I think this is a baby/bath water situation. Deregulatory actors and politicians pick a presumed enemy to their interests (say environmental protection), scour for an example that they can mock, and then use this as a straw man to ditch the whole agenda.
What matters is where we agree - protection should be evidence-based and not delay all construction indefinitely. We seek the right balance.
Where we disagree is probably the overall thrust of "environmental regulations gone mad" which I think is weaponised by tabloids and climate deniers alike and isn't in good faith.
I think we should minimise damage to wildlife. However we have to look at net damage. If Hinkley Point C is not built or delayed we will presumably use gas for longer.
Is it possible that the harm to wildlife by building Hinkley Point C is less than the harm of the alternatives?
Or do we not look at such things? Also compared to the number of fish that the UK eats - is this is Hinkley Point C really relevant?
Ideally we would use the warm water to farm tilapia which is better for the environment than fishing but I fear the market for fish produced by a nuclear power station is small.
The author here isnt arguing against environmental experts that want to stop building Hinkley or other plants. This is about removing the habitats regulations which is the legislation that protects our endangered species and habitats. We are all arguing that we do not need to weaken these protections and doing so would have a detrimental effect on the environment first generations to come.
I think this is a baby/bath water situation. Deregulatory actors and politicians pick a presumed enemy to their interests (say environmental protection), scour for an example that they can mock, and then use this as a straw man to ditch the whole agenda.
What matters is where we agree - protection should be evidence-based and not delay all construction indefinitely. We seek the right balance.
Where we disagree is probably the overall thrust of "environmental regulations gone mad" which I think is weaponised by tabloids and climate deniers alike and isn't in good faith.
I think we should minimise damage to wildlife. However we have to look at net damage. If Hinkley Point C is not built or delayed we will presumably use gas for longer.
Is it possible that the harm to wildlife by building Hinkley Point C is less than the harm of the alternatives?
Or do we not look at such things? Also compared to the number of fish that the UK eats - is this is Hinkley Point C really relevant?
Ideally we would use the warm water to farm tilapia which is better for the environment than fishing but I fear the market for fish produced by a nuclear power station is small.
The author here isnt arguing against environmental experts that want to stop building Hinkley or other plants. This is about removing the habitats regulations which is the legislation that protects our endangered species and habitats. We are all arguing that we do not need to weaken these protections and doing so would have a detrimental effect on the environment first generations to come.
Thanks for your good work Sam