What's more important? - By Robb

Is preserving the habitat of a rare mudfish more important than installing a tidal barrage that will provide carbon free energy? Need we sacrifice the natural world in order to save it for our use?

We need to careful not to let such issues divide us. If a researcher in mudfish habitat wants to stop a tidal barrage because it will destroy the habitat then that should have equal weight to the carbon free energy produced by the barrage. After all, when not if, sea levels rise the mudfish habitat will be destroyed anyway. The tidal barrage however is a big system solution designed to continue business as usual, to encourage people that real change on their part is not necessary. People need to realize that without the intact habitats, like the mudfishes, to support biodiversity we are in just as much trouble after we have the barrage.

My grandfather used to tell me "it is a poor man who won't stoop to pick up a coin". Global warming and biodiversity are two sides of the same coin. A coin we must trouble ourselves to pick up. The natural environment should be looked to as our saviour in it's ability to provide the necessities of life from oxygen to breathe, food to eat, and the only reliable method of carbon sequestration.

Without that coin we will not be able to buy our daily bread.