I wonder if even a single person there has read up on the case and knows the facts.
There is no court order to take down the turbines.
The high court did not consider if the economy would be damaged, it accepted a report from lower court that a 50% reduction of raindeer would be the result due to damages. This was from a study report prior to the project was realiced. Several years after they have been operating, data shows that the number of raindeer are the same as before, and no economic impact.
So a new permit could be issued by the state based on these emperical numbers vs the theoretical numbers used by lower court.
1 comment
I wonder if even a single person there has read up on the case and knows the facts.
There is no court order to take down the turbines.
The high court did not consider if the economy would be damaged, it accepted a report from lower court that a 50% reduction of raindeer would be the result due to damages. This was from a study report prior to the project was realiced. Several years after they have been operating, data shows that the number of raindeer are the same as before, and no economic impact.
So a new permit could be issued by the state based on these emperical numbers vs the theoretical numbers used by lower court.