[newyankee]

I never understand how NIMBYSM is considered environmentally correct or friendly. Every movement is taken over by vested interests. Average 4-8 floor height buildings with existing American infrastructure otherwise should be enough to flood market with 'cheap enough' homes.

[kevinventullo]

Does anyone consider NIMBYism environmentally friendly?

[wlesieutre]

No, but environmental reviews are a popular tool for enforcing it

[closeparen]

California NIMBYs generally consider themselves to be saving the world from overpopulation. That’s mainly an object permanence problem, but it’s true that high housing prices deter household & family formation.

There’s also the old canard about how environmentalism demands maximally convenient driving and parking because congestion and hunting for spaces causes cars to run longer.

[davidw]

My parents are from the "boomer" generation, and their idea of environmentalism is pretty good in a lot of ways, but in terms of lifestyle, they think of it as "live on a big lot with a lot of trees and drive everywhere". Yes, they get to see lots of green - but they are very fossil fuel dependent.

There really is a shift in mentality from thinking about what you see out your front door to thinking about the whole thing as a global system, and not everyone is capable of connecting the dots.

[User23]

Supposedly protecting the rare endangered birds keeping high density housing from being built next to mansions on the Malibu shore is extremely environmentally friendly NIMBY.