California doesn't need an influx of Floridians — or anyone else

California Gov. Gavin Newsom cruised to reelection in November. In fact, he was so confident of victory that he diverted campaign money to run ads in Florida, seeking to persuade disgruntled residents upset by Republican policies there to relocate to the Golden State.

The ad campaign, as slick as the governor's famously coiffed hair, is certainly raising his profile as a potential future Democratic presidential nominee. But Californians can only hope the ads don't prove too persuasive − because an influx of people from Florida, or anywhere else, would strain California's already pressured ecosystems and threaten our quality of life.

Simply put, California already has plenty of people. There's nothing progressive about trying to attract more.

One in eight people living in the United States calls California home. Although our growth rate has slowed in recent years, it hasn't stopped. Our population jumped nearly 6% between 2010 and 2020, and current projections suggest that California will claim 44 million residents by 2050.

Some point to positives of population growth. It can stimulate economic development. It can promote diversity and increase consumer choices. But in California we already have those things and have to ask, is it possible to have too much of a good thing? Perhaps nowhere have the pains of overpopulation been felt as acutely as in California.

Natural resources are finite − and a growing population makes already existing scarcity worse. Consider how California is currently experiencing its driest period in over a millennium, and the Shasta Lake and Lake Oroville reservoirs − the two largest in the state − are at critically low levels. To make do, millions of Californians are living under intense water restriction policies. Some counties have even ordered restaurants to offer water to patrons only on request.

Of course, population growth doesn't just impact the environment − it also impacts our quality of life.

Consider how this summer, we pushed our electrical grid to its limits. Record-breaking heat pushed a record-setting state population to use a record amount of energy. Officials barely avoided rolling blackouts by pleading with residents to turn down their air conditioning to save power. They even asked people to not charge their electric vehicles during evening hours − when more people are home and energy demand spikes.

If California can't even handle existing energy demand, one can only imagine the problems we'll face by 2035, when the state will have added even more people, in an even-hotter climate, and have just banned sales of new gasoline-powered cars and switched to an electric fleet.

Or consider a favorite conversation starter: traffic. Since 2011, the average commute time in California has increased nearly 15%. In Los Angeles, where chronically bad road congestion has earned the city a national reputation, the average driver will spend over 100 hours each year stuck in traffic.

Yes, infrastructure improvements and investments in public transportation will encourage more people to use something besides a car to get around, hopefully lessening congestion and reducing transportation-related emissions in the process.

But it'll take a herculean effort − and many, many years − to get there. The poor state of California's public transportation infrastructure means that Californians who use transit to get to work today have commute times 66% longer than those who drive. With numbers like that, it's no wonder the overwhelming majority of workers opt for their car over the train.

Adding more residents will inevitably put more cars on the roads. And even if they are the zero-emission electric vehicles Governor Newsom is pushing for, that certainly isn't going to help anyone get where they need to get from A to B in a reasonable amount of time.

More people also means more strain on our housing market − and more demand for development that is likely to sprawl into pristine natural habitats by inland cities like Bakersfield, Fresno, and San Bernardino.

It will result in an escalation of many of the quality-of-life concerns Californians cite today: some of the worst air quality in the nation, eye-boggling housing costs, and day-ruining road congestion.

Considering all of the things mentioned above, how will Governor Newsom even begin to meet the 30x30 California target to conserve 30% of the state's land and coastal waters by 2030 that he directed in a 2020 executive order? It doesn't take much of a cynic to think that Governor Newsom's conservation rhetoric does not match his zeal for unbridled growth in his state.

Gov. Newsom can invite all the Floridians he wants to the Golden State. But he can't do so while claiming to be an environmentalist.

Simply put, California is already operating at capacity. Bringing in more people, whether they hail from other states or other countries, isn't in the best interests of California's environment or her existing residents.

Bill Cool is a retired government and U.S. history teacher from Corona del Mar, California.

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: California doesn't need an influx of Floridians — or anyone else