What if it isn't something like windmills that clearly are a net improvement for society over coal, and the objections aren't merely 'not a nice view'? For example, suppose some big corp wants to frack the environment to pieces for big bucks, leaving a poisoned, nearly unlivable habitat for the nearby village.
How can we safeguard against this, in a way that the village inhabitants can protest against such threats with real teeth, without grinding everything to a halt that is a mere nuisance but offers real benefits to society?
Second it's very simple. For any kind of property right people care about, allow it to be bought and sold. In most places, the property owner owns the air space up to a certain height. This should mean that "views" are irrelevant since they were never owned.
If a place is so wealthy that they are more concerned about aesthetics over functional improvements; energy from fracking, housing for workers, etc. then let them buy them but the rights to compensate everyone else.
It's impossible for statutes to optimally declare priorities for everything upfront.
And a war is the unfortunate vis maior that can lead to having to build a pipe through the park.
So it's likely impossible to determine if a complex activity, like fracking in a specific location, is fully legal without years of ground work.
The key is that the "environmentalists", politicians, judiciary, activists, and people who would block the process were threatened with feeling the pain of the missing infrastructure. Amazing how quickly they abandon their high horses when it looks like it will cost them something, then it's full throttle with construction and fossil fuels. They like to be "all in this together" when they're inflicting this kind of pain on others though, so what seems to be inherent is people's desire to wield power and authority over others.
No one can testify at this point. The necessary steps are skipped.
The thin-air narrative I destroyed was that democracy is inherently slow and wasteful. It's not, unless you are going to argue that democracy was somehow suspended, or that this project is still slow and wasteful due to democracy.
They cripple their own nation’s energy independence for virtue points. None of these people make real sacrifices.
I'm not talking about actual environmentalists who practice what they preach and I am in awe of and have great respect for. Those people are few and far between though, you almost can't find one these days since their noble movement has been absolutely swamped and taken over by grifters, limousine liberals, politicians, the wealthy, and the ruling class. Hence why I put "environmentalists" in quotes.
Builders would make a loss on projects that caused lots of environmental harm, so wouldn't build in the first place.
Effectively, instead of having a judge slowly make the decision, the company tries to guess what decision the judge will make, and if they guess wrong then they're gonna lose out financially.
>Builders would make a loss on projects that caused lots of environmental harm, so wouldn't build in the first place.
I doubt that. They would create companies for removing forrests and after they lost in court they would file bankruptcy.
The damage is done and the compensation is void. And even if they pay, money doesn't consume carbon dioxide.
Though this would effectively mean only a few companies who can afford hundreds of billions in surety bonds can risk building anything big.
Nobody will dare to invest into anything.
Of course, real estate is the only profitable industry in Turkiye, environment, safety regulations, and human rights be damned.
You can disguise cell phone towers[0]. It hurts cell phone company profits though, so they'll only do that if the cost of the cheap ugly tower is more due to objections.
[0] https://twistedsifter.com/2012/08/examples-of-cell-phone-tow...
The disguises are pretty cool, and a really good option. My objection is when people complain that they have poor coverage in the area where they live. They want the phone companies to fix it, but only on their terms. There have been examples where cell phones companies have offered to put up towers in areas where people complained, then the same people turn around and demand the most expensive solution. That sort of behavior takes a certain type of self-centered people to pull off.
Windmills are rather hard to disguise and if you think they're ugly then sure, it's going suck having them placed in view. I happen to think they look great, so I'm less affected. What I don't understand is the sense of entitlement. People will rather have everyone else pay more for power, or keep coal power plants running, than lose money of their holiday home. Seriously, we've seen windmill parks 15km out to sea blocked, because someone believe it would mean that their holiday home would, in theory, lose $20.000 in value (Out of $325.000).
It's really a tragedy that this was originally intended as legislation to benefit the environment
This time is usually necessary to improve the quality of the projects. It is for a reason that this procedures exist. In the past and still today, we are destroying the environment, endangering people's health and reducing their quality of life through hasty decisions. Therefore citizens have decided to enact planning laws to improve the situation. Of course, the duration of planning periods are a cost factor, but one needs to find a sweet spot between them and the (not only financial) cost of projects going awry.
And remember that it were the Greens under Vice-Chancellor and Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck which were primarily in charge for the fast implementation of the LNG terminal.
https://theintercept.com/2021/12/08/oil-industry-wind-farm-p...
Germany has consistently beat renewable targets in years advance and 50% of their gross electricity consumption comes from renewables.
It's baffling really to read political comments on ycombinator.
Coal is on the rise. Gas is on the rise.
> "Ruin my view".
You understand these aren't the same people, yes? The latter are wealthy entrenched (mostly conservative) NIMBYs who have no care for the environment, and have a deeply personal agenda. They may have appropriated the language of environmentalists when they talk about the impact of projects on their lives, but dismissing environmental concerns because some are using them in bad faith is not reasonable.
Bad faith actors always do this.
While we may think we are dealing with 'reality' we are mainly dealing with the artifacts of the governance system - and it believes itself to be the determinant of reality itself!
It only pays lip service to the idea that it is there to facilitate and improve people's lives - the idea of governance/social contract/etc is an just an expedient idea that aseerts itself to be the master not the servant. It is the enemy of the individual.
Sometimes I feel like listing to possible complains from people living around affected areas is a waste of time. Denmark pretty much can't build windmills anymore, because they will: "Ruin my view". Seriously, the city I live in wants to close a coal fired power plant, and replace it with a number of windmills, on the same plot of land, but no, that will ruin someones view (which is currently a power plant). You also can't do cell phone towers, because they are ugly (fair enough), yet you still allow yourself to complain about poor coverage in the same area.