[markus_zhang]

There is definitely a long gap between "Don't care about env at all" and "Preventing everything being built because it hassles some small animal". I'm afraid and you and many people are biasing towards the other end even if you believe you are a white knight.

Anyway, I'm not in UK so I don't care. Good luck.

[milesjag]

The legal basis is there to protect wildlife from man-made disruption and provides a kind of ecological basis to limit the kind of boundless growth that politicians appeal to.

Unfortunately, for those laws to be effective, they have to be strong enough to beat the various legal shenanigans / loopholes which can be used by developers to effortlessly leapfrog them.

Finally, if the laws are strong enough, they might be effortlessly wielded to prevent even reasonable developments from occurring.

The law lands somewhere in the middle and I think there are always people at either extreme trying to take advantage.

[reedf1]

Blocking high-speed rail in the name of conservation makes me want to bash my head against a wall. Guess we'll buy 10000 diesel trucks to move goods north-south instead. Car-world isn't good for conservation, rail is. It's missing the forest for the trees. These laws are selectively invoked by interest groups, they don't event serve the legitimate cause of conservationists - there is enough ammo in UK law to block any development.

[jamespo]

Thank you for that non-caring contribution

[markus_zhang]

It's more like caring for prosperity and long-term growth instead of getting scared and inventing a huge amount of red tape.

We probably won't agree with each other, though. We definitely have different definition of "care".