One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.
One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.
Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.
Well, I think statistics are saying we've got a lower per capita population growth thing going on now. Making Roe vs. Wade a forgone conclusion will/would help. Eliminate any stigma in a woman deciding if she wants to go to term. Push back by whatever means is necessary on campaigns to make birth control difficult that have been going on in several states. Make birth control easy, affordable and by no means repugnant. Education! Until people realize we have problems solutions can be tough to come by. I think all these are humane and quite effective.One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?
One child policy? I mean, seriously, how do we even accomplish this in a humane way?
Not the only thing. Capping the population of our country would be a HUGE boon to the planet and emission reduction in 10, 30, 100 years time.
Maybe true, but also gets us a stagnant or slowly contracting economy. Since over 70% of our economy is consumer spending, a population that's stagnant or contracting will lead to the same in economic expansion.....it won't expand. Something Wall Street currently punishes companies for.....not growing exponentially.
Indeed, China actually now accounts for 45% of the coal-based electricity generated in the world, compared to 37% back in 2010.
![]()
China's goal is to increase the share of electricity generation in its total coal usage.
Data source: BP; JTC
In addition, China is at the heart of another issue that is quietly emerging for those wanting to "wish the world away from coal."
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis reports that China's financial institutions are providing $36 billion in funding to build coal power plants outside the country.
China has committed or offered funding for 102,000 MW of coal-based electricity, mostly in Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh, and Vietnam.
So yes, while China's coal demand will remain very high, there is no question that the country seeks to lower an over reliance on the fuel, aimed at diversifying with more natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. This has given Chinese companies more incentive to seek projects in foreign nations.
This is all part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative that will use its own development model to help "finance and build roads, railways, bridges, ports, and industrial parks abroad." An immense infrastructure build-out that will not just require thermal coal for electricity but also metallurgical coal for steel making. "The One Market That's Sure To Help Coal."
And almost a quarter of the coal plants China is funding in other countries would be less efficient, higher emission subcritical units that are no longer allowed to be used in China. These nations have less environmental standards and are desperate for investment of any kind. I do find this a bit contradictory though given that one of China's major climate plans has been to replace inefficient, older coal plants with state-of-the-art coal plants.
The goal of many poorer nations to install any type of power generation is easy enough to understand.
The depressing amount of global energy poverty, particularly electricity deprivation, is largely forgotten here in the rich West, where we have all the energy that we need at our fingertips. For example, as measured by per capita per year, over 3,500,000,000 humans - nearly half of the world - use less than 10% of the electricity that we privileged Americans do.
With electricity the foundation of modern life, living with such low access to power is a worsening calamity that is simply unacceptable for leaders in the still developing world. Regardless of what they might say publicly, all energy sources are on the table: the destructiveness of the growing digital divide is incalculable.
Coal often makes sense for them: coal leads and supplies 40% of the world's electricity, is reliable and cost effective, and is widely available.
I'm surely not saying, however, that coal's upside is unlimited.
After all, the International Energy Agency is now projecting that global coal demand will remain pretty stable through 2023 at least, which is actually a victory for coal given that the 2015 Paris climate accords signed by almost 200 countries had coal reduction at its core.
In CA as of Jan. 1:
Beginning in 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels, which could be costly for homeowners: According to California's Energy Commission (CEC), that mandate will add between $8,000 and $10,000 to the cost of a new home.
Makes good sense on the planet.Shrug. Makes perfect sense in Cali.
It’s great if you’re building a new house, are younger or in a southern latitude. I live in northern New England and the pay off is something like 15 years and too expensive with our current income. I guess my point is that yes, it’s great for the planet, but not affordable for allot of people.Makes good sense on the planet.
It’s great if you’re building a new house, are younger or in a southern latitude. I live in northern New England and the pay off is something like 15 years and too expensive with our current income. I guess my point is that yes, it’s great for the planet, but not affordable for allot of people.
Maybe true, but also gets us a stagnant or slowly contracting economy. Since over 70% of our economy is consumer spending, a population that's stagnant or contracting will lead to the same in economic expansion.....it won't expand. Something Wall Street currently punishes companies for.....notgrowing exponentiallykilling the planet.
It's a part of California's psychotic approach to everything construction related. Building more housing is a top priority, we need 3 million more homes, and they have to be "affordable", so we mandate solar panels. Those panels will save the owners money, but not much when you figure they will most likely be part of a thirty loan.In CA as of Jan. 1:
Beginning in 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels, which could be costly for homeowners: According to California's Energy Commission (CEC), that mandate will add between $8,000 and $10,000 to the cost of a new home.
It's a part of California's psychotic approach to everything construction related. Building more housing is a top priority, we need 3 million more homes, and they have to be "affordable", so we mandate solar panels. Those panels will save the owners money, but not much when you figure they will most likely be part of a thirty loan.
The legislature has also mandated water usage at 55 gallons per person per day. Accessory dwelling units have also become a big push, with no thought toward existing infrastructure and the limited water supply.
What should be an integrated plan is an ad hoc patchwork of regulations that will drive construction costs up, and make flipping homes even more profitable.
This is contradictory. CA you say needs lots of new homes but ADUs are bad because of water use. The water cap is per capita so exactly what structure the water is being used in is irrelevant from a consumption POV. The new ADU permissiveness and it's recent expansion doubles or triples the housing density of single family lots and lets apt buildings convert some unused space to extra rentals. This is overall way more efficient than building more sprawly tract housing.
Absent repealing Prop 13 the biggest changes CA can make are to enable higher density as of right and to exempt infill residential from CEQA. Legislation to at least partially do that is once again floated in the state legislature and it might pass this time.
The primary issue is water, if there isn't enough now, adding three million dwellings isn't going to help.This is contradictory. CA you say needs lots of new homes but ADUs are bad because of water use. The water cap is per capita so exactly what structure the water is being used in is irrelevant from a consumption POV. The new ADU permissiveness and it's recent expansion doubles or triples the housing density of single family lots and lets apt buildings convert some unused space to extra rentals. This is overall way more efficient than building more sprawly tract housing.
Absent repealing Prop 13 the biggest changes CA can make are to enable higher density as of right and to exempt infill residential from CEQA. Legislation to at least partially do that is once again floated in the state legislature and it might pass this time.
The primary issue is water, if there isn't enough now, adding three million dwellings isn't going to help.
In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets. Adding ADU's to those areas is going to create a nightmare.
I build ADU's, I remodel old homes, I deal with the new codes and ordinances daily. The one goal the state is trying to reach is the one they keep pushing away, affordable housing. I'll take it a step further and say that affordable housing in any of the California population centers is impossible to attain unless it's subsidized.
In the ADU I'm building right now, there is no place within a block to park a car. Architectural and city fees have topped $20k, and the total cost of the project is going to be added to the value of the property for taxes. The rent on that unit will be on the order of $3000 a month. Not all that affordable.
The primary issue is water, if there isn't enough now, adding three million dwellings isn't going to help.
In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets. Adding ADU's to those areas is going to create a nightmare.
I build ADU's, I remodel old homes, I deal with the new codes and ordinances daily. The one goal the state is trying to reach is the one they keep pushing away, affordable housing. I'll take it a step further and say that affordable housing in any of the California population centers is impossible to attain unless it's subsidized.
In the ADU I'm building right now, there is no place within a block to park a car. Architectural and city fees have topped $20k, and the total cost of the project is going to be added to the value of the property for taxes. The rent on that unit will be on the order of $3000 a month. Not all that affordable.
I think there's one such project in CA IIRC, maybe near Santa Barbara. Probably in moth balls now since the severe drought that spawned it has passed. I think reclaiming waste water will prove to be more cost effective than desalinization. Read Water 4.0.Cali should do old style desalination. Dam salt water, put clear slanted cover on pond and collect condensation then purify.
If you're living in a city, you should either be paying for a garage spot or not having a car and using bike/public transit. We shouldn't be giving away public space for car storage or encouraging private auto use in cities.In parts of the Bay Area, there simply isn't any parking and very narrow streets.
I think there's one such project in CA IIRC, maybe near Santa Barbara. Probably in moth balls now since the severe drought that spawned it has passed. I think reclaiming waste water will prove to be more cost effective than desalinization. Read Water 4.0.
