I have criticized the idea that the law of supply and demand no longer applies to big-city housing (or, as I call it, supply-and-demand denialism, or “SDD” for short). It just occurred to me that there are a few similarities between supply-and-demand denialists and those who deny climate change. To name a few:
*Rejection of science. Climate change denialists reject climate science; SDD true believers reject economics.
*Paranoid fantasies about foreigners. Some climate change denialists treat worldwide concern over climate change as a conspiracy by Europeans or Chinese to destroy the U.S. economy; SDD believers are obsessed with foreigners purchasing U.S. or Canadian real estate.
*Obsessive fear of change. Climate change denialists assume that any possible limit on fossil fuel emissions will destroy the U.S. economy (despite the fact that we already have lots of taxes and regulations and somehow maintain a more-or-less First World standard of living). I suspect (though I realize this is conjecture) that SDD believers are often NIMBYs who fear, without any obvious basis in reality, that new housing will turn their neighborhood into a slum or into a playground for the rich.
*Self-interest generating these fears. Climate change denialists get information from politicians funded by the fossil fuel industry (and media outlets that support those politicians), which has a strong interest in limiting regulation of fossil fuel pollution. NIMBYs are sometimes homeowners who have a financial interest in limiting new housing in order to keep prices and rents high, or housing activists who can more effectively argue for government-subsidized housing if housing prices are high.
The difference, I think, is that the size of the grants and contributions from foundations and governments in favor of climate change limits far exceed those of the industry opposition. By contrast, I don’t think that’s the case with pro-housing growth money (though I’m sure NIMBYs would argue otherwise.) Then again, a large part of that difference is because emissions regulation is naturally at a national or supranational level, whereas most housing regulation is local (but perhaps shouldn’t be.)
I would take issue with the characterization of housing activists as disingenuous seekers of goverment largesse.
What’s really the case is that such people are usually left-leaning people who are honest supply-and-demand denialists
What’s the equivalent of lukewarmers?
“Climate Change” science is as fraudulent as “planning and zoning” expertise. Neither survives even the lowest level of scrutiny. Both are agenda-driven and exist only to exhort money from someone to spend on something unrelated to what they claim. I’ve issued this challenge for several years now – show me one shred of evidence (not cocked-up models or theories) that human activity has altered the climate -and I’ll eat these words. To date, I’ve had no takers.
Michael
While I generally agree with the sentiment you express insofar as policy should be guided by evidence, I have disagreements with your presentation.
While the term “denialist” is somewhat less offensive than “denier” given the latter’s association with Holocaust denial, it remains a term which isn’t conducive to constructive dialog. I think of a “denialist” as one who rejects overwhelming evidence without offering a reasonable sets of facts or arguments. In this frame, “denialist” = “idiot” who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and therefore something of an insult.
There are certainly idiots who reject what you term climate science, and do so for idiotic reasons. To that extent, they are “denialists” as I’ve defined it. On the other hand, there are lots of highly credentialed scientists who have serious doubts about the catastrophic predictions of “mainstream” climate science that are driving policy decisions, and they marshal an impressive array of facts and arguments in so doing. To lump everyone together into one “denialist” camp is to seriously misunderstand the true state of climate science.
Climate change is a subject I’ve followed with considerable interest for nearly 30 years, starting from a position of more-or-less unconditional acceptance of the mainstream view of it. The more I’ve learned (which is a lot), the more skeptical I’ve become that it’s a serious problem, or that if it is the policies that are commonly advocated to address it make any sense.
But I’m not an idiot, I am quite well-informed on the topic and as such I rather resent being labelled a “denialist”. There remains much room for informed skepticism in the climate debate.
“Human activity” includes land use changes such as removing forests, cultivating different crops, paving parking lots and building cities These kind of changes measurably impact local climate – they change the temperature and where/how much it rains. So even if CO2 fears are overblown, your “challenge” statement seems too strongly worded.
[Climate change denialists assume that any possible limit on fossil fuel emissions will destroy the U.S. economy…]
That is a blatant LIE.
There is no such thing as “local climate”. It’s just weather and current conditions. Yes, we humans can and have minutely altered local weather and conditions by building cities, damming rivers, ignoring common sense, among other sins. But changing climate – not one bit. Volcanos can change climate, man not so much
You should probably look up the definition of “climate” before choosing this particular hill to die on. But regardless, the global climate is the sum total of lots of local climate. If you grant the (obvious) fact that humanity measurably impacts local “conditions” you have to grant there is SOME impact of humanity on the global climate. Even if it’s small and hard to measure, it’s there.
(or if you think it’s not, you need to present some sort of *argument* why it wouldn’t be)