> California and the rest of the Southwest should be abandoning places like California City, IMO, not building them up.
Maybe, but history has repeatedly followed a different path. Southwestern desert cities find a way to get water. How that happens is another matter, but the water eventually comes.
Also, I'm not completely sure about the claim that places like California City should be abandoned. Living in the desert means that you're not, for example, living in a forest. Clearing forests for urban development reduces CO2 capacity and increases reflectivity, both of which can contribute to global warming.
Also, desert urban areas are ideally position to benefit from advances in solar energy technology. They can use that source almost every day of the year. Cities can be located very close to the source. Inexpensive land means that large-scale facilities can be built nearby.
Maybe, but history has repeatedly followed a different path. Southwestern desert cities find a way to get water. How that happens is another matter, but the water eventually comes.
Also, I'm not completely sure about the claim that places like California City should be abandoned. Living in the desert means that you're not, for example, living in a forest. Clearing forests for urban development reduces CO2 capacity and increases reflectivity, both of which can contribute to global warming.
Also, desert urban areas are ideally position to benefit from advances in solar energy technology. They can use that source almost every day of the year. Cities can be located very close to the source. Inexpensive land means that large-scale facilities can be built nearby.