I’m sorry, but this is bullshit. “Economists do not judge whether a parking lot is morally superior to a forest. For environmentalists, however, tastes are morally important–some are good, some are evil.”
Do economists exist in such a rarefied environment that they’re breathing something other than air? Forests provide clear, empirical benefits that parking lots do not.
If we would only put a price on the oxygen they create, not to mention the carbon they absorb, we might get rid of asinine false dichotomies like “the religion of environmentalism” vs “the science of economics.”