The right balance between ecology and development?

[KeviR]

For many years, I have thought (and advocated, and voted) more towards the ecology side of these kinds of tradeoffs, but lately I have started to wonder if I (and maybe society generally) have gotten too resistant to new development, specifically infrastructure. It seems we have tied ourselves into a knot with regards to doing any new infrastructure. A (small) case in point could be the Cuff's Run project being discussed in another thread. But there are many other examples too.
In the case of electrical generation and power storage, how are we ever going to be able to install the amount of renewable power generation we will need for the future if we can't build transmission lines to move the power from where it makes sense to generate it and the places where it is needed? Sure, there will be some habitat loss and maybe even destruction, but if the climate warms enough that many, many species go extinct or are just pushed far away from their historical range, are we better off? And a large part of future prosperity is built on the infrastructure provided today. Are we (society) aware of the long term implications of being unable to install basically any new infrastructure?
There are many other cases of this kind of tradeoff in all other types of infrastructure. (roads and bridges being the example that comes to mind first)
The same problems arise with respect to housing development - which I believe is a big part of why housing is so expensive now. This actually has the triple whammy of nimbyism, environmental restrictions and construction limitations. (I have been thinking about residential building codes recently, too. It seems to me that residential building code has gotten kinda ridiculous. This problem seems to be worse in affluent areas.)

 

[Tigereye]

This should be an interesting discussion. It all comes down to location and need. I try to look at each project on its own merit. If it needs government subsidies to succeed, in most cases it's probably a sham project. In other cases, bringing necessary infrastructure to those in need is critical and the needs of the people need to take precedence.
I did this type of stuff pre retirement. Gonna watch this thread closely.

One thing I learned is that the populous as a whole reacts very emotionally and you cannot give them a biology, chemistry, geology, or engineering lesson in a brief statement. If you are unclear, hesitant, dishonest, or misleading....you lose.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear KeviR,

The problem is everyone seems to be looking for a new place and there are people who are more than willing to sell it to them.

At face value that seems reasonable. People own land, someone offers them enough money and they sell. Then comes Windswept Acres. 300 townhomes and 200 single family homes in the bucolic countryside. That brings Wawa's, and strip malls, and the need for new schools. That needs 4 lanes and traffic lights. And so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, the places formerly occupied by those who have moved turn to whomever can buy them. That doesn't mean that they will fall into disrepair, but it just means that people now have to go to work from places formerly occupied by cows and corn to drive past their former homes and make things a PITA for the people who now live in those homes.

With 10's of millions of acres not yet ruined the problem won't change in my lifetime for sure. Once hi-speed internet comes to all, like when rural electrification did in the 1930's and 1940's it will get even worse.

Stay tuned and gird your loins!

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂