I mean, what should we be optimizing for here? Is it better to have a sparsely populated, sprawling suburb state? Or is it better to have high density areas (e.g., the Bay Area) with surrounding open space (CA has a lot of pristine & protected wilderness)? CA obviously has both high density areas and some sprawl; but I’m guessing that pollution generated per capita is better in a place like the bay area than in more rural parts of the country on account of being able to walk, bike, or take public transportation places.
Also, as others pointed out, wildfires — not sure how these numbers are generated, but if it’s just a simple average than it doesn’t capture the health consequences I’m guessing: during wildfires, it’s not uncommon to wear an N95 outside, and basically avoid outside if possible (and certainly no exercise outdoors).
California: 8 out of 19 – winning!
When the state is perpetually on fire air quality suffers
I mean, what should we be optimizing for here? Is it better to have a sparsely populated, sprawling suburb state? Or is it better to have high density areas (e.g., the Bay Area) with surrounding open space (CA has a lot of pristine & protected wilderness)? CA obviously has both high density areas and some sprawl; but I’m guessing that pollution generated per capita is better in a place like the bay area than in more rural parts of the country on account of being able to walk, bike, or take public transportation places.
Also, as others pointed out, wildfires — not sure how these numbers are generated, but if it’s just a simple average than it doesn’t capture the health consequences I’m guessing: during wildfires, it’s not uncommon to wear an N95 outside, and basically avoid outside if possible (and certainly no exercise outdoors).