I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but I can't let this stand without replying. I live in Idaho and the protected areas are relatively pristine (aside from the inevitable gas stations and lodges needed to handle the high volume of sightseers) but the unprotected areas have been largely deforested, desertified and poisoned by extractive timber, grazing and mining practices. They don't tell you that 95% of forests in the lower 48 have been cut so they are no longer old growth, that the droughts are exacerbated by erosion due to loss of native vegetation, that the easily accessible minerals have already mostly been extracted and now we have multi-billion dollar superfund waste sites with mine tailings like arsenic and mercury that we'll be cleaning up for eons at taxpayer expense. The same story is repeated over and over again throughout the west.
For anyone reading this, be wary that the national backlash against public land is being driven by high federal deficits caused by overspending on the military and taxes on the ultra-wealthy that are at nearly an all-time historical low. Remember that we all own public land as individuals and can use it at any time for any purpose that is not destructive. The idea of freely giving away that land to private interests to be exploited for private gain is deeply unsustainable and I mourn for future generations that would miss out on what we enjoy today.
The great tragedy in all this is that I've found that the people in the most enlightened areas, the regions with the most natural resources and beauty left from the time of earliest creation, can take it all so easily for granted and come to take stances that don't ensure its protection. If anyone is on the fence about sustainability vs economic growth, I strongly urge you to do a full accounting with all externalities. You may find that the philosophies and principles that guide environmentally conscious individuals are rooted in logic and not some knee-jerk hysteria like what is sometimes portrayed by infotainment news. I understand that every community is different, but like most things in our society we can rely on a majority sentiment that only thinks one move ahead, not 10 or 20 or 30 like we do. We can’t go wrong by meditating on such important decisions and drawing our own conclusions, which I’m confident will have little alignment with the propaganda of the day.
I appreciate especially this part of your comment: If anyone is on the fence about sustainability vs economic growth, I strongly urge you to do a full accounting with all externalities.
If we focus on the full accounting of positives (not even looking at externalities), we already see problems with these economic models. They fail to assign positive economic value to the zoning laws.
The economists in the article say something like "these zoning laws are depressing economic output by $1.5 trillion."
But, there's another way to look at it: "the value that communities derive from having the power to zone their cities as they see fit is $1.5 trillion."
In other words, these local communities are willing to exchange $1.5 trillion in easy-to-value economic activity for the power to create not-so-easy-to-value zoning laws. The fact that these economists choose to ignore that economic value does not eliminate that value.
I see it as comparable to a stay-at-home spouse who raises children. Such a person doesn't receive an easy-to-count dollar-value paycheck. But those stay-at-home parents across the country are, without any doubt, working hard and contributing significantly to GDP. It's a matter of measurement, not existence. The economic value definitely exists.
How seriously should any of us take an economic model which completely ignores such contributions to GDP?
For anyone reading this, be wary that the national backlash against public land is being driven by high federal deficits caused by overspending on the military and taxes on the ultra-wealthy that are at nearly an all-time historical low. Remember that we all own public land as individuals and can use it at any time for any purpose that is not destructive. The idea of freely giving away that land to private interests to be exploited for private gain is deeply unsustainable and I mourn for future generations that would miss out on what we enjoy today.
The great tragedy in all this is that I've found that the people in the most enlightened areas, the regions with the most natural resources and beauty left from the time of earliest creation, can take it all so easily for granted and come to take stances that don't ensure its protection. If anyone is on the fence about sustainability vs economic growth, I strongly urge you to do a full accounting with all externalities. You may find that the philosophies and principles that guide environmentally conscious individuals are rooted in logic and not some knee-jerk hysteria like what is sometimes portrayed by infotainment news. I understand that every community is different, but like most things in our society we can rely on a majority sentiment that only thinks one move ahead, not 10 or 20 or 30 like we do. We can’t go wrong by meditating on such important decisions and drawing our own conclusions, which I’m confident will have little alignment with the propaganda of the day.