I think the risk of a shortage of many vegetables, fruits, and nuts and consequently higher prices is much more imminent than a mass migration due to CA water issues. The US gets a lot of food from CA, and that will get hit hard if water issues persist (likely, but not in the short term given snowpack).
2 Likes
I suspect Miami will go under water before California is abandoned
There is a long history of not needing to. Humans have literally never needed to worry about these things till the last 50 years or so. People act like we totally screwed everything up to get where we are today, but really we just got here due to population growth. What we also have a long history of is figuring s*** out. I trust that to continue.
1 Like
No I’m saying the problem is not some intractable mystery with no obvious solutions. It’s going to be much easier to move to a more sensible water allocation than to deal with the mass migration of millions of people. The political will just has to be there to make it happen, and we’re actually pretty close to that right now imo. The recent rains have probably kicked the can down the road a few years, but there is a growing realization among the voting populace that flooding the central valley with water so the rest of the country can have cheap produce is probably not the best use of our resources.
1 Like
If the current tangent on CA water issues continues, I’ll split this discussion into a new thread later
Yes, and they moved from a place with crap weather to a more habitable place. I’m guessing they are not going to want to move back. Even in the worst-case climate models most of California is still going to be a more desirable place to live than Kansas, weather-wise.
1 Like
+1
Yes, more expensive food. More expensive water. No big migration.
I would agree that California is going to be a permanently shittier place to live. But that’s not the same as people being forced to flee.
I do worry about that with other parts of the world (India, Africa) where millions of people are just completely fucked.
For America, I think the biggest problem is (and will) be coastal cities being obliterated by hurricanes and floods. Rebuilding cities sucks.
For California,
The larger water systems are public (18%)
The smaller ones (for drinking water) are private (68%)
So as water becomes more scarce, my expectation is a more privatised water system in California with subsidies (for lower income people and probably some businesses)
It’s an interesting discussion that probably deserves it’s own thread imo, but I’m going to be too busy the rest of the day to contribute much more, so don’t do it on my account
Huh? The Dust Bowl migrants from the Great Plains were mainly descended from Europeans. They didn’t move back to Europe. Why would you think I was suggesting they move back to the Great Plains?
Like most migrations throughout history they will move to where the conditions are better. If the predictions that California is going back to its pre-1800 situation of long-term drought and climate change makes most of California unbearably hot during summer, there are bound to plenty of places where conditions are better (possibly including the Great Plains).
“Not really relevant” was addressing your comment about the cost of installing the rail line. That is a sunk cost. It is not relevant when contemplating where to invest today and tomorrows dollars. Economics tells us to focus on the marginal costs. I don’t believe that is controversial. When you are trying to solve todays problem of congestion, it’s just the marginal costs that are relevant. How much for two or four more lanes versus putting in rail or using existing rail more intensively.
Hope that helps clear that up.
I don’t think the Dust Bowl is comparable. As I said, California has plenty of water for its residents… all they could ever want and more. They just need to stop allocating so much to agriculture in general and almonds in particular.
And when pressured politically, they will bend to the will of the majority. Which is not the almond farmers.
Almonds in particular will get a lot more expensive when CA is truly out of water. That’s going to be the first pain point.
I think they could keep growing oranges and lettuce and most other crops for a lot more decades if they just stopped growing almonds.
If you’re building rail lines that are going to be discontinued in a few years because they are no longer desirable routes then I think that is a massively bigger waste of funds than roads.
is it possible to cut this baby in half - new lanes built are for rapid transit buses only during declared hours?
Almonds will be imported from abroad once the price climbs high enough.
Sure, but California is currently responsible for 80% of the worldwide almond production. So there will be some unpleasant friction for almond lovers.
Regarding mass migration, I should also add that the population of California has declined 500,000 in the last 2 years - the first decline since it became a state. I’m guessing this had little to do with climate change - more likely due to post-COVID trends of more people able to work remotely.
It does indicate that there has been (will be?) a significant desire to move out of California. A decline of several million over the next 20-30 years is a distinct possibility. How much will be due to climate change is hard to say.
The agriculture value chain in California currently employs around 3 million people.
This does not include the families of the workers or jobs in rural towns such as teachers, police, doctors, dentists etc. So a climate- change induced decline of 20-30% in Californian agriculture could easily lead to a million or so people needing to find better prospects elsewhere.
I think people are leaving California because it’s too expensive. Ironically many are going to Arizona where water is a concern. The high costs in California are luckily for our thread title largely due to NIMBY factors preventing appropriate densification.
1 Like
Nice segue back to thread title.
1 Like