First point, things should first be regulated by actual laws - not random complaints voiced after said action is taking place. If fracking is legal, it's legal. If it isn't then it isn't.

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.

Law is already very complex, and the permitting/approval process extends that to specific sites, cases, situations, and necessarily involves a lot of regional and local executive branch politics. (Which can be good and bad. Eg. an industrial region has a lot more expertise, real knowledge, folks who know the subtleties, companies that can do the site survey, the impact assessments, the planning, etc. And a different region might be a big national park, where they focus on that. Both legal. Great.)

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.

The US code is far bigger then what any single person can fully comprehend. This likely holds true for Denmark and the EU if you add up all laws in force.

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.

No "single person" is trying to determine if fracking in a specific location is legal, right? That's the domain of large companies with large staffs who are well familiarized with all of the regulations, isn't it?

The large staffs you speak of are made of individual people. They can't mind meld.

Democracy is not inherently slow and wasteful, as you see here Germany created this large project in short order. They did not abandon democracy to achieve it.

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.

You're building a narrative out of thin air. The German government has removed consultation periods that go very slowly compared to pouring concrete. They haven't threatened anyone with anything. No one is prevented, through an economic threat, from testifying against the project.

No one can testify at this point. The necessary steps are skipped.

What is the narrative you believe I am building out of thin air?

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.

Classic. People not wanting multinationals fracking their land or building new gas and oil plants is "snooty environmentalists on their high horses on a power trip"

Small, committed groups are often highly influential in democracies on certain topics - whether median people want something or not can be a bit different.

Those people are quite snooty when they block reasonable exploration, production, and transport in their own countries, while still driving cars, using A/C, and expecting affordable energy, which inevitably comes from buying petroleum products from Venezuela, Russia, and the Middle East.

They cripple their own nation’s energy independence for virtue points. None of these people make real sacrifices.

This is Hacker News, a social network for people who fetishize Ayn Rand, after all.

People living in unimaginable wealth and comfort on the back of environmental exploitation including in large part petroleum extraction and burning, want to pull the ladder up after them to prevent others having those same advantages, to keep their position in the status quo. Yep.

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.

One simple solution is to allow anything, with no delay, but then do the same legal process as before, and if the environmentalist wins, then the builders have to pay compensation.

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.

Compensation doesn't undo the damage.

>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.

A few hundred billion dollars (or euros) does buy a lot of CO2 scrubbing and environmental remediation though.

Though this would effectively mean only a few companies who can afford hundreds of billions in surety bonds can risk building anything big.

That would just mean you can't build because the risk is too high. "Okay, so you've built infrastructure that enabled tens of thousands of households to have electricity and heat. On the other hand, you've destroyed the habitat of some bird that had to move 400m to the east. Sorry, you shouldn't have built it, please pay 300mn euros to this NGO."

Nobody will dare to invest into anything.

This is how it's done in the third world. They do this in Turkiey a lot. First they build, then they pay a fine. Sometimes they have to knock down the entire building, or take 3-4 floors off, if they don't' offer to pay a fine big enough to the taste of the judge. Really, almost everywhere in the Balkans/Trayka/Middle-East runs this way.

Of course, real estate is the only profitable industry in Turkiye, environment, safety regulations, and human rights be damned.

or they just go bankrupt and continue under another legal entity ;)

Opens the door to bribing judges and corrupting the process.

Wasn't that door already open?