Apart from what I stated earlier this reply digs into deeper criticisms I have of the article. I know communicating policy and science to the general public is hard and probably mostly ineffective as no one is going to want to give it close enough of a read to actually understand everything. I’m still cranky about it for the following reasons:

• The wetland is not directly related to the “30 by 30” initiative. The article doesn’t claim it is, but doesn’t really explain it until the last paragraph, and even then it’s not stated plainly.

Among other things, in order for an area like Kelly-Pemberton’s to be recognized as an OECM, it must have a defined boundary, permit authorities to control activities within the boundaries, and prohibit activities that would be incompatible with conservation objectives, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada.

• Funding to give the land to provincially regulated conservation authorities isn’t on the table as part of the 30 by 30 initiative for Ontario or the local municipality because they do not have a Nature Agreement with the federal government. It’s not an alternative if the other option isn’t possible.

• Similar projects could potentially qualify for funding as a OECM. Designation of an OECM is not a legally binding agreement or definition, although funding may come with certain commitments. The requirement for controlling activities is a bit overstated in the article. It could be things like zoning or even that a certain use is established and unlikely to be replaced, even if it is not forbidden to do so. . This could rely on authorities like conservation authorities to validate, so they would still play a part.

Areas with provisions that legally compel the governing authorities to prevent incompatible activities from occurring and ensure that potentially compatible activities are managed effectively, would clearly meet the standard. Sites may also meet the standard despite not having legal provisions, if such activities are not occurring and are not likely to occur as a result of the use of the mechanisms noted in Effective Means-1.

• while this farm may not be explicitly required to treat run off by the MECP (taking that at face value), runoff is certainly a deleterious substance under the federal Environmental Protection Act. I deal with this in my professional life: if I had a dollar for everyone who told me (in error) that the EPA didn’t apply to them, I’d have to work less to survive lol.

• I don’t know the address of the farm so I can’t check if it’s in a high risk source water protection area and thus subject to additional requirements, but the local conservation authority is required to have a source water protection plan. This includes programs to manage risks from farms. The finding for the pond came from ALUS which provides annual finding for managing and maintaining such projects.

• The project was completed ~ 10 years ago, received a beef industry environmental award in 2021, the farmer in the article is a former Ontario Federation of Agriculture director, and was listed as a one of the top 10 most powerful people in Eastern Ontario Agriculture in 2023 . Is any of this inherently bad if we ignore the source of the pollution? No - but I don’t think the average reader will understand this is a PR move/indirect lobbying by the agriculture industry to get external funding for water protection projects under the guise of conservation rather than the cost of doing business.

Federal government, advocates looking for ways to protect more nature

I got one for ya, stop keeping animals captive so you can steal their milk murder them. A lot less run off that way.

Edit: apologies, that used to be “dairy farm”. Now they are a “cow-calf operation”.

Here’s the wetland btw

https://ontarioruralwastewatercentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/orwc-research-case-study-beef-farm-runoff-wetland-vegetated-filter-treatment-system.pdf

The people trying, and failing, to erase this are called conservatives. They are republicans, MAGA, and/or Christofascists. Name and shame, everyone.

The people who are trying to erase this are everyone who goes to their job as a cop, in the military, with ICE, anyone in the defense industry, anyone who enables the machine and everyone in their lives who do not hold them accountable.

Yes. We should investigate if our drive to buy is based on needs or wants or pressure to consume. We should end consumption for consumptions sake.

Tangentially related

(Tangentially related, no need to tell me this isn’t what the OP meme was about)

I am a victim of not being a cannabis master 😭

Lol what’s most hilarious about this is that if they are getting a bonus it implies that they are not actually small business owners, they are at best franchisees. So the business outsourced the risk.

I did win, lol. There wasn’t much question that I would win - his argument was that I didn’t give notice so he didn’t need to give me my last pay cheque 🤷‍♀️

This was honestly one of my favorite parts of living in a big city. Let me cry in peace on the subways plz.

Oh, this is why he wants the island airport to permit jets I guess? What a timbit.

Autism and The Conquest of Bread

I’ve had decent luck with a deck brush and water if you don’t have access to a pressure washer.

Small business owners are the absolute worst. I worked for a few in my youth and they feel so entitled to exploit labour and get legit mad when they can’t?

I took one guy to the labour board for unpaid wages, not even run-of-the-mill exploitation, and I thought he was going to get violent in the mediation 😬

Do you know what a capitalist is tho?

I think one of the barriers to freedom isn’t that people don’t realize they are capitalists, but that too many people think they are…

IWA does generally get this right. See also:

Liberation will not come until domestic labour is recognized as essential labour.

They are often landlords.

Population is stored in the balls.

My houseplants are almost all succulents and I really like terracotta/clay pots, the really standard kind they have at most hardware stores:

The terracotta will let the excess water evaporate if I’ve over watered.

I wasn’t going to reply because I didn’t think it was productive but I’ve had three replies totally misunderstanding what I meant by “it’s a comic”.

The person I was replying to seemed to think it was clear the american was white. As it is a comic, it is very open to interpretation.

I understand I was wrong - I saw another comic with this character being referred to as white and doing something hella racist but all of these replies are totally misunderstanding me.

Guy, it’s a cartoon