Triggermortis
Well-Known Member
Bat safety shed will cost £100m, says HS2 chairman
Sir Jon Thompson tells a conference there is "no evidence high-speed trains interfere with bats".
www.bbc.co.uk
£100 million shed, is it April 1st?
- Thread starter Triggermortis
- Start date
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
I weep.. WTF has it all come to...
A crazy plan maybe, and expensive too.
But something has to be done.
It's not right that we should steamroller across the countryside to the detriment of other species. Their needs must be taken into consideration.
I would have thought that members of this site, of all places, would be supportive of schemes to mitigate damage to the environment. After all, we depend upon healthy, thriving ecosystems for the very sport that brings us all together.
(Best plan would be to scrap HS2. The whole project is madness).
But something has to be done.
It's not right that we should steamroller across the countryside to the detriment of other species. Their needs must be taken into consideration.
I would have thought that members of this site, of all places, would be supportive of schemes to mitigate damage to the environment. After all, we depend upon healthy, thriving ecosystems for the very sport that brings us all together.
(Best plan would be to scrap HS2. The whole project is madness).
long_range_rob
Well-Known Member
They spent a fortune building bat bridges over the NDR round Norwich. Utter waste of money.
Why is it a waste of money? What's the alternative for the bats?
Swedish
Well-Known Member
Apparently bat bridges don't work
Bat bridges and signs on nests: nature conservation’s epic fails – and how to avoid them
Some projects to save species just don’t work. Now, a Cambridge University team is amassing hard scientific evidence of best practice
www.theguardian.com
So what is the suggested alternative?Apparently bat bridges don't work
Bat bridges and signs on nests: nature conservation’s epic fails – and how to avoid them
Some projects to save species just don’t work. Now, a Cambridge University team is amassing hard scientific evidence of best practice
I've seen some projects that have been a failure, but it's easy to be wise after the event and say "that was a waste of money", and I've seen other projects that have been a success.
Whichever way you look at it, wildlife corridors are important in our increasingly fragmented countryside, and we should be supportive of attempts to mitigate environmental damage, even if not everything works first time.
doric_prince
Well-Known Member
The bats are rare, remember.
Seems reasonable to spend tax payers money on repairing a road, doesn't it?Badgers undermined a road somewhere in the midlands a think
£100.000 repair bill
Tax’s payers money
And equally reasonable to ensure that, when new roads are built, tunnels for badgers and other wildlife to pass from one side to the other without being harmed or causing harm, should be included in the design. Likewise, bridges or other structures to create crossing points for red squirrels and flightlines for birds and bats.
Quite so, although I have my doubts that that edifice has any positive effect on nature at all..
.Having said that, we now habe a perverted system where the actual benefits of the large sums spent to mitigate environmental harm are expended on an industry of non-productive people. Bats and small numbers of other species are
Absoluitely. Its grotesque costs also show why we don't need a larger state but to radically reduce it. It's like the Mafia on steroids. The cost of everything is massively inflated so that armies of public sector and pseudo-public people cream bloated salaries and profits off everything.
It's a waste of money because A) bats are not humans. If bats, why are they also not spending £100 million per km on every other species? Secondly, there is no evidence that it provides £100 million of benefit to bats..How on earth can anyone say spending £100 million on what is about a 5 or 10 hectare area for the benefit of only a handful of bat species makes any sense even on a conservational level. There are thousands of better ways of improving the environment for that much.
finbar
Well-Known Member
Green washing comes to mind
I work for a council we pay stupid to to some one from Durham university who is known as the Batman so when we strip the roofs of houses to re insulate & new roofs we do not damage them
We do roof works in the winter as to not disturb nesting birds works all ways runs over due to bad weather
No against conservation but it’s a money drip for some of these organisations
I work for a council we pay stupid to to some one from Durham university who is known as the Batman so when we strip the roofs of houses to re insulate & new roofs we do not damage them
We do roof works in the winter as to not disturb nesting birds works all ways runs over due to bad weather
No against conservation but it’s a money drip for some of these organisations
long_range_rob
Well-Known Member
It’s easy to spend someone else’s money
FrenchieBoy
Well-Known Member
£100 Million for a "Bat Safety Shed"?
I am all for wildlife conservation but would that £100 Million not be better spent on affordable housing for the people?
I am all for wildlife conservation but would that £100 Million not be better spent on affordable housing for the people?
Similar threads
