The End of Snow Threatens to Upend 76M American Lives
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
One thing that's not entirely appreciated all the time is that it's not just the average level or amount of snow that's important, but also the uncertainty around it. In some ways this has become as problematic for me in recent years, not knowing exactly what to expect. I don't want to spend the time preparing gear and traveling to ski trails to find out the condition is poorer than they have indicated, or possibly damage expensive skis. So even if the snow cover is actually fine, if it's become unreliable, it has almost as much effect on my ski behavior.
As another example: it tends to be the beginning and end of the seasons that are affected the most so far. Scheduling events becomes a bit tricky: do events get scheduled at a certain point at the end of the season when, if things are good, there's tons of snow, or is that risky because it could have all melted early?
There's a lot of things like this that seem to get lost when the discussion is focused on abstract quantities like average temperature (not critiquing the article, just explaining my experience).
I used to feel bad that this was someplace effecting our area in particular, that we weren't far enough north or something, almost a sort of "cold climate imposter syndrome". Then one year people in ski forums in a totally different area of the world, where there should be plenty of snow, were having a winter with essentially none.
It's a real problem.
For touring, you basically need to relearn all the heuristics (especially with respect to the safety of the snow) you developed over the years. This is not comfortable.
Ultimately the only solution is to shift away from the water rights system and subsidized water prices, and instead institute a market system with dynamic pricing based on the actual supply. This may mean that California's farmers have to adopt more water efficient practices such as are already used in Israel, and reduce acreage devoted to water intensive crops such as alfalfa.
Maybe what we need is do put more opportunity in places that have water.
Cleveland's average lows are below the freezing point 5 months out of the year. It's basically a constant state of either snowing, or melted/compacted snow freezing into ice.
Then spring comes around and it gets horribly hot. 3 months have average highs in the high 70s to low 80s. They also average 71% humidity; you will be sticky if you walk outside.
It doesn't surprise me we're letting that area decay. I've moved around a few times, and I've never experienced a worse climate. I'd take Texas or Arizona heat over the Great Lakes without thinking twice.
Though the beaches and islands are nice, and changing seasons are refreshing.
Every place has its pros and cons. I try to focus on the positive and do what I can about the negatives.
In early to mid November the temperature will be in single digits with wind chills down below zero. For most of Winter the temperatures will be in the mid-teens to mid-twenties. The reason people stay is for Spring and Fall - but those seasons are disappearing, I believe due to climate change. Spring and Fall have now been reduced to a couple of weeks each. You essentially go from Winter into Summer and Summer into Fall. This year alone there were several days in "Spring" where the temperature varied by 40-50 degrees on a daily basis! That's simply insane! Not to mention making it difficult to manage your wardrobe! Okay, I need heavy winter coat and bulky knit sweaters and heavy jeans today, tomorrow I need shorts and a t-shirt.
I can tell you I'm done with it. As I'm approaching retirement I've been thinking where I can move to that isn't quite so extreme. The Southwest is appealing, but the looming water crises is keeping me away. I'm also not interested in riding out hurricanes. I want to stay on the Eastern half of the U.S. since that's where most of my family is. The only option I've come up with is Tennessee, specifically the Chattanooga area. Why? The city is nestled along the Tennessee River and it's only 1.5 hours from Atlanta which has one of the busiest airports in the world - meaning I can get direct flights to just about everywhere in the country (can't do that very easily in the Midwest, almost all flights are connecting flights and so the airline ticket costs are quite expensive since you pay a tax on each landing and takeoff - and those taxes aren't cheap in the Midwest either since there's comparatively fewer flights).
Do I think it will happen? Not quite.
The developers are (probably) paying off politicians to get permits, but there is no money (due to low taxes) for the necessary projects.
EDIT: roads are being built, but slowly.
Imagine if half the single family homes spreading out for miles were instead townhouses, 4-6 floor apartments, duplexes, quadplexes with mixed use like groceries and schools placed within walking distance of most neighborhoods. I bet traffic and costs would be a fraction of what they are now, much easier to serve density with good infrastructure. With an added bonus, more farms and greenspace would be preserved.
Not everyone wants to live like that.
In densely populated areas of Europe we have apartments everywhere. It's not that bad, if the building was well-built you barely hear your neighbors.
> Walking groceries up multiple floors of stairs is great too.
With the average American BMI it's great indeed!
European homes are built to a higher standard than US homes and many are built from concrete and stone. US apartments are usually built using cheap particle board for floors that turn into bouncy, noisy trampolines over time and thin walls between units.
None of that deals with the many other disadvantages of apartment living.
Dense urban apartments should be available for those who want that lifestyle (primarily childless young people) but it's not a model that we should be pushing as the default for the general population. That would be a real step backwards.
Are you just pretending city kids don't exist?
In San Francisco there are now more dogs than children. Pretty much the only parents who stay are the wealthy who can afford large homes in safe neighborhoods regardless of price, and the poor who receive subsidized housing and have no where else to go. When the middle class has kids they move out to the East Bay suburbs, where they can afford a back yard and don't have to put up with junkies on their doorstep.
If that is all the zoning allowed then people just wouldn’t live there.
Most people in the US simply don’t want to live like that.
Consumer demand should dictate what kind of housing gets built, not naive central planners.
And yet all across America, zoning restrictions laid down by "naive central planners" eliminate options, suppressing options for consumer demand.
Sorry, but what is your point here? This is the same recycled “strongtowns” argument that they repeat endlessly.
Worst case, property taxes increase to help with local infrastructure.
You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim.
Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.
The rich inner suburbs full of busybody jerks are unfortunately rich enough to almost certainly be self sustaining if they want to be. No starving that beast.
People supposed to get food from farms, aren't they?
because you would end up tracking salads and greens and other stuff (which is basically WATER in itself) 2000 miles from, say, Lakes region
This happens regardless of where you grow it. Most of it gets exported. Transporting water in large quantities is not easy. Transporting lettuce is.
Nope. From 2020 numbers, out of Cali ~$50bln agri production, ~$20bln are exported.
> Transporting water in large quantities is not easy. Transporting lettuce is.
?
Get any numbers to substantiate this claim? Water in my house cost me a lot less than lettuce
Many of those farms are exporting their produce to foreign countries. This includes growing alfalfa in California, and exporting it to Saudi Arabia (where the monarchy has set a policy of growing less alfalfa, wheat and corn to reduce pumping of groundwater from the depleted aquifers of the Arabian Peninsula). So essentially they are exporting water from one desert to another via the medium of alfaalfa.
It's sort of hilarious, but I think the libertarian answer here is the right one for California: remove zoning restrictions on housing to put as many people in the Bay Area as want to be there, and remove all the public subsidies and infrastructure spending in the central valley to force agriculture to pay true market rates for the scant water available.
Not so sure about unlimited building in cities as that has consequences similar to the unlimited agricultural policies mentioned. A better solution is to have general rules for development instead of the ad-hoc rules in many communities that slow down the process and allow for extended debate over every building project.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/three-new-california-la...
But people supposed to get food, all ~40mlns of Californians!
Ok, lets stop doing it in the Central Valley. Where Cali food would come from? Tracked 2000miles from Lakes region?
Of course, they aren't going to do that when they're getting water far below market price.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
The coastal commission citing socioeconomic concerns of water rate increases is especially strange, given that their mission has nothing to do with how much and who pays for water: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html
A much better option would have been to have the local water agencies have households opt into the water at a higher rate and not be subject to limits, e.g. up to 80% of the limit, pay $X, then 20% pay $1.5X and then pay $3X to subsidize those who cannot pay. We have progressive rate schedules on many things and they work well enough. If enough people opt in, the subsidy from those paying a lot more could even be used to reduce or eliminate costs for low income households.
Humanity will never reach a steady state IMHO, even if the planet does.