Have you listened to the NPR podcast The Big Dig? I learned so much about why we can't build any more from that podcast. They used to demolish entire neighborhoods in order to build infrastructure, even if there were alternatives available. Getting real YIMBY policies in place will result in bad outcomes for some people, we need to increase the volume to overcome that. Hopefully the insane cost of housing will help us convince people.
So let's unpack that city council member's mental model of politics a bit. They evidently take it for granted that "we can't do it without the support of the firefighters' union". Why? Did you get any explanation from the council member or was it just that flat blanket statement?
If, as I suspect, the explanation is that the firefighters' union endorsement, or non-endorsement, seems to the council members to be a likely determinant of their re-election: how do we change that? That in turn unpacks into a couple more questions:
-- how much of the council members' view of that endorsement's importance is perception vs reality? What would induce someone to take a chance and test that? Or, more ambitiously, what would it take to make the YIMBY endorsement seem at least as important to the council members as the firefighters' endorsement?
“Their thesis is simple: we need more of everything. More housing, more immigrants, more clean energy infrastructure.”
Sorry, the first sentence is a lie. They don’t actually want more natural gas energy, let alone coal production.
I realize they are writing their book for the left, trying to pull the typical leftist more towards the center-left. Perhaps that is your focus too, idk.
But just because that indeed would be a better thing than the status quo does NOT mean you or they are sincere with the claim of “we need more of everything”.
Because as Josh Barro puts every well in his critique of the book, if they are correct that “green” energy will be unbelievably cheap in 25 or 30 years, then even if you are an AGW catastrophist who worships Mother Gaia above the welfare of human beings, there is no need to artificially constrain the production and consumption of fossil fuels now - and in the process deny the enormous benefits of low cost, reliable, highly available energy to the world’s poorest billions who unlike we rich westerners lack same - if soon enough “green” energy will be dirt cheap.
Here's a fitting fully open-sourced technology:
https://www.KryonEngine.org
Why is it still not mass-manufactured and distributed?
Well...
Have you listened to the NPR podcast The Big Dig? I learned so much about why we can't build any more from that podcast. They used to demolish entire neighborhoods in order to build infrastructure, even if there were alternatives available. Getting real YIMBY policies in place will result in bad outcomes for some people, we need to increase the volume to overcome that. Hopefully the insane cost of housing will help us convince people.
So let's unpack that city council member's mental model of politics a bit. They evidently take it for granted that "we can't do it without the support of the firefighters' union". Why? Did you get any explanation from the council member or was it just that flat blanket statement?
If, as I suspect, the explanation is that the firefighters' union endorsement, or non-endorsement, seems to the council members to be a likely determinant of their re-election: how do we change that? That in turn unpacks into a couple more questions:
-- how much of the council members' view of that endorsement's importance is perception vs reality? What would induce someone to take a chance and test that? Or, more ambitiously, what would it take to make the YIMBY endorsement seem at least as important to the council members as the firefighters' endorsement?
“Their thesis is simple: we need more of everything. More housing, more immigrants, more clean energy infrastructure.”
Sorry, the first sentence is a lie. They don’t actually want more natural gas energy, let alone coal production.
I realize they are writing their book for the left, trying to pull the typical leftist more towards the center-left. Perhaps that is your focus too, idk.
But just because that indeed would be a better thing than the status quo does NOT mean you or they are sincere with the claim of “we need more of everything”.
Because as Josh Barro puts every well in his critique of the book, if they are correct that “green” energy will be unbelievably cheap in 25 or 30 years, then even if you are an AGW catastrophist who worships Mother Gaia above the welfare of human beings, there is no need to artificially constrain the production and consumption of fossil fuels now - and in the process deny the enormous benefits of low cost, reliable, highly available energy to the world’s poorest billions who unlike we rich westerners lack same - if soon enough “green” energy will be dirt cheap.