LATIMES editorial....why California is NOT serious about climate change (house, living)

[mcp86]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Oh, and here's a more recent study on the topic. Interestingly, it's already accepted as fact that density leaders to lower fertility, this study is exploring why this is the case.

I don't have much knowledge about the population density topic but reading this latest article, they clearly say couldn't establish causation

Given this is a correlational study, strong causation cannot be inferred from it. A second limitation the researchers note is that the current findings speak to why the relationship between population density and fertility rates exists, but not how. “We still need to understand the underlying mechanism behind this relationship,” said Rotella.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by mcp86

I don't have much knowledge about the population density topic but reading this latest article, they clearly say couldn't establish causation

Correct, it's a correlation. But if density caused increased fertility rates we would see this correlation. Yet what we find is the opposite. Therefore, density either has no effect on fertility rates, or a negative one. Either way, concern about world population is not a valid reason for resisting urban density.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by Newfangle9

The 55mph speed was tried already, it was awful. Hardly anyone paid any attention to it because it was too damn slow. Not again, please.

I was surprised even eco conscious Europe didn't do this except for Heavy Goods vehicles. Though they tried and maybe still trying to get Germany to end unlimited speed on their Autobahn system. Though the 55mph/90kph only works if all vehicles not*just trucks and commercial*vehicles were governed to that speed. Otherwise there would be more aggressive driving negating any fuel saving. And one is often caught between a rock and a hard place whether they would get in trouble driving faster or pretty much standing still in the middle of the road with others even large trucks making dangerous passes or riding bumpers. This is especially the case in parts of the country they stubbornly stick to low speed limits on fast roads.*

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Yep, people terrified to take public transit. Many didn't even own a car until a year ago. Double edged sword.

As a result new and used cars are now averaging $4000-$5000 over KBB and the waiting period is long. For those buying off clean air programs they struggle with funding hold up as well as the limit of $45,000 with a strict time limit which they wont*budge even though cars are taking forever to become available. Nor can the broken car taking up precious garage or driveway space be junked until the car becomes available. Transit had been free for a while but no one rides it.*

I guess those who don't mind density don't mind being imprisoned in a small apartment if the world enforces strict curfew again. The issue is that growth is often going to unsustainable regions due to how the job market and other issues go. I be curious whether there are ways to channel job growth evenly to where it is sustainable. This isn't just a issue in some parts of the world. I remember the oil boom in ND also caused this issue as too many people all of a sudden started showing up and building in a small town.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

I guess those who don't mind density don't mind being imprisoned in a small apartment if the world enforces strict curfew again. The issue is that growth is often going to unsustainable regions due to how the job market and other issues go. I be curious whether there are ways to channel job growth evenly to where it is sustainable. This isn't just a issue in some parts of the world. I remember the oil boom in ND also caused this issue as too many people all of a sudden started showing up and building in a small town.

Please explain: Are you saying society shouldn't do what's good for the climate (increased density) because you don't like the lifestyle implications (small apartment if/when there's another strict curfew)?

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Please explain: Are you saying society shouldn't do what's good for the climate (increased density) because you don't like the lifestyle implications (small apartment if/when there's another strict curfew)?

Many of the older folks won't be alive by the time any future policies get enacted. As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind. Of course, they also don't think through the implications that their wasteful lifestyles will have on the well-being of their grandchildren.

[KerrTown]

It's obvious that Newsom is in the pockets of PG&E, SoCal Edison, LA DWP. The "environmental movement" has been compromised by the electric utility industry by their PR department's "Electrify Everything™" campaign. More electricity demand = more profits! (Also PG&E needs to raise money to pay for lawsuits after their transmission lines started so many wildfires. Maybe ban electricity instead?!?)

Real environmentalists would have responded with conservation and avoidance. The new environmentalists don't want you to replace your 25-year old refrigerator with a more efficient new one if it's being powered by wind/solar electricity.

Nobody has learned the lesson here in Texas from February about putting your eggs in one basket. It was a surprise that the grid failed in the usual low-demand overnight hours--turns out electric cars charging overnight and electric heating in newer houses took down the grid for everybody else before sunrise on that Monday!

Hopefully Texas will ban 220-volt outlets and major electric appliances (e.g. furnaces, ranges/stoves, clothes dryers) that can be powered by gas instead to reduce electric demand. Balancing between energy sources is the correct response to the energy crisis!

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Nobody has learned the lesson here in Texas from February about putting your eggs in one basket. It was a surprise that the grid failed in the usual low-demand overnight hours--turns out electric cars charging overnight and electric heating in newer houses took down the grid for everybody else before sunrise on that Monday!

Gas lines that feed power plants and wind turbines froze because the state government didn't require the operators to install hardened equipment to withstand cold conditions. Electric cars and heaters were not to blame.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Please explain: Are you saying society shouldn't do what's good for the climate (increased density) because you don't like the lifestyle implications (small apartment if/when there's another strict curfew)?

I mean that the truth how many people would want to go through that again if that have a choice? It’s very bad for health as people lose their exercise and vitamin D, and many people who died were locked in apartments that were infested building wide which happened a lot in NYC and other dense parts of the world. Housing prices are skyrocketing as people look for larger spaces best with yard but even larger condos/apartments if they couldn’t. Same with car prices. They say the chip shortage but I find that not the full truth as other chip depending items Ie tablets computers or most every other electronics these days did not skyrocket nor be as tight supplied as cars. I believe it’s due to an unprecedented demand for cars globally like never before coupled with labor and supply chain shortages. People shunned transit even though it was free for a long while. Transit in much of the US were already unpopular prior to COVID people only ride it if there is no practical choice Ie those living in crowded cities NYC. Or could only afford or have parking for one car in household. But since COVID people really don’t want to be in potentially packed public spaces if possible.

Apparently the progressives hit themselves in the head by making people fear public spaces and anything dense. By keeping the COVID driven fear to continue indefinitely.

It’s true All electric houses like ones in texas where electricity per Kwh were historically affordable would take a much bigger generator to power. Solar panels don’t work well in production on winter months when more energy is needed to heat pumps and electric heat and electric car range are shorter, and never works well for mountain communities where the mountain and trees block the sun much of the year..

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Please explain: Are you saying society shouldn't do what's good for the climate (increased density) because you don't like the lifestyle implications (small apartment if/when there's another strict curfew)?

Density is not good for the climate or air pollution. The increase in such problems is paralled by the increase in density. It is one of the major causes. Increased concrete and asphalt use that retains heat and blocks water from reaching the soil, large buildings blocking sunlight, absorbing heat and causing temperature rise, unlike everyone living a more rural lifestyle which reduces damage to the land and climate. Emissions are related to the technology we use, dense or rural.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Many of the older folks won't be alive by the time any future policies get enacted. As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind. Of course, they also don't think through the implications that their wasteful lifestyles will have on the well-being of their grandchildren.

Most of the people wanting larger SUVs and yards and moving out of apartments/condos
are pretty much young families with children. It was obviously a nightmare with small children and dogs to be stuck in apartment like that even prior to lockdowns but much much worse with lockdowns when all the places and venues to let off steam for children and parents living in tight quarters were all of a sudden no longer available.

But I noticed many people had given up posting on Citydata. As it’s as effective as shouting at a brick wall.

Though my hypothesis why the powers want to make all aspects of CA living as awful/miserable as possible these days. Is their strategy to coarse people to move elsewhere as soon as possible or at least encourage foreigners not try to move in(still thinking that it’s land of eternal milk and honey/dreams) to reduce further impact on the environment in CA and the world around it that the population in CA may impact.