Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard University, has a provocative post on the Green Inc., arguing that localism is bad environmentalism. Opposing wind farms off Cape Cod, fighting hydro-electric projects to protect salmon runs and banning nuclear power plants because of safety fears are misguided. “In these cases, groups are putting local environmental concerns first and the planet second,” he writes.
He also points out that California’s growth restrictions make no sense, because it has among the greenest cities.
California has the most temperate climate in the country and as a result, homes use less heat in the winter and less electricity in the summer. In hot, humid Houston or frigid Minneapolis, people use plenty of energy to artificially recreate what California has naturally.
The counter-argument — that boosting growth would require massive water resources in a water-stressed state — is given short shrift. Glaeser proposes that farmers who consume the bulk of water should just be charged more. “If the state sensibly charged farmers the true social cost of their water, there would be plenty of water for homeowners,” he writes.
But if California did that, the price of food would rise and locally grown food in other regions would become more competitive. And that might be an incentive for people to eat locally and stay put after all.