I'm all for environment, but sometimes these complaints are just for complaint's sake.
This seems like a pretty reasonable objection and not just "complaints are just for complaint's sake".
On one end of the spectrum we have environmental groups making objections against every tiny detail.
On the other end we have - “Highly poisonous gas escaping the factory into the environment? What evidence is there that it is a serious problem?”. A very Nestle approach
I have no idea if thats true, how big the risks are or if things already have been cleared in the normal procedures.
This isn't the first factory in Germany and one would hope they know how to build them safely but who really knows.
The Tesla factory is a huge exception, mostly because Tesla went ahead using temporary permits and took the risk that the final permits may be denied. The project has a lot of political support, which also helped the process along.
Contributing to the greenhouse effect, yes, but that's never been considered exactly "pollution". (Unless the darn kids have fucked up language again. Geroffmyfuckinglawn.)
Germany is moving to more renewable sources of energy and Tesla also plans to put solar panels on the rooves of its buildings.
(Also: "EUs worst CO2 polluter" according to what measure and which source?)
1) It's hard to avoid the suspicion that ever more of those people are only performatively "caring" about environmental impacts; and
2) I'm getting ever more certain that quite a lot of those people who "are caring" lack enough information to care about environmental impact in a sensible way. If you're ill-informed enough, you will naively advocate "solutions" that are worse for the environment than what you're protesting against.
But lets put that aside and let me ask you this:
What amount of delay would you be ok with in addressing environmental concerns?
Sometimes, we do not want to keep costs and delays down.
As such it’s not about environmental groups doing this but rather specific groups.
After a while, you get to the point where it's up to the "environmental groups" to police themselves: If The Reasonably Lush Greens don't want all environmental concerns to be written off as Luddite obscurantism, then The Reasonably Lush Greens should regularly put out press releases like "One-in-a-trillion Risk Of Poison Gas Discharge, While Technically Existant, Is Negligible -- The Fanatical Neon Greens Are Spreading BS".
Really, honestly. Until they can do that, I'm not going to take either seriously. Why should anyone? Isn't that like accepting some rather-ultra-right movement because "But hey, they're not actually advocating gassing all the Jews... They just refuse to condemn the ones who DO advocate it." ?
Group A wants to protect wetlands, group B wants to protect deserts. Collectively their going to object to more projects than they do individually. It’s not group A’s job to police group B, and they are definitely not talking to you.
Has anyone said they are, or are you just tilting at windmills?
> It’s not group A’s job to police group B
At the moment, that is (obviously, judging from your comment) how most people see it. What I'm saying is it should be their job.
> and they are definitely not talking to you.
Oh? Funny, here I thought groups with a political agenda are actually talking to everybody, in an effort to get wide-spread support for their agenda (environmental or whatever it may be). And if they're not talking to me, then whom are they talking to? If not me, as one of the general electorate, then apparently not to anybody else in that general group either, but only to some rarefied few? The particular "stakeholders" in each particular issue, perhaps? Then WTF is the use of making their letter to those administrators an "open" letter, for everyone else to see?
But OK, great, if they're not talking to us, the great unwashed public, then we are of course free to ignore whatever they have to say. It's not us they're talking to, after all. (Are you quite sure you had thought that through all the way to its logical conclusion, and that you're speaking for them all in this?)
Filling out some paperwork is dramatically less expensive, thus individual groups allocate their funds based on their objectives. And of course anyone can call themselves an environmental group, many of them care more about NIMBY than the environment.
Honestly, I simply view this as a free speech issue. Anyone can object to anything for any reason and that’s OK. It’s only going to be obstructionist when they have a point.
As long as they do so by just generally exercising their free speech, sure. I got the impression the problem with the German Greens is that they go beyond this.
> It’s only going to be obstructionist when they have a point.
No, it's far more obstructionist when they don't have a point, and still protest not only in a general participating-in-the-debate fashion but by lodging formal complaints in various municipal and regional environmental-protection processes, over shit they know (or should have known) is irrelevant / insignificant / impossible. "Gumming up the works" for no real reason. And that's the impression I got from comments up-threads of what (at least many of) the German Greens are doing.
Here in Belgium there is a growing controversy surrounding a chemical plant in Antwerp leaking PFOS [1] in the environment. Due to this, scientists from the University of Antwerp now advise local residents against eating eggs laid within 15km of the plant [2].
Of course there seem to be no plan to hold the responsible company accountable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid
[2] https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/173456/3...
Aside from that I can't find any sources that list any of the chemicals that the complaint is objecting about. Any links would be handy.
I feel that most environmental groups today are more like a religion with dogmas then people trying to do whats best for environment .
This just shows how big protectionisms is that domestic companies enjoys in every country. We all talk about free competition, but somehow Monsanto needs to pay huge fines in the USA as soon as it became a German company, while VW enjoys full protection in Germany and Europe, while being heavily punished in the USA.