Hmm, that does look habitable to me. Moreover, it looks quite nice compared to a lot of places people live in.

Mars, Moon, and some places on Earth defnitely are not habitable (unless very supported), but calling most of the Canada "unhabitable" is more than a stretch.

That land is not suitable for agriculture. There is no way to build anything sustainable there, nor there is any point in that.

Most of the food I eat comes from hundreds of thousands of miles away. I'd imagine a bigger issue with inhabiting that area is lack of logistics.

> Most of the food I eat comes from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

And that's precisely the problem! Carbon footprint per capital is very high in Canada and for remote and colder locations it would be even higher!

I live in Europe but that's still the case, and apparently it doesn't really affect the carbon footprint because the majority of emissions are last mile.

That remote part of Canada would still be an issue though because it doesn't look like there are any train lines, major rivers or sea access.

Very little of the carbon emissions of food come from its transportation.[0] People living in cities have a lower carbon footprint than those living in more suburban areas.[1] We should be allowing more people to live in economically vibrant, low emission cities.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food?ins...

[1] https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-ca...

Don't forget muskeg!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskeg