Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloakandswagger | Hacker News Reader

Thank goodness we live in a republic where majority opinion from non-specialists doesn't determine policy.

I'd wager that 95% of Americans are not qualified in any way to speak to conservationism and the myriad of inscrutable legal issues that come with it. Of course you'll get a load of positive replies when you ask a random person on the street if they support the "Endangered Species Act" or if they would prefer to see it "weakened".

Until you've seen a $150 million data center project abandoned because the FWS wanted a multi-year, multi-million dollar study on its effects on the local spotted boll-weevil population you don't fully understand how destructive and absurd the legislation has become.

View on HN

There are two interesting (to me) things you talk about.

First, you claim that some $150MM data center project had to be abandoned to protect the "spotted boll weevil".

Really? I ask because weevils are typically considered pests and rather than protected they are actively eradicated:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/emt/...

Additionally, is there even such a thing as a "spotted boll weevil"? I ask because neither I nor Google seems to know about them (Other than some funny joke picture)

https://www.google.com/search?q="spotted+boll+weevil"

So, I'm guessing that there is in-fact no such project and that you just feel on principle that nothing should impede progress, certainly not the welfare of some random species. You are of course entitled to that opinion, it just places you in the overwhelming minority. On a tangential note, I think it does not help your argument to simply make up something that sounds plausible and present it as fact.

Secondly, on the topic of 95% of Americans not being qualified to speak as experts on conservationism, I totally agree but...

I hope you agree that they are entitled to an opinion about conservationism. I also feel quite confidently that those who are in fact experts on conservationism will be the strongest advocates against weakening the endangered species act.

I think that last thing people who want to weaken environmental laws want is for their representatives to listen to actual experts.

I can't speak to any of this data center or weevil stuff, but I do take two issues with your post.

First is that, of course, the endangered species act has provably impeded progress. Required environmental impact assessments have added literal years and millions of dollars to public works projects and adversely impacted thousands of private projects. It's impact is across the nation, on nearly every job I've worked on. On the Bay Bridge there were restrictions on how often pile striking could occur in order to not adversely impact the fish. TxDOT has suffered numerous setbacks on their MoPac project around Austin due to endangered salamanders. Another tunnel job I worked north of Austin had provisions within the contract for nearly a year of stoppages for underground crickets.

Second is to point out that, of course, experts on conservationism would be the strongest advocates against weakening the federal law that gives them the majority of their business. Similar to how the American Society of Civil Engineers fails the country's infrastructure every year in my industry.

I think it’s completely reasonable that if you’re going to build a data center in a habitat for a protected species then you’re going to have to make sure the species remains protected. It sounds like said data center took their business elsewhere, which is also completely reasonable and leaves the spotted boll-weevil unscathed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com