I know it’s rare but it’s lovely to see such an article with a pattern of “hook, problem explained, potential solutions, an actual solution being worked on and is likely to be implemented.” A feel good read about infrastructure v environment.
I recall researching the potential construction of a wind farm on the Outer Hebrides some years ago, as part of post-grad studies. As part of the project, the impact on bird life and peat had been studied to a level of detail way beyond anything before. Turned out the campaigners against it had Greenpeace and RSPB behind them. Using highly dubious data. As a colleague in another large environmental NGO whom I subsequently worked for facetiously commented: 'RSPB will still be pleased that they've stopped wind farms, when the last bird has died as a result of climate change'!
No doubt some of the environmental organisations need to rethink their priorities and approach, whilst recognising that the construction sector are not exactly saints.
Serious question if part of the problem is EU derived legislation why does it cost less in the EU? Did we gold plate the laws? Or do EU countries ignore EU laws when it suits them.
I don't think it's the only factor. But, there does seem to be an issue with the way we implemented EU legislation both through gold-plating and by the extent we allow administrative decisions to be challenged in the courts.
I sympathise with a lot of this, but a thread through it seem to be 'sure Bechstein's bats are threatened in Europe, but we have a decent amount over here so why bother to go through all this effort?'
If they're threatened in Europe then doesn't make our population even more valuable? Surely we're supposed to value out heritage and protect it for future generations?
Like I said I sympathise a lot and I'm 100% sure things could have been done better but that argument is faulty.
It's also worth pointing out that many environmentalists are open to debate about the current system but none are in support of the government's recently announced plans, which you support. The government's plans involve no baseline surveys of development sites - so how do you know what you're losing, how do you know if the plans have led to an overall biodiversity increase if there's nothing to compare it too. If the developer has contributed to a recovery fund but then when development starts they find a rare species on their site, what should they do? Waiting around for surveys and management plans would be the scenario you're wanting to avoid, so do they just plough on and destroy it?
There was also some uproar/mocking when the story initially broke of NE's 'no bat death is acceptable' statement. But what do you want them to say? Their whole purpose is to protect environment. If they say 'sure we're ok with killing some animals' then any credibility is instantly shredded.
Your point about the trawler load of fish is misleading as this makes it sound as though it is a single trawler load, whereas the EDF page you've linked to states that the number of fish being referred to is a trawler's annual catch. Again, I sympathise with the point you're making, but you can make a good point without needing to round down the environmental risks.
Given the broader benefits of rail travel over driving and flying in terms of climate change, I don’t think it’s too naive to expect conservation bodies to have some degree of balance in their positions. If it were shown that on average 3 bats per year were saved by the bat tunnel then yes, I absolutely believe that a responsible conservation body would say “Well ditching the bat tunnel isn’t great but given the climate change benefits of building HS2 and the donation of £x to the Nature Recovery Fund [or whatever] we think this is an acceptable outcome overall”.
But I do view some green campaigners as being against all economic growth (some have explicitly said as much), and of course that is ultimate the aim of building HS2.
But if Natural England are getting mocked for saying 'no bat deaths are acceptable' that implies that people want them to say one of two things. Either 'all bat death is acceptable' which would be a ridiculous thing to say given their remit to protect the environment, or people want something in between 'no bat death is acceptable' and 'all bat death is acceptable' which would lead to a bizarre Thick of It style conversation where Natural England have to discuss how many bats they feel it's ok to kill. Any response leads to NE getting mocked.
1) If EU regs are so abysmal, restrictive and negatively impactful, why is it still cheaper to build comparative infrastructure over there where they apply? Begs the question, is it actually environmental regs or perhaps something else? like the price we pay for the land (eg Hope Value etc)...thoughts?
2) These environmental protections are there for a reason, as we do have significant species and habitat decline. Suggesting our nature laws are mutually exclusive with climate change mitigation is absurd, as we have binding carbon budgets, while even the Habs Regs have an IROPI clause when it gets deadly serious (re societal needs outweighing impacts).
3) Surely the bat tunnel route was chosen on a previously railway line to save costs (eg PDL). What are the cost benefits of running this route WITH the bat tunnel vs redirecting around the forest. Surely they did those calculations and this route is still cheaper for the public purse. It wasn't NE that chose to run a high speed line through a Habs site - they're just doing their job to remedy the impacts of the chosen route; and finally
4) What's a £70-100m bat tunnel compared to the £200m Michelle Moan was given by your then government to make faulty Covid PPE? At least the tunnel will exist and perform a function, while all we have to show from that larger "investment" are her new range of yachts and bronze tan - not exactly benefits for nature or the environment, unlike this scheme which serves a nature function.
I think their take is that some of the bolder claims are dubious and that the UBI stuff in the developed world is a bit sloppy. But, I don't think it's anything that'd make me revise down my opinion of Givewell's recommendation.
Excellent article. We can both build enough housing and infrastructure for AND increase access to nature and biodiversity, and this substack explains perfectly how this could be done. I have been worried that voices, including Mr Dimitriu, calling for more development simply don't value nature and therefore have no quarrel with it being entirely replaced with built environment and therefore offer no solutions. This substack has given me the reassurance I needed.
I have really enjoyed reading works from Dieter Helm who also advocates a kind of Nature Recovery Fund as one way we can actually improve our natural capital at the same time as developing. He also advocates Catchment System Operators who could, as part of their wider role, allocate the funding from the central Nature Recovery Fund.
I know it’s rare but it’s lovely to see such an article with a pattern of “hook, problem explained, potential solutions, an actual solution being worked on and is likely to be implemented.” A feel good read about infrastructure v environment.
The best post I have seen on Substack. Well done.
I recall researching the potential construction of a wind farm on the Outer Hebrides some years ago, as part of post-grad studies. As part of the project, the impact on bird life and peat had been studied to a level of detail way beyond anything before. Turned out the campaigners against it had Greenpeace and RSPB behind them. Using highly dubious data. As a colleague in another large environmental NGO whom I subsequently worked for facetiously commented: 'RSPB will still be pleased that they've stopped wind farms, when the last bird has died as a result of climate change'!
No doubt some of the environmental organisations need to rethink their priorities and approach, whilst recognising that the construction sector are not exactly saints.
Serious question if part of the problem is EU derived legislation why does it cost less in the EU? Did we gold plate the laws? Or do EU countries ignore EU laws when it suits them.
I have exactly the same question of Sam.
I had the exact same question after reading so many anecdotes about how cost-per-mile of railway is so much lower in, e.g., Spain.
I don't think it's the only factor. But, there does seem to be an issue with the way we implemented EU legislation both through gold-plating and by the extent we allow administrative decisions to be challenged in the courts.
I sympathise with a lot of this, but a thread through it seem to be 'sure Bechstein's bats are threatened in Europe, but we have a decent amount over here so why bother to go through all this effort?'
If they're threatened in Europe then doesn't make our population even more valuable? Surely we're supposed to value out heritage and protect it for future generations?
Like I said I sympathise a lot and I'm 100% sure things could have been done better but that argument is faulty.
It's also worth pointing out that many environmentalists are open to debate about the current system but none are in support of the government's recently announced plans, which you support. The government's plans involve no baseline surveys of development sites - so how do you know what you're losing, how do you know if the plans have led to an overall biodiversity increase if there's nothing to compare it too. If the developer has contributed to a recovery fund but then when development starts they find a rare species on their site, what should they do? Waiting around for surveys and management plans would be the scenario you're wanting to avoid, so do they just plough on and destroy it?
There was also some uproar/mocking when the story initially broke of NE's 'no bat death is acceptable' statement. But what do you want them to say? Their whole purpose is to protect environment. If they say 'sure we're ok with killing some animals' then any credibility is instantly shredded.
Your point about the trawler load of fish is misleading as this makes it sound as though it is a single trawler load, whereas the EDF page you've linked to states that the number of fish being referred to is a trawler's annual catch. Again, I sympathise with the point you're making, but you can make a good point without needing to round down the environmental risks.
Given the broader benefits of rail travel over driving and flying in terms of climate change, I don’t think it’s too naive to expect conservation bodies to have some degree of balance in their positions. If it were shown that on average 3 bats per year were saved by the bat tunnel then yes, I absolutely believe that a responsible conservation body would say “Well ditching the bat tunnel isn’t great but given the climate change benefits of building HS2 and the donation of £x to the Nature Recovery Fund [or whatever] we think this is an acceptable outcome overall”.
But I do view some green campaigners as being against all economic growth (some have explicitly said as much), and of course that is ultimate the aim of building HS2.
But if Natural England are getting mocked for saying 'no bat deaths are acceptable' that implies that people want them to say one of two things. Either 'all bat death is acceptable' which would be a ridiculous thing to say given their remit to protect the environment, or people want something in between 'no bat death is acceptable' and 'all bat death is acceptable' which would lead to a bizarre Thick of It style conversation where Natural England have to discuss how many bats they feel it's ok to kill. Any response leads to NE getting mocked.
This is another article that worth a read for Sam and any others seeing this https://www.linkedin.com/posts/caroline-chapman-a8527014b_editors-response-to-planning-reform-working-activity-7289689551701254144-u-lu/
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/robertoatesdotcom_initial-reaction-to-mhclg-defra-working-activity-7282806847479136256-KmP1/
1) If EU regs are so abysmal, restrictive and negatively impactful, why is it still cheaper to build comparative infrastructure over there where they apply? Begs the question, is it actually environmental regs or perhaps something else? like the price we pay for the land (eg Hope Value etc)...thoughts?
2) These environmental protections are there for a reason, as we do have significant species and habitat decline. Suggesting our nature laws are mutually exclusive with climate change mitigation is absurd, as we have binding carbon budgets, while even the Habs Regs have an IROPI clause when it gets deadly serious (re societal needs outweighing impacts).
3) Surely the bat tunnel route was chosen on a previously railway line to save costs (eg PDL). What are the cost benefits of running this route WITH the bat tunnel vs redirecting around the forest. Surely they did those calculations and this route is still cheaper for the public purse. It wasn't NE that chose to run a high speed line through a Habs site - they're just doing their job to remedy the impacts of the chosen route; and finally
4) What's a £70-100m bat tunnel compared to the £200m Michelle Moan was given by your then government to make faulty Covid PPE? At least the tunnel will exist and perform a function, while all we have to show from that larger "investment" are her new range of yachts and bronze tan - not exactly benefits for nature or the environment, unlike this scheme which serves a nature function.
Great post as always. On cash transfers: Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie poured cold water on some of the evidence for them in their podcast: https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-10-cash-transfers
I wouldn't be so bullish on them now.
I was surprised, as generally GiveWell seem pretty rigorous
I think their take is that some of the bolder claims are dubious and that the UBI stuff in the developed world is a bit sloppy. But, I don't think it's anything that'd make me revise down my opinion of Givewell's recommendation.
Excellent article. We can both build enough housing and infrastructure for AND increase access to nature and biodiversity, and this substack explains perfectly how this could be done. I have been worried that voices, including Mr Dimitriu, calling for more development simply don't value nature and therefore have no quarrel with it being entirely replaced with built environment and therefore offer no solutions. This substack has given me the reassurance I needed.
I have really enjoyed reading works from Dieter Helm who also advocates a kind of Nature Recovery Fund as one way we can actually improve our natural capital at the same time as developing. He also advocates Catchment System Operators who could, as part of their wider role, allocate the funding from the central Nature Recovery Fund.