> Current threats are numerous, including the endangering of 35 ancient forest tracts destined to be damaged by the construction of England’s new high-speed rail link, because tunneling or diversion has been deemed too expensive and inconvenient. Already, some critics are protesting that the Northern Forest project is a fig leaf—albeit a vast one—intended to mask neglect and abuse of woodlands elsewhere
And even if it is included in their budget, are they accurately valuing an old-growth forest, or treating an acre of old-growth forest as equivalent to an acre of reforested area? I suspect if they put an accurate value on their old-growth forests and the ecosystems they support, then diverting the railway would look like the less expesive option.
It also seems that your logic would allow attacking any project that is generally perceived positively: "Yes, they are doing something good. But they're motivated by the sinister motive to be liked, and therefore the project is bad".
That, quite obviously, follows the hollow logic of "virtue signalling", a cynical attempt to discount everyone publicly lobbying for something they perceive as a moral good, not by engaging with their argument, but by implicitly accepting it and going for the ad hominem instead.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1481687.The_Forest_and_t...
Author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marston_Bates
It went into a lot of really interesting detail about symbiosis between different species and how many life forms and aspects of nature are interrelated and interdependent.