is small compared to Sahara's, that is as big as Europe. Its dunes are as big as buildings, with pictures you can't really grasp the enormity of this dessert. When Sahara grows each year it literally engulfs entire villages. In Egypt and center of Africa there are citi…

Dude, there have been times Mediterranean Sea was all salt marche, all of it! Do not worry. Wait 2 mln years and see it changing.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#20

Post by ommunist »

codesterling wrote: post #16
happyslobro wrote: post #9

Our only desert? There is a small desert in Yukon, as well: Carcross Desert. At least by my definition of a desert: wind blown sand dunes with little patches of hardy shrubs and scrawny trees. Maybe the fact that it formed from a lake bed makes it not a real desert?

Sounds like some swaths in Saskatchewan. Even the badlands in Alberta has areas like that. I wonder what the distinctions are?

The difference is that in Saskatchewan the is no some son of the second level Environment Canada manager, who needs a comfortable internship to enter the System.
Post reply on HN