3 ms·

It sounds like there really isn't anything to be concerned about then. "If California stopped growing alfalfa...we could probably house 20-30M more people".

It sounds like there really isn't anything to be concerned about then. "If California stopped growing alfalfa...we could probably house 20-30M more people". I'm very happy to stop growing crops in the desert, and agree there's absurd waste there (just because something can be done does not mean it should be done). But 10s of millions more people...is that really a goal, or even a good thing?

epistasis 5y ago
People have to live somewhere, and if they live in California they are going to be living a lower carbon life than if they live in Texas, Boise, Phoenix or Atlanta. Those are the places that California has been exporting anybody who doesn't make lots of money. So yes, as a California resident,, I think 20-30M more in California is a fantastic idea compared to the alternatives.
- matmatmatmat 5y ago
  Just a small point about Texas: Although it still pumps huge amounts of oil and gas, it also has more wind power resources that it could deploy. Texas could have a lower carbon future if it so chose.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Though electrical consumption is far lower in California than Texas (and bills are typically lower deposits higher $/kWh), the electrical change isn't the biggest factor. The grid can always be greened fairly quickly. That's an easy change to make, and happening quickly in places like Texas where legacy expensive fossil fuel generators aren't protected by utilities. Now that renewables and storage are cheap, any new natural gas plant will soon be a stranded asset, and generators on ERCOT are quickly realizing that. A much harder change is transportation. We can't build enough electric cars fast enough for the transition, and land use patterns in Texas typically require cars even more intensively than California. In contrast, biking to work in the Bay Area is pleasant newer year round, and there's not much mass transit but at least a little. The Texas lifestyle requires a car, and people that are forced out of California typically leave in the blue low-carbon areas on this Tablueau map, but will likely move to the red high-carbon areas. https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps At least, that's the anecdata I have from people I know, but it's not proper data.
mattnewton 5y ago
Not saying it is right or wrong, but traditionally we would use a market to decide that, where the new people can buy the land / water at a higher price if it is worth more to them than the alfalfa farmer. This adapts the goals of people based on their economic activity. But water right are a complicated chain and mostly not treated like a market in California.

epistasis 5y ago

People have to live somewhere, and if they live in California they are going to be living a lower carbon life than if they live in Texas, Boise, Phoenix or Atlanta. Those are the places that California has been exporting anybody who doesn't make lots of money. So yes, as a California resident,, I think 20-30M more in California is a fantastic idea compared to the alternatives.

matmatmatmat 5y ago
Just a small point about Texas: Although it still pumps huge amounts of oil and gas, it also has more wind power resources that it could deploy. Texas could have a lower carbon future if it so chose.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Though electrical consumption is far lower in California than Texas (and bills are typically lower deposits higher $/kWh), the electrical change isn't the biggest factor. The grid can always be greened fairly quickly. That's an easy change to make, and happening quickly in places like Texas where legacy expensive fossil fuel generators aren't protected by utilities. Now that renewables and storage are cheap, any new natural gas plant will soon be a stranded asset, and generators on ERCOT are quickly realizing that. A much harder change is transportation. We can't build enough electric cars fast enough for the transition, and land use patterns in Texas typically require cars even more intensively than California. In contrast, biking to work in the Bay Area is pleasant newer year round, and there's not much mass transit but at least a little. The Texas lifestyle requires a car, and people that are forced out of California typically leave in the blue low-carbon areas on this Tablueau map, but will likely move to the red high-carbon areas. https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps At least, that's the anecdata I have from people I know, but it's not proper data.

mattnewton 5y ago

Not saying it is right or wrong, but traditionally we would use a market to decide that, where the new people can buy the land / water at a higher price if it is worth more to them than the alfalfa farmer. This adapts the goals of people based on their economic activity. But water right are a complicated chain and mostly not treated like a market in California.