But if it’s that expensive just stop doing it anyway

Apparently, protecting nature is very expensive. So expensive that in fact we have to stop protecting nature if we are to have nice things:

Offshore windfarm companies may be exempted from new UK nature rules in an attempt to keep down the cost of renewable energy, the Guardian has learned.

Not that this in fact really about nature, it’s about bureaucracy:

The energy firms have said they would be unable to build the vast number of turbines required to meet the government’s green electricity goals if they have to meet new rules for nationally significant infrastructure projects (Nsips).

Or, perhaps this is about nature:

Under the biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirement, they will be required to create 10% more nature than was there before the project was started, whether by planting trees or wildflower meadows or creating wetlands.

But, whichever. These rules are apparently so expensive that we cannot be green and protect nature if we accord with these rules.The anwer then is obvious - stop having these rules which prevent us from being green and thus protect nature.

Even, drop the part about green. These rules and costs about nature stop us from having nice things. So, given that we do indeed want to have the nice things let us not have the rules.

Normal humans “Well, that’s nice, but it’s very expensive, innit?” “We’ll not have that one then”. Why don’t governments work that way?

If protecting nature is so expensive that we’ve got to suspend the rules to have nice things then why not just suspend those expensive rules altogether?

Tim Worstall