Not much in this article really. Starts out with claiming that progressives didn’t like pollution, and thus became anti science. Doesn’t elaborate. Drops the thread entirely, and continues with a couple different arguments.
First that subsidizing demand with constrained supply just increases prices. Fair enough. Second argument is that there are too many veto points in the building/producing pipeline. Probably also fair.
But that’s really the whole Abundance argument, and the article alludes to that book repeatedly. I can’t tell if this was supposed to be its own original argument, or just a description of the Abundance arguments. I bet there are better synopses of the Abundance arguments than this article though.
Not much in this article really. Starts out with claiming that progressives didn’t like pollution, and thus became anti science. Doesn’t elaborate. Drops the thread entirely, and continues with a couple different arguments.
First that subsidizing demand with constrained supply just increases prices. Fair enough. Second argument is that there are too many veto points in the building/producing pipeline. Probably also fair.
But that’s really the whole Abundance argument, and the article alludes to that book repeatedly. I can’t tell if this was supposed to be its own original argument, or just a description of the Abundance arguments. I bet there are better synopses of the Abundance arguments than this article though.