[oman]

We know San Franciscans and Angelinos have -- per capita -- fewer carbon emissions and less energy intensive lifestyles than people in most places in the U.S. (particularly Nevadans and Arizonans, which I believe are the main recipients of Californian migration). So California's inability to hang onto its residents is damaging the broader economy and the longterm sustainability of the environment. It's a catastrophe.

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

[oman]

We know San Franciscans and Angelinos have -- per capita -- fewer carbon emissions and less energy intensive lifestyles than people in most places in the U.S. (particularly Nevadans and Arizonans, which I believe are the main recipients of Californian migration). So California's inability to hang onto its residents is damaging the broader economy and the longterm sustainability of the environment. It's a catastrophe.

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.