Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57750
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
9.9/10 don't think nor care about were their water comes from so long as the faucet & shower flow and toilet flushes.
I'm not sure about that, because the media makes such a big deal about the climate change and water availability, especially here in the Seattle area. Just last night they were talking about the unusually dry spring here. We normally get 53" of rain annually, but are 4" below normal. For most of us that's a plus, and certainly not cause for alarm, if we still end up with 49" of rain. I have still only watered the lawn once so far
this year and it's nice and green.
The premise is true, however, because there are people leaving our state for Arizona and Texas, most likely to escape the rain in this case. Those companies leaving are not concerned about water, since they don't use much in their work, just restrooms. So far they have been investment firms, tech, many startups.
One CEO claims that in Austin TX he found energy and optimism, unlike Seattle where he said the city “is poorly run,” citing crime, homelessness, potholes, and deferred maintenance.
Well by that logic nobody should live in Asia pretty much given the fact much of it is at high risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as tropical cyclones much stronger than what the Gulf coast experiences. Similarly, much of Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela as well as the Mediterranean is earthquake-prone. Meanwhile large sections of Southern Europe, Africa and Central Asia are drought-prone.
It's all a matter of managing risk. It's not like Buffalo, NY has no risk factors. The frequency of large-scale blizzards which affect the lives of its residents in a meaningful way is arguably among the greatest in the world. Should everyone move out of the Lake Effect snow belt to avoid that?
Not all risks are equal. My home will not be damaged or destroyed in a blizzard, and as long as I stay indoors I will not be injured.
But in floods, hurricane force winds, earthquake, or wildfire homes are destroyed, and you cannot hide from the effects.
My logic was that people deal with the present and don't worry about future catastrophic events. Some catastrophic events are so rare that they may not even be present for multiple generations (earthquakes, volcanoes), so those risks don't seem consciously real. For more frequent catastrophic risks (storms, fires) I believe people became hard wired to just deal with things as they come, as in the past people lived where they lived, and didn't have options to leave for safer places.
Also, people are willing to accept greater risks for greater comfort, as long as the risks remains only theoretical, and their comfort is unaffected. A lot of people left Florida and the Gulf Coast in recent years after experiencing bad storms, to be replaced with people who had yet to experience, or even understand the risks and effects.
I moved to Nevada 26 years ago for my career and you couldn’t pay me to move back to Wisconsin. I love the mild 4 seasons and the beauty here plus no state income tax and crazy low property taxes.
Not all risks are equal. My home will not be damaged or destroyed in a blizzard, and as long as I stay indoors I will not be injured.
But in floods, hurricane force winds, earthquake, or wildfire homes are destroyed, and you cannot hide from the effects.
My logic was that people deal with the present and don't worry about future catastrophic events. Some catastrophic events are so rare that they may not even be present for multiple generations (earthquakes, volcanoes), so those risks don't seem consciously real. For more frequent catastrophic risks (storms, fires) I believe people became hard wired to just deal with things as they come, as in the past people lived where they lived, and didn't have options to leave for safer places.
Also, people are willing to accept greater risks for greater comfort, as long as the risks remains only theoretical, and their comfort is unaffected. A lot of people left Florida and the Gulf Coast in recent years after experiencing bad storms, to be replaced with people who had yet to experience, or even understand the risks and effects.
I think most societies find a way of adapting to the threats they face. Japan has big earthquakes with high frequency (much more so than any area in the U.S.) and also faces the threat of major typhoons pretty regularly. But they have developed ways of dealing with that.
There's nothing in Houston in particular that can't be addressed in various ways. Even the wildfire situation out West can be managed, but that's a separate conversation.
Moving is one thing. Long-term investments are another.
The ground has started to shift in the commercial real estate world, with many buyers factoring in resilience, particularly in major ones. It might not be among many individual home buyers however. And many small-time commercial owners aren't necessarily seeing beyond their noses.
It's more environmentally friendly to live in an arid region than a wet one: thread
There's 6 million people in Indiana and 2 million in NM, it's a good thing we're spreading out more! The Great Lakes is already pretty densely populated - and it would be more appealing if the area had more forests and less farm squares.
There is no water crisis in the SW, there's just an alfalfa crisis. Some of the cows may just have to go... You don't need much water for residence, you need a lot of water for industry and agriculture. This has been shown time and time again where cities can take out a farm, drop a subdivision in, and end up with a net gain in water. In today's world, food is shipped all over anyways so it's not like a person in Ohio is eating more locally sourced products than a person in Utah.
Water is only one aspect, looking at it from an energy perspective, a place like Wisconsin is pretty poor - bad for solar, not much wind, not much natural gas, and you need a lot of energy to heat your house during the rather frigid winters. Here in Taos our grid is theoretically 100% solar during day hours and my house doesn't even need A/C, and natural gas is super cheap.
I'd rather be in a place with abundant energy than abundant water.
If humans dont need more water to just live, then it does not matter if they live in desert or rainforest as long as they just dont use that much water.
But here is the real issue. What will those people do out in the desert without much water? Industry and commerce require water. Will they all be doing podcasting, or fitness vloggers? Which I think is now a main source of income in Los Angeles. Or get on American Idol.
How will they pay for all the food to be shipped in? Be cheaper to live near where food can be grown. Electricity however can be shipped further much cheaper. Electrons have barely any weight. Ok there is resistance, but that can be fixed.
The water crisis is fabricated is the issue. An acre of Almond farming for example is equivalent to 10 families supply of water, in a year. Saying an area is having a water shortage people need to stop moving there makes no sense when 74% of Arizona’s water is agricultural. Even in densely populated California, 40% of water there is used for Agriculture.
California has extremely productive agricultural land. But if the decision is thousands of acres of farms going offline to give the urban 90% more water the cost-benefit ratio is obvious as in turn you could convert some of these urban farmlands in the Bay Area for example into more housing to lower the overall prices. For example South of San Jose, East of Antioch and North Bay has tons of farmlands and vineyards that could be converted into thousands if not a million+ homes. Now with Vineyards your tourism dollars are affected so it maybe a more complicated discussion. But if the issue is thirst there’s a million workable solutions available.
With rising sea levels, desalination is a thing. China in ancient times built an enormous canal system that carried water across a whole continent sized country. There are ideas to combat desertification by refilling the rivers that once crossed Sahara.
The issue isn’t feasibility with a lot of these projects but political will, environmental degradation, political stability and economic might.
It would be one thing if climate change meant Florida is just underwater in 3 months. The reality is while the sea levels rise over the decades; tons of water can be pumped into the existing dried up lakes and riverbeds all over the Sahara to combat desertification. The technology exists it’s just not an easy monetary cost. But if the alternative is trillions of dollars of prime real estate in Florida and across the world we’re 70% of the population lives near an ocean or body of water, you better believe that the Sahara will be criss-crossed by rivers again. Or the worlds biggest canal will be built. There’s just so much money on our coasts it makes more sense to fight them with massive super projects than to just abandon them because of water scarcity or rising sea levels.
But those people living there must have a reason for being there. Traditionally people live where they can get easy access to sustenance. Why build all that housing for people when they dont have a reason for being there, nor be able to pay for it?
I am sorry but not everyone can have a white collar job, or be an entertainer. A society does not really need a lot of those. So even if California was only for white collar, or entertainers, or software programmers, there will still only be few living there. It be one of the least populated states.
Or just a place people vacation to, or retire too in their old age. However these people must come from somewhere else first.
Last edited by NJ Brazen_3133; 07-11-2023 at 11:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
