Overshoot

Exurban sprawl in the Verde Valley, which competes for water resources with the Salt River Project.

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" — Edward Abbey
I was reading an Arizona Republic story about the state seeking ways to "prop up" Lake Mead to "forestall painful and chaotic shortages for at least a few years." The number that sat me back was that Arizona draws 40 percent of its water from the Colorado River.

For an old-timer like me this is an astounding statistic. In 1960, Arizona took very little water from the river. Greater Phoenix, which constituted 50 percent of the state's population, received all its water from the dams and reservoirs on the Salt and Verde rivers. The rest of the state was heavily dependent on ground water, the pumping of which was already a longstanding problem, with a few other renewable river sources. But the entire state held 1.3 million people — less than the population of today's city of Phoenix.

What nobody wants to discuss is when does Arizona hit population overshoot? With more than 6.8 million people, a population that places it in the ranks of such states as Massachusetts and Washington, one could argue it already has. This is particularly true considering the combination of an over-subscribed Colorado and the growing stress of climate change.

It's virtually a forbidden topic. Even after the housing collapse, Arizona's economy remains a one-trick pony dependent on adding more people, building more sprawl, creating a Sun Corridor from Benson to Flagstaff. The local-yokel boosters mounted up to attack Andrew Ross' superbly researched and well argued book, Bird on Fire: Lessons From the World's Least Sustainable City, precisely because he crossed the line. He asked the existential questions about the vast Ponzi scheme. I did the same as a Republic columnist, despite being warned from the most powerful levels: Don't write about water. I did and I was out.

Arizona had a pretty good deal for much of the 20th century. It had a small population. Towns were compact. Federal reclamation created an American Eden in the Salt River Valley. Federal policies and investment in Cold War industries, home loans, cheap power for air conditioning, and highways and airports goosed growth after World War II. So did generations of retirees who were allowed a comfortable retirement in the sun thanks to FDR's Social Security and the post-war prosperity created by the liberal consensus of a mixed economy and strong unions. Phoenix, especially, had abundant land and water.

Things went off the rails starting in the late 1980s. Real estate became the dominant driver of the economy. The population grew 40 percent in the 1990s to top 5 million at the turn of the century. And it broke out of the traditional confines — exurban tract-house pods in the Verde Valley, outside Prescott, Payson, and Flagstaff, Pima County's notorious wildcat subdivisions, the massive conversion of farmland to sprawl in metro Phoenix spilling into Pinal County, and utterly unsustainable plays in Mojave County, outside Benson, and beyond the White Tanks. Don't forget the dodgy land swaps that turned public land along the Mogollon Rim into subdivisions ("cabins") erected in vulnerable tinder-box forests.

A modest initiative to institute growth boundaries seemed on its way to winning in 2000 — this was after the Republic ran its courageous series on development eating an acre of desert every hour. This scared the hell out of the Real Estate Industrial Complex. It mobilized a desperate campaign than ran from the "scholarly" — developer-economist Elliott Pollack warning that the measure would cause a recession — to the thuggish. The proposition was defeated and the sprawl boyz platted every inch of private land for development, to ensure sensible land use could never happen.

This is a short history — much more could be written about each item here. So, too, more could be done about the state's water sustainability. As I've written before, water is very complex in Arizona. We're not "running out" — it's not that simple. But neither can we continue the detached single-family house sprawl model without limits. The 1980 groundwater act was necessary for achieving the Central Arizona Project (in retrospect, the CAP was a mistake). But how well is it really policed? The 100-year water supply required of new subdivisions sounds good — until one digs into its loopholes and arcana. How many projects have been permitted under political pressure? And what's the end-game of the 100-year supply, even if it's real, even if groundwater recharge is making up for continued groundwater pumping (hint: it's not).

The mighty acts of the early 20th century ensured that average Arizonans can turn on the tap and never even think about where the water comes from, much less worry, much less reflect on the future. It's an amazing achievement. So is the human-made artificial environment that makes one of the most hostile environments so effortlessly habitable. Or so it seems. All this cloaks the serious questions that should be asked and the policy one-eighties that should be made.

Sure, they can buy time. Kill off the Phoenix oasis. Eliminate agriculture. Continue spreading misinformation and intimidating serious investigations into the true conditions and alternatives. But it is only kicking the can down the hot pavement. The rates of return keep diminishing. Massachusetts' population grew 3.1 percent from 2000 to 2010. Big deal. It enjoys one of the most vibrant economies on the planet and ensures much higher well-being for its citizens. That's the model Arizona should be embracing now, not continuing the old extraction economy of the Real Estate Industrial Complex.

And that has about zero chance of happening. Arizona is like the idiots that climb Camelback on a hot day and demand a rescue when heat exhaustion and heat stroke fells them. Some day that rescue won't come.

———————————————————

Read the best journalism on climate change and sustainability on Rogue's climate special report page.

 

Comments

[cal lash]

Die in AZ.
Look at the charts in this excellent article.
In the MIT magazine article magazine itself Az is the only state that turns to dead black. (dark red here on line)
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603158/hotter-days-will-drive-global-inequality/

[Bradley Dranka]

And so much of the Arizona "dream" is sold on the idea of "perfect" weather...

What happens when the temperatures really get out of hand in the summer and working in that kind of heat becomes life-threatening? All the "man up" and "git 'er done" sloganeering won't count for much.

If long-term water rationing becomes reality, how will people judge the quality of life in the Valley?

On a link from this column, I found evidence that the total water use in Arizona is 50% greater than the Colorado River acre-feet, and that groundwater pumping near the Colorado created a seepage from the river to replenish the pumped aquifers.

I also think there is negligence and decadence in the "go, go, go" mentality that never seems to value restraint, reflection, or consideration of sustainability. It seems to be all about "now." with little thought about the future.

But as the average temperatures keep climbing that upward parabola, the future is coming at Arizona at an increased speed.

[Bradley Dranka]

I meant to say above, "I found evidence that the total water use in Arizona is 50% greater than the Colorado River acre-feet ALOTTED Arizona,"

[Bradley Dranka]

We in the USA have created the environment for people wanting to come here: We proclaim we are the "shining light on the hill," for 200+years we have used these immigrants for their cheap labor, we have relied on their intelligence to fill our medical and digital needs...and now we simply, in our ignorance and arrogance, want to "slam the door" in the rest of the world's face.

The rest of the world sees this glaring hypocrisy.

The unforeseen consequence of this is the rest of the world's likely equivalent response of keeping their best and brightest at home at a time when America's need for medical and digital talent is skyrocketing due to our aging population and increased digital appetite.

But does Trump, at 70 years old, care anything about consequences? He only lives in the present because, with the pace of his job potentially being lethal, as his friend Howard Stern alluded to, he has to do something NOW.

The future be damned!

Why does this sound just like the mindset of Arizona's leaders???

[Donna]

very well done-All of my life I have read the boosterism hype-again and again it shows why Arizona will be world-class someday (and not just for tourism) but that someday is fading away with every desert fountain

[Mark in Scottsdale]

I don't think there's any doubt life can be sustained here long-term despite water rights issues, however, it will assuredly be with less agriculture, "championship" golf and possibly even fewer swimming pools. That to some extent could retard the growth machine if our lifestyle and climate seem less attractive.

I also think milder winters in less-prized climates might pose a threat to the growth machine. But, climate change to that great of a degree may or may not occur, and the greater frequency of extreme weather events, both cold and hot, due to climate change might make places prone to flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., seem less attractive whilst making our relative natural-disaster-free environs seem attractive still despite rising temperatures.

It's going to be fascinating to see how it all plays out, to be certain.

[Cal Lash]

U must be young

[Ken Atherton]

My question is, how much of that 40 percent goes to cities?

The Boulder Canyon Operations Office has a complete listing of Lower Colorado River water entitlements:

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/contracts/entitlements.html

Clicking on Second and Third Priorities opens a PDF showing, among other things, each allocation by city, as of January 2016.

Phoenix's allocation is only 5,000 acre-feet. Between Phoenix, Glendale, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe, total allocation is less than 25,000 acre-feet.

So, it doesn't appear to me that urban development is fueled by Colorado River water.

Is this misleading? As RC points out, the issue is complex, so perhaps contract entitlements don't tell the full story?

[Ken Atherton]

Incidentally, a look at the First Priority PDF shows the Colorado River Indian Reservation alone has diversion rights to roughly 650,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water.

Do the tribes sell a portion of their allotment to non-tribal entities? If so, how much? If not, what do they do with all that water?

[Ken Atherton]

OK, I see where I went wrong: CAP is listed as a Fourth Priority entitlement at 1.5 million acre-feet. So the question is how much of CAP water goes to residential city use. Got figures?

[Ken Atherton]

Might as well make that residential and business use. Or just urban use, assuming that excludes agricultural projects, farms, etc., though that could be a big assumption for some communities served by CAP.

[Ken Atherton]

Any comments on this?

"As populations in Phoenix and the surrounding area continue to grow, Hallin noted that SRP is continuing to plan for the future through a first-of-its kind partnership with the Gila River Indian Community called the Gila River Water Storage LLC.

"With rights to more Colorado River water than Phoenix and Tucson combined, the Gila River community is working with SRP to store that water underground for future use. The water supplies secured through this unique partnership can support a population of roughly 450,000."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/arizonacommerce/2015/03/04/why-global-manufacturers-dont-sweat-over-the-water-supply-in-booming-phoenix/

[Ken Atherton]

OK, this is helpful:

"Today, about one-third of CAP’s water is used by cities and industries. Farmers use about one-fourth of the water and one-tenth goes to Indian Communities. The rest of the water, about one-third, is pumped underground to use in the future."

http://www.tapintoquality.com/your-water/water-sources/srp-cap

Arizona's allocation of Colorado River water is 2.8 million acre-feet. CAP transports 1.5 million acre-feet, or 54 percent of that. So one third of that, or about 18 percent of Arizona's Colorado River water allocation goes to cities and industries.

[Cal Lash]

Yep Teddy should have declared az a wilderness.

[Ken Atherton]

I found this interesting for the second paragraph:

"Some cities are already making sacrifices. Phoenix, for example, is tapping into banked water to offset some of its usual consumption directly from the Colorado River. “Our hope is that we have some sharing of the burden so it doesn’t just fall on the backs of some,” Cooke said.

"Residents have not felt the effects, as the city only uses about two-thirds of its allotted water."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-water/2016/04/25/arizona-may-give-up-even-more-colorado-river-water/83523820/

[Ken Atherton]

Bradley Dranka wrote: "I found evidence that the total water use in Arizona is 50% greater than the Colorado River acre-feet allotted Arizona."

This may explain it:

"Regardless of the ongoing drought, lower-basin states consume more water from the river than what it provides.

"They have been draining Lake Mead since river allocations were made in the early 1900s because the deal never took into account vast amounts of water lost to evaporation or the moving process.

"That reality hasn’t thrown us into shortages before because the upper basin hasn’t used its full allocation for years, which has allowed excess water from Lake Powell to flow into Lake Mead.

"The two lakes can store up to four times the normal flow of the river. That storage has held us over through dry years, said Chuck Cullom, Colorado River programs manager for the Central Arizona Project."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-water/2016/04/25/arizona-may-give-up-even-more-colorado-river-water/83523820/

[anon]

The Ghost of Emil returns

[Cal Lash]

Did U all look at the MIT charts I posted above? Water or not the heat is eventually going to kill most above ground without a Stillsuit. Oh well at 76 I have had my time in what's left of the Great Sonoran Desert. Me and Wiley Coyotee going to fade into the dusty distance and leave U all with them climate denial fools. Not all the scientists in the world could convince those idiots of the facts.

PS, did you know that the more coyotes, stupid men kill the more that willey critter breeds. Many more.The book Coyote America is a good read.

[Cal Lash]

"At first light, before dawn, the desert is intimate, and each man feels the presence of others as intrusion".
Oliver La Farge

[Mike Doughty]

As I worked up a sweat chasing my grandaughter around the Kiwanis Park playground(which is covered),I wondered what it would be like tomorrow when the temps are supposed to be 15 degrees above normal.I am truly sorry what she is going to have to live through because we were so wasteful and selfish.Climate change is real and is happening at a very rapid pace.The deniers will probably never admit it,but they are going to have a lot of explaining to do.I used to spend only four months at my cabin near Flagstaff.Now it is almost 6 months and probably will soon be nearly 8 months.As you can tell,I hate to sweat but the ones who really will be sweating are our grandchildren.

[Bradley Dranka]

Mike Doughty, The deniers could give a flying rat's behind about explaining their indifference regarding the planet because their singular motivation is ambition. This lack of conscience and refusal to be either responsible or accountable is dictated by their greed for enrichment--and altruism isn't even on their radar. These deniers also are quite sure they won't be around when things really "get cooking." In my opinion, they are beneath contempt.

[Chris Thomas]

Hello, all. For a thorough description of the past, present, and future of the Colorado River Delta and the legal and historical context, you can't do better than my former colleague Peter Culp of Culp & Kelly. He's a prolific -- if not demented -- writer on Colorado River issues and a tireless advocate for cooperative efforts to save the Delta. The executive summary of this free report has it all. Be advised that the report is 398 pages; I told you he was thorough.

http://encouragecapital.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/water-in-the-west-full-report-final_web.pdf

If the link doesn't work, just google "Liquid Assets: Investing for Impact in the Colorado River Basin."

Smartest guy I know.

[Chris Thomas]

If I'm reading Cal's link correctly, by 2099 unabated climate change will produce GDP loss of 36 percent for the United States as a whole and 73 percent for Mexico. Yikes.

[wkg in bham]

@Chris and Bradley: Take a deep breath and relax. Consider a few things.
First: Yes 2016 was the warmest year in recent history. It beat out the previous record set in 1998 by 0.1 degree C. This was due to a super el nino. The earth is rapidly cooling. Warming is certainly something to keep an eye on; but the end of the world is not in sight.

Second. Any economic forecast for 2099 verges on science fiction. 2099 in 83 years from now. Who knows what the world will be like then. Consider 83 years in the past was 1933. The US was mired in the depression. Since then we have come up with television, solid state electronics, nuclear energy, the DNA sequencing, well the list goes on forever. Our capabilities in 2099 will (maybe) be vastly superior to what exists now; unless a new dark ages recurs. Anything is possible.

This is not to put down anything Phoenix might do to address the localized urban heat island effect. Many practical ideas/products exist to aid in this effort.

Please keep this posting in the back of your mind when the issue of immigration/open borders comes up again.

[Bradley Dranka]

This column about "overshoot" illustrates what the conservatives value most, and provides me an opportunity to illustrate their earthly goods worship--as opposed to worshipping God.

I really don't see anyone challenging my accusations and assertions that most conservatives, especially those invoking God to impart a smokescreen of heavenly "grace" over their misbehavior, act very much in direct opposition to how the Bible tell man to act.

The sole reason I bring God into my excoriations is that THE CONSERVATIVES BROUGHT GOD--AND CONTINUE TO EMPLOY GOD--IN THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION.

While the liberals don't give back what they should, they do give back a little more than the conservatives--and are thus closer to what God wants us to do here on earth.

Again, no one has challenged my assertions and accusations--except some sidestepping "enjoying your angst" and other similar comments. This, as opposed to confronting my points.

I guess the conservatives have nothing to counter that they are avaricious, ambitious, and care much more about capital gain and power acquisition than stewardship of the planet and altruism--and that these motivations run counter to what God and Jesus would want us to do...Again, it's all a matter of which Lord you serve first.

They brought "God" into this discussion--and I'm more than happy to call them out on the issue of "God."

[B. Franklin]

Hey wkg, this is from those crazy kooks over at NASA:

"Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over short time periods ignore natural variability and are misleading."

What you have to look at is the long-term temperature readings that have been collected over the past century. Over that sort of time scale, global warming becomes apparent from observations of both our atmosphere and our ocean, which are intimately linked pieces of the climate puzzle."

Maybe you do have to be a rocket scientist to understand some things.

[Cal Lash]

The chart I posted from MIT is very comprehensive and scientifically sound for right NOW and the future. IMHO deniers live for right now with no serious concern for their children and others to come. I worry for my grandchildren and their kids. I'm OK at 76. I live in a home on wheels with Solar, a generator and propane.

Is it possible that The Donald will be provoked into a rage that will result in Mad Dog Mattis (and others) recommending Trump be taken into custody for his own welfare and the saftey of the planet, Earth?

[Bradley Dranka]

wkg in bham: On WHAT level (or universe) does the issue of immigration/open borders have any connection to global warming (or, in your mind, global "cooling")? Please enlighten all of us...

No, the end of the world will result from political factors and machinations. However, the Republican party's continued deliberate and willful ignoring of scientists, to self-servingly avoid accountability--and thus avoiding acting responsibly--WILL result in contributing to a more inhospitable climate. All this for a short-term financial gain at the expense of future generations ability to live in some kind of harmony with nature. But man may destroy the planet in the Armageddon before then...

But, then, nature is seen as ripe for exploitation by conservatives. Giving back is anathema to them.

[Bradley Dranka]

wkg in bham: If anything, open borders and the immigration resulting has contributed mightily to America's economic growth. But, as the travel and hospitality industry is beginning to feel(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-ban-already-cost-business-travel-industry-185-million-224808678.html), Trump's rash and disrespectful immigration ban has "consequences."

Other countries citizens and their governments have a "choice" on where to travel, and they have their own discrete opinions that may cast opprobrium on this "loudmouthed" and indecorous President and his boorish ways.

We will reap the "whirlwind" from the chaos Trump has sown.

[Bradley Dranka]

wkg in bham: Keep an "eye" on "warming????" That sounds like a poor "excuse" for inaction. Again, our successors on this earth will pay the price for our "keeping an eye" on warming and actually doing nothing to address it....

[Cal Lash]

Bradley, take a deep breathe and take a day of rest tomorrow.
But keep coming back.

[Ken Atherton]

Can anyone direct me to a survey showing that a preponderance of professional climatologists agree that artificial processes are the primary cause of climate change?

Not an assertion that they do, but an actual survey in which the question is phrased explicitly in these terms (e.g. "Are mànmade processes mostly responsible for currently observed climate change?"), where the sample size and methodology are published along with the survey?

Given the extent of public policy debate on this subject, one would imagine that there would be multiple surveys of this nature. Professional pollsters collect data on a wide variety of topics, both independently and on behalf of clients.

If 20 years of political controversy have not produced surveys of this sort, what does that tell us?

Again, the pertinent requirements of such a survey are:

(1) It targets professional climatologists.

(2) It explicitly requires the respondents to agree, disagree, or refuse to comment on, the premise that man-made processes are responsible for most of the observed climate change since the beginning of the industrial age.

(3) Publication of the number of surveys mailed or otherwise communicated, the percentage of the professional climatological community this represents, the percentage who actually responded, and the responses of those who did.

Why isn't this being funded?

[Ken Atherton]

P.S. Publication of the percentage who responded out of the total number of those surveyed is critically important in assessing consensus. Most of those responding will be those with definite views, not those for whom uncertainty or professional discretion causes them to choose to ignore the survey rather than take part. If the self-selected respondents are a minority of the total surveyed, their minority view is not evidence of a genuine consensus.

Ideally, the survey question would have three possible responses: agree, disagree, and have no definite opinion. The responses could be further ramified by adding options for strongly and weakly agree/disagree.

[wkg in bham]

@B. Franklin: thanks to those rocket scientists at NASA we now have satellites that provide accurate data for temperatures over the entire planet. The RSS feed out of UAH is the only data source that can be taken with any confidence.

As you point out, the planet has been slowly rising in temperature – but this goes back to 1600. We were coming out of the “little ice age” at that time. Prior to that, there was a warm period much warmer than we are now experiencing now.

Also as you and NASA point out, what we experience is “weather”. Drought in the Southwest is just weather. Floods in Cali is just weather. There’s nothing extreme about any of this. “Extreme” weather happens every day somewhere.

@Bradley: my comment about immigration and open borders had strictly to do with Phoenix and the water situation. RC has implied any number of times that Phoenix simply has too many people living there. I would put the ideal number of residents at somewhere around a million. That means that 4+ million should just go away. On a national scale I also think we have more than enough people. We could absorb a limited number of immigrants – but that should be our decision.

[Cal Lash]

"Just weather". And anyone that suggets that weather is influenced by man made issues is just a Chinese communist comedian. Arent you all glad we got rid of that Black socialistic communist Muslim dude that believed in Climate Change. It is amazing how resigned we are to "there is nothing we can do". Just have another beer shorty, it's gonna be okay. Since its gonna be okay what's another 30 billion folks and more Arizona "Sprawl".

Taking Zero immigrants seems less bigoted than the Donalds plan. And the planet surely has enough humans. 7 billion?
The planet and the Universes don't discriminate. Even though the planet earth is at the mercy of a bunch of old decrepit northern European White religious bigoted dudes, led by Furer Insanity, Nature will have its revenge on all.

[Rogue Columnist]

Resources:

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/climate-change-energy-water.html

[Cal Lash]

Jon, thanks for that post. I have read many of those if not most. But not the one that said, "My Dog ate the Planet." Had to be a GOP Rottweiler.

[Cal Lash]

PS, I think that's the Rottweiler that a presidential aide had genetically engineered. It's now off leash and foaming at the mouth.

[Ken Atherton]

Wkg: "Thanks to those rocket scientists at NASA we now have satellites that provide accurate data for temperatures over the entire planet. The RSS feed out of UAH is the only data source that can be taken with any confidence."

Here's a graph from that source showing temperature changes, relative to some sort of baseline "normal", from December1978 through January 2015. "Anomaly" evidently refers to deviation from the baseline. The blue colored parts are cooler than baseline, and the red colored parts are warmer than baseline.

Note that since the late 1990s there is a lot less blue, a lot more red, and the magnitude of the red spikes seems to be growing.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/january/Jan2017_tlt_update_bar.png

[Ken Atherton]

Sorry, that's through January 2017.

[Ken Atherton]

Here's an irony:

"...some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining."

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

"Those damned liberals at the EPA caused global warming!"

Well, probably not. Global coal consumption grew steadily (8.7 billion tons in 2013 vs. 3.7 billion tons in 1980):

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy//?product=coal&graph=consumption

Coal burning produces both aerosols and carbon dioxide. So if aerosols cool and carbon dioxide warms, evidently the balance is weighted toward the carbon dioxide component, provided one attributes global temperature rise to carbon dioxide.

So, while the United States was regulating coal burning with increasing strictness:

"In the previous few decades, China’s economic model was based on high GDP growth rates and heavy investment in construction and related industries, such as steel and cement, the authors pointed out. These industries are extremely energy intensive and have relied heavily on coal-fired power stations, which produce huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Between 2000 and 2013, the country’s coal consumption grew by about 8 percent each year, the report notes, nearly tripling altogether by the end of the 13-year period. The result was huge economic growth, accompanied by hefty carbon dioxide emissions."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/07/china-vowed-to-peak-carbon-emissions-by-2030-these-researchers-think-it-could-already-be-there/

[Ken Atherton]

From IEA International Energy Outlook for 2016:

"Throughout the projection, the top three coal-consuming countries are China, the United States, and India, which together account for more than 70% of world coal use. China accounted for 50% of world coal consumption in 2012, and its coal use continues to grow through 2025 in the Reference case... Although coal consumption in China does not change much from 2012 to 2040, coal use in India and the other countries of non-OECD Asia continues to rise. India’s coal use surpasses the United States total around 2030, and its share of world coal consumption grows from 8% in 2012 to 14% in 2040."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/coal.cfm

So, while the United States, which accounts for less than 1/6 of global coal consumption (which peaked in the U.S. in 2007), can help with additional restrictions, the bigger problem is China, which accounts for 1/2 of global coal consumption.

In general, if you consider it vital that carbon dioxide emissions decrease, you should really get behind some sort of global economic initiative to regulate third world coal consumption, not to mention automotive emission standards in countries like China and India where the number of privately owned automobiles is expected to vastly increase.

Right now large parts of China remain primitively agricultural, and in the cities cars remain a luxury. The creation of a broader domestic consumer class in China and the inevitable expansion of highway systems suggests a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions even if China's coal consumption slows or peaks.

[Ken Atherton]

Beijing: World's Largest Parking Lot:

"China’s love affair with cars seems increasingly to be turning its capital into a giant, nightmarish, gridlocked parking lot. (See a slideshow.)

"Following news of a 10-day traffic jam outside Beijing that has stretched up to 100 kilometers (62 miles) long, state media on Tuesday reported that average driving speeds in the capital could drop below 15 kilometers an hour if residents keep on buying at current rates of 2,000 new cars a day."

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/08/24/beijing-becoming-worlds-biggest-parking-lot/

[Bradley Dranka]

cal, I can't really hold back when I see gross negligence on such a grand scale, and what this inaction portends for the coming decades.

wkg in bham, cal may get his wish of depopulation in Phoenix if those temperatures spike and water becomes rationed. People may simply move away if living there gets too problematic.

[Ken Atherton]

Bradley Dranka wrote: "cal may get his wish of depopulation in Phoenix if those temperatures spike and watering becomes rationed. People may simply move away if living there gets too problematic."

This is what's known as a feedback control loop. Population grows until existing resources are insufficient to sustain the population, then growth slows, stops, or declines. It's seldom pretty, but it does place limits on growth.

The blog asks whether the state's population is already too large and if not, how much is too large?

As far as water is concerned, as the author points out, there is some elasticity. Agricultural water and unused tribal water provide supplementary sources. The question is one of cost. A use based pricing structure can allow reasonable water consumption at affordable prices, but penalize additional water use through tiered pricing. Technical improvements making existing water use more efficient (whether agricultural, residential, industrial, or municipal) offer additional elasticity. At some point, either because of technological advances or increasingly expensive natural water supplies, desalination becomes practical.

It all depends on your standards, what your practical options are, and how much crap you're willing or required to put up with. When the population starts declining because of negative net immigration, it's probably safe to say that the population is too large.

[Bradley Dranka]

Ken Atherton, That will be ironic and funny if Arizona has to go through Mexico to get access to water for desalination. The other BIG question is whether they'll actually want or follow through to paying for it....

But I also think the Mexicans are more biologically suited to living in extreme heat, so Phoenix won't really be a problem for their physical constitutions. The Anglos are the ones who'll likely lack the tolerance for the heat that's coming.

[Ken Atherton]

https://g.co/kgs/OhzvFs

You might like this.

[Ken Atherton]

P.S. Open in You Tube, Chrome audio sucks.

[Cal Lash]

Luis de Mexico, explains how Trumps Americans are paying him to build The Wall.
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38932934

[wkg in bham]

Richard Layman at Urban Spaces has some nice things to say about Urban Design Week in Phoenix.

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2017/02/next-week-is-phoenix-urban-design-week.html

[Bradley Dranka]

And my comment about there being enough Anglos able to stand the heat that's coming in the next few decades is what Phoenix will have to deal with to remain viable. But long-term thinking isn't really valued in a "git-er-done" NOW environment that thinks the earth is ours for the taking and that its resources are limitless. This is part and parcel of the pseudo-Christian mentality that God is on "our side" and therefore excuses our wantonly wasteful exploitation of the planet. We create the hell that will be coming.

[Ken Atherton]

The link to a Devin Townsend climate change related video I posted above ("You might like this") now leads to a different video than was originally the case. Best I can do (and open in YouTube not Chrome):

https://youtu.be/YhcoLO8vZZU

Audio seems inferior (scratchy and less warm) than the other version.