'No Bat Death' as a Policy for Industrial Growth and National Security.
No bat death is acceptable.
Recently, Dan Tomlinson MP chose to highlight the investigations (here and here) into the enormous cost of the Great Bat Tunnel (GBatunnel) of 2024. Others have irked, however I personally consider the tunnel a unique feat of mammalian cooperation and will look back fondly at the moment that both bat and human met each other exactly in the middle, having started from their respective ends of the 1km section of track.
Many commentators have chosen to use the bat tunnel as a case study. It is a single example (of 8,276 in the case of HS2) of how a tangled web of stakeholders can grind large infrastructure projects to a halt and increase costs, all while inflation ticks away in the background. We must also spare a thought for those bats who are also feeling the pinch in these uncertain times. The price of small pieces of fruit have skyrocketed, and of course bat-employers (presumably cave related, i.e. maintenance or otherwise) have been directed not to increase weekly bug allowances to avoid a bug-price spiral. Not only this, but us humans have selfishly decided to increase transport capacity between two of our largest cities, in an attempt to stimulate a generation of economic growth.
Ironically if I were fortunate enough to be a bat, well protected as they are, I would go on strike, avoiding any significant crossings or journeys in entirety making the batunnel useless (apparently the bats have disappeared from the batunnel stretch, presumably on strike as I outline). Regardless, the batunnel now exists, and I speak for all British taxpayers in wishing any future bats a safe and enjoyable crossing should they wish to fly over this particular bit of train track.
However, Natural England have set a dangerous precedent. By taking a hardline policy in favour of bat-lives, to the tune of £100 million, they have exposed their hand.
In this post I will outline three proposals to exploit this no-bat-death precedent that will solve not only the planning system but also infrastructure, growth as well as issues of national security. The majority of these rely on obtaining a number of rare bats. I think this is a solvable issue (supposedly they’re not actually that rare) and I would probably ask a consultant to do this for me from the offset.
Every planning proposal or amendment must be accompanied by a murdered Bechstein’s bat.
This is a local solution to the bat tunnels dilemma specifically and more broadly the planning system. Natural England would be made to weigh up the cost of a single bat dying, and the resulting small amount of conscious blood on their hands, against the potential of multiple bats experiencing the long and drawn out suffering of being hit by a 200mph train, due to their inaction.
Given their policy that no bat must die, they will not be pleased either way. The resulting paradox will most likely force them to reconsider their position, or potentially suffer indefinite operational gridlock. Assuming that Natural England will bend to the prospect of bat martyrdom (animal martyrdom is something I have spoken about at length in a previous post), they must seriously consider whether a proposal is worthwhile submitting in the first place. This I think has potential for other animal related planning proposals (unless there are one or two animals left like a white rhino or something, in which case this policy is entirely destructive). For example, if you come to me wanting to build a tunnel for hedgehogs, I’ll only consider it if you run over a hedgehog to show me you’re serious. Otherwise, all those hedgehog lives will be on you.
A Bechstein’s Bat is held in captivity at the centre of every site of National interest.
For many years defence hawks have advocated for an increased proportion of GDP to be spent on Defence & National Security. A simple proposal to ensure this money is allocated (the precedent of the bat tunnel demonstrates this) is to first introduce and then highlight the presence of Bechstein’s bats at these sites. Natural England will then, naturally, begin proceedings to protect these bats at any cost.
These bats could also be used in both a defensive and offensive manner. For example, if creatively enough located, ideally at the very centre of these sites or even underground, there will be significant enough impetus on Natural England to increase security and lobby for increased defence spending. No bat must die. Here the assumption is that Natural England will treat bats in captivity equally to those that exist in the wild. The alternative is to manually introduce Bechstein’s bats into the wild near these sites of strategic national interest. I would probably begin with scattering them throughout the coastline of the UK, with a few at the major ports just to be sure. The balance is how to do so in a way that they are still considered endangered. Defensively, the very existence of Natural England and their unflinching commitment to bat wellbeing will act as a strong deterrent to other countries, given their explicitly stated and previously enforced red lines.
Similarly, bats could be offensively transported alongside soldiers in the standing army to war zones across the world. Natural England would then presumably take it upon themselves to form an auxiliary corps responsible for protecting these bats at any cost in the face of enemy aggression. A downside of this strategy is that hostage-bats may be used in a similar manner by the enemy in order obtain certain demands, though I will assume that given their namesake, Natural England are only concerned with the welfare of Anglo-Saxon bats. In this case, a bat proxy-war may break out between the respective wildlife organisations of each country, hell-bent on saving their own bat’s lives at any cost. We must also consider the ideal that Natural England cares equally about Anglo-Saxon bats based abroad as it does those flying peacefully at home, with all the comforts of a standard batunnel. This further raises questions into Natural England’s policy regarding migratory birds which I will not get into.
A Bechstein’s Bat at the Bank of England is fed a daily bug allowance inversely proportional to inflation.
It goes without saying that this bat must not die, at any cost. The economists at the Bank of England must carefully use the dials and levers available to them to ensure that inflation is kept low. While this is what they presumably get up to anyway, the additional presence of a Bechstein bat, and the resulting pressure from Natural England will ensure that they stick to their targets.
This policy raises the interesting potential scenario wherein Natural England themselves may be required to voluntarily free up their own funding, martyring themselves in the name of the Bank of England Bat. Employees and concerned campaigners will reach a Buddhist style Nirvana of bat well-being, free of their own cause. Maybe the real infrastructure was the bats we saved along the way.