Basically the real story is just that trees make shade (yes, we know already) and "vacant or abandoned" isn't much involved (yes, but we want to discuss zoning/taxes/urbanism things)
The main lesson I draw is that everything would improve by taxing externalities: the land is vacant because the property owners doesn’t have enough incentive to do something useful with it and we have a lot of inefficiency in our housing and transportation which a carbon tax would go a long way towards reducing.
Texas is bigger than that.
They have always taxed more carbon and more land in ways that make them rich as hell, at the average citizen's expense.
To the envy of other states' greedy taxing entities.
That wasn't so bad when there was still enough widespread prosperity for the average citizen to be able to afford it.
The land is vacant after they tore down the buildings because the taxes were already too high, and rising too fast.
No brag, just fact.
"How far up is the river now, Ma?"
"Six feet deep, and rising . . ."
Roger?
Well, if Roger's not here somebody's going to have to do the thermodynamics their own self, and it's good to take the initiative plus show it can be done wihtout scaring anybody by using equations or any of that complicated stuff :)
If not, you cannot make the land cold with air condition. You can just move heat around, with AC from the inside to the outside, but that costs extra energy -> more heat
Yes!
But only if your name is Roger :)
>you cannot make the land cold with air condition. You can just move heat around, with AC from the inside to the outside, but that costs extra energy -> more heat
Which is exactly what I've been saying since I was a teenager.
According to thermodynamics anyway . . .