Im losing my marbles, this was the one fucking thing they couldn’t fuck up and the fucking environmental groups are so fucking mentally done for, I hate them, I HATE THEM. The only thing I can enjoy if reform wins is seeing them SUFFER. I will ensure that every inch of it IS FELT IN FULL.
you're mental. What will deliver reform is pretending the same private sector first policy that's failed for 40 years will somehow turn out differently this time!. When reform get in it'll be red tory mentalists like you that put them there.
Why do you refuse to respond to the environmentalist argument that mitigation is usually more effective than attempting to create new habitat? Why is your only argument threatening a Reform government?
I think the point is that it cannot be all mitigation. Otherwise you get over engineered solutions that don’t serve anyone well and in these cases - usually bigger projects it could well be best to do something different and more effective just *elsewhere*. I don’t know where that grey zone starts or ends but I know it exists and we should at least acknowledge it rather than being dogmatic.
Haha sorry but saying 'I can't prove where this grey zone exists but I know it definitely does' and then accusing the other side of being dogmatic is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Well, the mitigation hierarchy is a long-established concept in environmental protection, so you have to come up with a fair pit of evidence to disprove it.
I do think infrastructure projects like HS2 creating enemies where none was needed by refusing to build any intermediate stations is part of the problem here.
If big high profile government projects were trying harder to be good for people affected by them people would have more confidence I think.
Yes this is what I see as the single biggest gap too. The nature recovery fund is only a partial solution. Someone needs to be responsible for completing a full evaluation of the country's natural capital, otherwise we have no idea how much to pay into the fund in the first place.
I believe there are existing Local Nature Recovery Plans which might include local valuations of natural capital, but they may be incomplete and not cover the whole country.
The Bill was originally incomplete and really did risk undervaluation of destroyed habitats and poor delivery of the EDPs. The amendments do increase upfront costs to developers but should still improve both development time and costs and habitat restoration. I worry though that the new mitigation hierarchy (avoid > reduce > offset) leaves an open door for local authorities to reject plans because they "didn't do enough".
I'm open to counterarguments, but the Bill as it is does seem a step forward for both development and ecological restoration of the nation if implemented well.
The problem is that at its heart is the seed of a good idea i.e. building robust regional environment restoration zones. The problem is that that seed is where the good bits end. Everything else is a bin fire.
It offers definite environmental harm in return for the promise of a vague undefined better future. How do you measure that its been a success? You can't because they don't want pre-development surveys which would measure what you're losing. If you don't know how much you've lost you don't know that what's been created is greater than what you've lost. So they're proposing to spend huge amounts of money with no way of knowing whether or not it works.
How do you know if what you're losing is key to the survival of that local population? Again, without pre-development surveys you don't. If you lose that local population, then you can do all the habitat restoration you want, but that population has gone.
Im losing my marbles, this was the one fucking thing they couldn’t fuck up and the fucking environmental groups are so fucking mentally done for, I hate them, I HATE THEM. The only thing I can enjoy if reform wins is seeing them SUFFER. I will ensure that every inch of it IS FELT IN FULL.
you're mental. What will deliver reform is pretending the same private sector first policy that's failed for 40 years will somehow turn out differently this time!. When reform get in it'll be red tory mentalists like you that put them there.
Why do you refuse to respond to the environmentalist argument that mitigation is usually more effective than attempting to create new habitat? Why is your only argument threatening a Reform government?
I think the point is that it cannot be all mitigation. Otherwise you get over engineered solutions that don’t serve anyone well and in these cases - usually bigger projects it could well be best to do something different and more effective just *elsewhere*. I don’t know where that grey zone starts or ends but I know it exists and we should at least acknowledge it rather than being dogmatic.
Haha sorry but saying 'I can't prove where this grey zone exists but I know it definitely does' and then accusing the other side of being dogmatic is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Well, the mitigation hierarchy is a long-established concept in environmental protection, so you have to come up with a fair pit of evidence to disprove it.
I do think infrastructure projects like HS2 creating enemies where none was needed by refusing to build any intermediate stations is part of the problem here.
If big high profile government projects were trying harder to be good for people affected by them people would have more confidence I think.
Yes this is what I see as the single biggest gap too. The nature recovery fund is only a partial solution. Someone needs to be responsible for completing a full evaluation of the country's natural capital, otherwise we have no idea how much to pay into the fund in the first place.
I believe there are existing Local Nature Recovery Plans which might include local valuations of natural capital, but they may be incomplete and not cover the whole country.
The Bill was originally incomplete and really did risk undervaluation of destroyed habitats and poor delivery of the EDPs. The amendments do increase upfront costs to developers but should still improve both development time and costs and habitat restoration. I worry though that the new mitigation hierarchy (avoid > reduce > offset) leaves an open door for local authorities to reject plans because they "didn't do enough".
I'm open to counterarguments, but the Bill as it is does seem a step forward for both development and ecological restoration of the nation if implemented well.
The problem is that at its heart is the seed of a good idea i.e. building robust regional environment restoration zones. The problem is that that seed is where the good bits end. Everything else is a bin fire.
It offers definite environmental harm in return for the promise of a vague undefined better future. How do you measure that its been a success? You can't because they don't want pre-development surveys which would measure what you're losing. If you don't know how much you've lost you don't know that what's been created is greater than what you've lost. So they're proposing to spend huge amounts of money with no way of knowing whether or not it works.
How do you know if what you're losing is key to the survival of that local population? Again, without pre-development surveys you don't. If you lose that local population, then you can do all the habitat restoration you want, but that population has gone.
It's a mess.
There's nothing new about the mitigation hierarchy - and IIRC it isn't even in the bill yet!