Most of which are terrible. Population studies are generally awful, especially when you're using the population of people on a restrictive diet vs. people eating whatever the hell they want to. Especially when you consider the number of vegans who are actually active vs. the rest of the population, which is quite substantial in my anecdotal experience. I think what you can see from these studies is that avoiding processed foods, being a healthy weight, and being active are good for you.
Also, what about the studies showing the children of vegan (it might even be vegetarian, can't recall) mothers have lower birth weights, IQs, and are shorter than the general population? What about the rates of B-Vitamin anemia?
I think that the benefits of being a vegan are the benefits of being concerned with your health. I'd be interested to see a comparison between an equally fastidious group of meat eaters.
You have a good point. If California repeated like it did 15 years ago and made a "market" called the California Water Exchange, and required water-supply entities to sell to separate aqueduct companies... and if the aqueduct companies were required to deliver water to farmers/consumers/industry at a government-fixed price ... with the supply available on a 1-day-in-advance contract basis only ... and if they made up special mandatory fees when water moved across state lines that people could exploit for fun and profit ...
then yeah, that'd be pretty stupid and wouldn't solve anything. because the entire point of moving to a "market" structure is to make the price variable (and in the case of a drought, making water more expensive). Then everyone is financially incentivized to conserve and the high-water-seniority low-margin alfalfa farms could sell their water rights to the almond farmers who just want their expensive trees to survive until the drought ends.
Actually, California had a very nice electricity market. We even had green energy companies that you could choose to buy your power from even if it was a little more expensive.
Then Enron crapped all over it with fraud and collusion. And, of course, since it was Dubya in charge, the Feds did ... absolutely nothing.
I'm not a free market defender. However, we will eventually need something like a market in electricity; there are going to be too many suppliers sending electricity into the grid.
In addition, had lots of electricity suppliers existed, Enron would not have been able to get away with what they did. The whole reason Enron could do what they did was that they could deplete the grid capacity by taking single power plants offline for "maintenance". If you could backfill that capacity and make money, Enron never have been able to pull that off.
That was why the Republicans went out of their way to sell off California's electricity producers.
Logic fail is claiming there is a logical reason why all single wage earners SHOULD be paid enough to afford a two-bedroom rental in their current location. Emotions might tell you that but logic does not.
For much of the 20th century and perhaps as far back as the 19th a single earner was capable of not only providing a multi bedroom apartment but also a house. You should look into why this has changed and ask yourself why you are OK with that change.
Both of my grandfathers built their own homes in 1951 or 1952. Both original houses were around 800 sqft, and eventually expanded to around 1600 sqft over the course of decades. According to the US census bureau  the median new home constructed in the US is around 2100 sqft. If you dig deeper into the data  you'll find that the characteristics of housing in the US have changed drastically since the days of mostly single-income households -- homes are much larger, with more amenities. The average dwelling for someone below the poverty line right now is bigger and has better amenities than the average dwelling for Americans as a whole in 1970.
One pair of my grandparents is still living, in the same house. Houses that have sold on their block in the last few months were all around 800 sqft and went for an average of $95,000 -- which is an affordable 3.2 times the median income in the neighborhood (it's a poor neighborhood.) A single earner can provide a house, provided it's a house similar to what single earners could provide decades ago -- but there aren't many of those on the market. We keep building bigger houses and then wonder why the poor can't afford to keep up.
No, that is not what I meant to imply. My point is that increasing living space will obviously require more income, and it seems arbitrary to assume that 2-bedroom is the point of comparison when you're only looking at one-person incomes. I know a lot of single people without families who are perfectly content to live in a one bedroom or studio (myself included). If you simply assume that everyone must live in a 2 bedroom, then of course you can tell dire stories about how unaffordable housing is.
I don't want to diminish the very real struggle some families have with finding adequate housing. But I do think that the linked article has no real clear thesis other than that they wish housing was cheaper. I'd venture that everyone wants that to be true, always, and forever.