by Sparaxis » Mon 23 May 2005, 23:43:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is why I don't think San Francisco belongs on the list of worst places post-peak. The U.S. is more sustainable than most countries. The western U.S. is more sustainable than the eastern U.S. I suspect that the San Francisco Bay Area is more sustainable than L.A. An urban environment (the city of SF) is more sustainable than a suburban one. All of these factors add up to my family staying put for the time being.
California has one major shortcoming--it has a Mediterranean climate, one of only 5 such regions in the world. This is characterized by mild rainy winters and dry summers. Notice that we don't get even a drop of rain for 6 months straight from April/May to November?
The problem then is that all the crops we grow for food are summer-growing--and therefore require summer water, while all our rain is in winter. California agriculture is massively dependent on cheap water for summer irrigation. What happens to agriculture post-peak during drought years such as the early 1980s?
I agree that Northern California is more sustainable than southern. LA averages 15 inches of rain per winter (this winter was very abnormal). San Jose gets the same. San Francisco gets 22 inches, and Santa Rosa, 32 inches. From SF north, there's a longer rainy season, and better chance to store water for summer irrigation. By the time you get to Oregon, the dry season shrinks to 4 months, but those are the critical 4 months for food crops, so irrigation is still a necessity.
I intend as well to stay in San Francisco for some time, but the "economic relocalization" efforts in Willits in Mendocino Co. attracts my attention. With a 12 month growing season there, and rivers that flow during the summer drought, there's a better chance of developing a local sustainable food supply.