5 ms·

While I agree that climate change may have an impact on Tucson in Austin at some point, if your time horizon is the next 5-10 years, I think you'd be okay with

While I agree that climate change may have an impact on Tucson in Austin at some point, if your time horizon is the next 5-10 years, I think you'd be okay with either city.

Bud 5y ago
Keep in mind that weather impacts include impact to water resources, and those resources are already becoming highly threatened in much of the west and southwest. That's only going to get worse, and will do so more rapidly than the overall climate impact. Also, as we've seen in the Bay Area, even the early stages of climate change can have sudden and severe impacts. That's why much of California is now on fire 3-4 months out of the year. Those kinds of impacts will start driving people out of more cities quite soon, and the fear that comes with that will kill property values. I would not want to buy a house in such an area if I could avoid it.
- throwkeep 5y ago
  In part that, but also: Decades of mismanagement led to choked forests — now it's time to clear them out, fire experts say. “Forest management is a lot like gardening. You have to keep the forest open and thin," said Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l...
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  California is a fire hazard because of anti-logging policies. Once they get rid of 90% of their forests, they will be fine. If they don't, nature will find a way to get rid of those forests one way or another. It's an arid state that underwent a 300 year drought from the 1600s to the 1900s. There was a brief wet period that looks like it's come to an end, and a lot of trees need to go. Unfortuntately blaming climate change isn't going to help resolve this, and the state seems insistent that the correct solution is getting rid of plastic straws and ICE vehicles even as they are surrounded by over a hundred million dead trees that need to be culled, and the situation is only going to get worse. So I'd say it might be a better approach to stay away from states that blame all their environmental problems on climate change rather than their own policies.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > California is a fire hazard because of anti-logging policies. What anti-logging policies? The Federal government owns 57% of the forests. State and local governments own a mere 4%. 39% is in private hands. Of that 39%, 60% (~23% of the total) is owned by timber companies. The remainder (~15% of the total) is held by small landowners. Source: https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/242/Report242.pdf https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/242/Report... The Federal government can do whatever it wants. The state has no land to log. And most of the private land is owned by... logging companies, who are definitely not anti-logging. As with so many things in this state, the problem seems to come down to California's peculiar environmental review laws, which make it easy for outside interests to challenge and delay private projects, including, apparently, forest management projects. See https://www.redding.com/story/news/2019/01/30/california-cal-fire-seeks-faster-forestry-approvals-fight-against-wildfire-camp-carr-thom-porter/2720653002/ https://www.redding.com/story/news/2019/01/30/california-cal..., which discusses plans to allow aggregation of review approval--not because reviews are costly, per se, but because each nominally independent review multiples the disruptive power of third-party challengers; and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-31/california-land-clearing-wildfire-prevention https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-31/californ... reporting on the enactment of those plans. California really just needs to overhaul its environmental review laws; specifically, by removing or at least substantially diminishing the power to independently challenge reviews and review approval through protracted litigation. But that's politically difficult because it's what empowers NIMBYs and activist organizations of all stripes and across the political spectrum. Everybody hates NIMBYs up until the point they're asked to relinquish powers that would allow them (or their favorite organization) to block stuff they don't like. Note that for most challenges concern about the natural environment is just a pretense, which is why when it comes down to real support for reform you can't find any votes, either in the legislature or through referendums. Republicans in Orange County abuse the review process just as much as tree-huggers in Marin County. Any kind of reform is easily spun into a narrative about removing local control--relinquishment of a veto power each and every Californian possesses over the land management practices of every other Californian.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago

While I agree that climate change may have an impact on Tucson in Austin at some point, if your time horizon is the next 5-10 years, I think you'd be okay with either city.

Bud 5y ago

Keep in mind that weather impacts include impact to water resources, and those resources are already becoming highly threatened in much of the west and southwest. That's only going to get worse, and will do so more rapidly than the overall climate impact. Also, as we've seen in the Bay Area, even the early stages of climate change can have sudden and severe impacts. That's why much of California is now on fire 3-4 months out of the year. Those kinds of impacts will start driving people out of more cities quite soon, and the fear that comes with that will kill property values. I would not want to buy a house in such an area if I could avoid it.

throwkeep 5y ago
In part that, but also: Decades of mismanagement led to choked forests — now it's time to clear them out, fire experts say. “Forest management is a lot like gardening. You have to keep the forest open and thin," said Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l...
rsj_hn 5y ago
California is a fire hazard because of anti-logging policies. Once they get rid of 90% of their forests, they will be fine. If they don't, nature will find a way to get rid of those forests one way or another. It's an arid state that underwent a 300 year drought from the 1600s to the 1900s. There was a brief wet period that looks like it's come to an end, and a lot of trees need to go. Unfortuntately blaming climate change isn't going to help resolve this, and the state seems insistent that the correct solution is getting rid of plastic straws and ICE vehicles even as they are surrounded by over a hundred million dead trees that need to be culled, and the situation is only going to get worse. So I'd say it might be a better approach to stay away from states that blame all their environmental problems on climate change rather than their own policies.
- wahern 5y ago
  > California is a fire hazard because of anti-logging policies. What anti-logging policies? The Federal government owns 57% of the forests. State and local governments own a mere 4%. 39% is in private hands. Of that 39%, 60% (~23% of the total) is owned by timber companies. The remainder (~15% of the total) is held by small landowners. Source: https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/242/Report242.pdf https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/242/Report... The Federal government can do whatever it wants. The state has no land to log. And most of the private land is owned by... logging companies, who are definitely not anti-logging. As with so many things in this state, the problem seems to come down to California's peculiar environmental review laws, which make it easy for outside interests to challenge and delay private projects, including, apparently, forest management projects. See https://www.redding.com/story/news/2019/01/30/california-cal-fire-seeks-faster-forestry-approvals-fight-against-wildfire-camp-carr-thom-porter/2720653002/ https://www.redding.com/story/news/2019/01/30/california-cal..., which discusses plans to allow aggregation of review approval--not because reviews are costly, per se, but because each nominally independent review multiples the disruptive power of third-party challengers; and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-31/california-land-clearing-wildfire-prevention https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-31/californ... reporting on the enactment of those plans. California really just needs to overhaul its environmental review laws; specifically, by removing or at least substantially diminishing the power to independently challenge reviews and review approval through protracted litigation. But that's politically difficult because it's what empowers NIMBYs and activist organizations of all stripes and across the political spectrum. Everybody hates NIMBYs up until the point they're asked to relinquish powers that would allow them (or their favorite organization) to block stuff they don't like. Note that for most challenges concern about the natural environment is just a pretense, which is why when it comes down to real support for reform you can't find any votes, either in the legislature or through referendums. Republicans in Orange County abuse the review process just as much as tree-huggers in Marin County. Any kind of reform is easily spun into a narrative about removing local control--relinquishment of a veto power each and every Californian possesses over the land management practices of every other Californian.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago