it's coming up to 70 years since JK Galbraith wrote about "private opulence amid public squalor", and my aim in engaging with the abundance agenda is to make sure we don't replicate the same problem
[First career as environmental economist]
Because it would be astounding if we couldn't get a much better result for bats with a lot less money.
e.g. You could buy 1,000 acres and let it go wild for £10m!
Or if you fancy saving wildlife in Namibia, you could buy 1,000 square kilometres for £8m.
yup! Exactly. Even for the stated aim of saving bats, the £100 million is being badly spent there
if everything is fungible why not build the whole railway in Namibia?
I'm not sure if you're serious, but the British government is trying to improve British infrastructure. A railway in Namibia wouldn't do that. If you're concerned about UK wildlife, you could do the 1000-acre rewilding Rob suggested much more cheaply than £100m and I bet it would many save more bats
the British government is trying to preserve British habitats. this isn't a matter of generic fungible "UK wildlife", it's a specific delicate ecosystem that has legal protection for a reason. even environmental economists understand this I thought
Mar 25, 2025 15:33I can't tell you that you're wrong – if you value this particular habitat over others, then that's up to you. But I am sceptical that it is a good use of the money even from a bat-conservation point of view, and that there's a fair amount of "YIMBYs say it's good so I will say it's bad" going on
it is more that I am currently taking "bat shed" to be shorthand for "I would far rather take the easy way than start talking about views of the Chilterns which have influential people prepared to speak up for them"
for the record, I'd be thrilled if someone took £100 million and rewilded a huge chunk of the UK countryside. I think that would be amazing and far more impactful than building a tunnel. I would also like lynx, wolves and bears to be reintroduced. My suspicion on this is it is spoiler behaviour.
