One possible counterargument is that we shouldn’t make it possible for us to dredge because dredging is bad, actually, as it ‘damages the environment.’ So by that logic we should be happy that we have made such activities much more difficult.
The digging up material itself, or the machinery itself using energy from fossil fuels?
I don’t know how to engage with that perspective as anything but opposition to civilization. If you don’t think we should maintain or create ports, make it possible to navigate rivers or free ships that get stuck – which are the primary reasons people dredge –
Because if it’s that, then, that can’t that be addressed by carbon offsets? This doesn’t seem like an anti-civilization proposition. Saying ‘this is an external cost that should be internalized so the prices include that’, seems reasonable.
Or is there some other environmental cost associated with dredging?
I’d say its only the first one.
The other 3 are all general anti-doing-stuff arguments, and dredging, on net, is better on all those metrics than the alternative of not-dredging and continuing the status quo.
That said, I personally have no idea what the balance of direct environmental damage is between different amounts and methods of dredging.
The digging up material itself, or the machinery itself using energy from fossil fuels?
Because if it’s that, then, that can’t that be addressed by carbon offsets? This doesn’t seem like an anti-civilization proposition. Saying ‘this is an external cost that should be internalized so the prices include that’, seems reasonable.
Or is there some other environmental cost associated with dredging?
I expect that when environmentalists attack dredging, it’ll be, in rough order, for the following claimed reasons:
Dredging directly destroys habitat and animals
Dredging burns fossil fuels
Dredging makes it easier to mitigate the effects of climate change, making coastal regions feel less pressure to avert climate change
Dredging speeds up the economy, which is bad for the environment
I am planning on a report to examine the first three issues. But there is always the degrowth perspective to contend with as well.
I’d say its only the first one. The other 3 are all general anti-doing-stuff arguments, and dredging, on net, is better on all those metrics than the alternative of not-dredging and continuing the status quo. That said, I personally have no idea what the balance of direct environmental damage is between different amounts and methods of dredging.