This page contains news, event information, and other items added by myself, the intrepid farmer-in-process at Old 99. I send out a message every week, but most are set with a delete date about two weeks later. I archive some of the posts if they have content other than weekly availability of produce and meat.
You can send me questions too, which if they are of a general nature, I can post to this Old99 blog.
OLd99 farm, week of Oct1 2019
Late reminder, we have veggies, greens and roots, apples and asian pears. Eggs and meats: beef, pork and chicken.
Please check the website for specials.
Ian and Cami
Climate Emergency update (clck on for easy graphic comparison)
Where would our federal parties take us? These results paint a stark picture. Despite lofty claims and aspirational goals, there is no Canadian plan consistent with avoiding 1.5°C or 2°C warming. Wherever you are on the political spectrum, the rhetoric of your party on climate change does not match the numbers.
The New Democratic Party’s proposed targets for 2030 (38 percent reduction below 2005 levels) and those of the Green Party (60 percent reduction below 2005 levels) are more stringent than the current federal target.
The Green Party’s target is closest to being consistent with a 2°C trajectory. However, no party platform includes modelling that shows how these targets would be achieved.
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has said his party would stick to the existing federal target. But the Conservative Party’s climate plan document, which contains neither carbon pricing nor regulations, would place Canada in the range of a 4°C (or more) greenhouse gas emissions trajectory.
Canada’s current and proposed (Liberal) federal policies lie within the range of what’s necessary to avoid 3°C of global warming, using modelling from Environment and Climate Change Canada submitted to the United Nations. These policies are not sufficient to meet the federal target of a 30 percent reduction below 2005 levels.
IG: remember, IPCC projections are biased to the conservative side because the peer review process is slow, so current research cannot be used, scientists are trained to be reticent about drawing conclusions, and policy makers use a summary that is negotiated by many parties. Actual climate observations are all worse than projections; there is no good news.
(Full article at Policy Options, published by Institute for Research on Public Policy)