Scorching Phoenix Plans For An Even Hotter Future

[mhays]

Does that mean no accusations or false victimhood in the future? Or will we rehash this again and again?

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

This is an outright lie. Some of your posts are so closed-minded they are almost cartoon like, such as splitting the NE away from the rest of the country.

If I've offended anyone else, I sincerely apologize.

There is however an undercurrent of total disdain here directed at certain cities. It's beyond obvious.

How is that cartoonish? The Cascadia Region has tried to split , same with Vermont and New England. Congress has blocked every attempt , however I don't see the US having all 50 states 40 years from now. The Country has been going down the tubes for a while , and the various parts of the Country are going different directions.

There may be some bashing by other members , but there are some good arguments and facts. Whenever I target cities are regions I go by the facts and not stereotypes....you have chosen to take offensive to everything ive said about the south from Water issues to Transportation and Energy when you know its the truth and proven rather quickly.

[mhays]

Cascadia didn't try to split, or even have a significant movement for it. No area has tried even 1/4 as much as Quebec. It's always been fringe at most.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by mhays

Cascadia didn't try to split, or even have a significant movement for it. No area has tried even 1/4 as much as Quebec. It's always been fringe at most.

Actually after further reading , it was fringe....anyway this thread has been derailed....can we close it?

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by mhays

Does that mean no accusations or false victimhood in the future? Or will we rehash this again and again?

Of course, it depends on what is posted. When someone claims that Downtown Atlanta is "banal and disgusting" and I call them on it, this was your response:

"Atlantaguy, you might try visiting some other cities. This will help you gain some perspective. This sort of comparison tends to be relative."

I consider that a huge insult for you to even suggest I'm not well traveled, simply because you didn't agree with my response. You are the one that has decided to label me as a victim, so you need to own it.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

There may be some bashing by other members , but there are some good arguments and facts. Whenever I target cities are regions I go by the facts and not stereotypes....you have chosen to take offensive to everything ive said about the south from Water issues to Transportation and Energy when you know its the truth and proven rather quickly.

Pure BS. You have gone so far in the past to have stated there is"proof" that mass transit in the entire South has always been riddled with corruption, and basically doesn't deserve to exist at all. In my opinion, you've been brainwashed to hate an entire region of your own country, one you have never even set foot it.

[Nexis4Jersey]

retracting statements........

[Doug]

Originally Posted by mhays

New York reportedly uses the least energy per capita in the US. Transportation is a big factor. Another is smaller homes, often with shared walls.

That is potentially misleading. A lot of the for lack of a better word: "backoffice" type activities that consume vast amounts of energy aren't feasible in New York's expensive, congested and highly regulated environment. Instead these activities happen elsewhere and are reflected in higher prices. So some of what would be energy consumption in other locales is merely replaced by higher prices on other forms of consumption. The best example would be something like groceries. Instead of driving to a big box style store, New Yorkers shop at a neighborhood store. Supplying the neighboorhood store requires warehousing and transporation infrastruce located elsewhere with the energy consumption happening elsewhere.

[ajmstilt]

While global climate change will likely make Phoenix hotter, and may (*may*) harm some of it's water supplies, Phoenix's water supply isn't the biggest threat it will face. *

However Phoenix will survive, better than many cities we currently think of as "wet." A very dry place getting dryer, isn't nearly as bad as an wet place getting dry.

Now will the built environment in Phoenix start to change, yes of course. But will millions of people flee it in some mad max style apocalypse, doubtful.


*The biggest in my opinion is it's lack of a diversified economy and overall dependence on trucking and poor (non highway) transportation links.

[mhays]

I'd say it's most likely to stagnate, not shrink.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Doug

That is potentially misleading. A lot of the for lack of a better word: "backoffice" type activities that consume vast amounts of energy aren't feasible in New York's expensive, congested and highly regulated environment. Instead these activities happen elsewhere and are reflected in higher prices. So some of what would be energy consumption in other locales is merely replaced by higher prices on other forms of consumption. The best example would be something like groceries. Instead of driving to a big box style store, New Yorkers shop at a neighborhood store. Supplying the neighboorhood store requires warehousing and transporation infrastruce located elsewhere with the energy consumption happening elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure I saw a US DOE measure of grand total power usage per region, and it dramatically favored urban areas.

Back offices don't use more power per se. Because they tend to pack more people in, they might use more per square foot, but less per person.

Not sure what your point is about groceries. I'd guess central warehouses would manage inventory more efficiently than a bunch of supermarkets that each try to keep x days of each category on hand. And on a freight-to-vehicle-weight basis from warehouse to home, having trucks go most of the way saves tremendously over personal cars doing most of it it.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Doug

That is potentially misleading. A lot of the for lack of a better word: "backoffice" type activities that consume vast amounts of energy aren't feasible in New York's expensive, congested and highly regulated environment. Instead these activities happen elsewhere and are reflected in higher prices. So some of what would be energy consumption in other locales is merely replaced by higher prices on other forms of consumption. The best example would be something like groceries. Instead of driving to a big box style store, New Yorkers shop at a neighborhood store. Supplying the neighboorhood store requires warehousing and transporation infrastruce located elsewhere with the energy consumption happening elsewhere.

Thanks; I've been trying to explain that for years. In general, the cost of something includes the cost of raw materials, including all the energy that goes into getting them made and distributed. Therefore "energy saving" is not a separate criterion from cost: it's already baked in.