It's (mostly) a good argument, and it needs making. I'm glad he did this. But I would still allow the project. I do not like Musk, but I like even less the tend

It's (mostly) a good argument, and it needs making. I'm glad he did this. But I would still allow the project. I do not like Musk, but I like even less the tendency for projects to get delayed or cancelled because of infinite environmental impact studies. Especially when, as in this case, the impact is limited in time and space. I'm glad NASA acquired vast tracts of land in S Florida 60 years ago when no-one lived there. Holding SpaceX to a standard that high seems to speak less of an interest in safety and more of an interest in ending SpaceX. This is not an easy argument to make. Our biosphere is a precious gift from deep history, and we are fools to waste it. Elon Musk bought Twitter and became a cringe right troll, which makes it hard to defend him. But the damage to nature here is limited in time and space, and Musk's personality is irrelevant. When I weigh my own sentiments here, the annoyance at not letting things get built far, far outweighs these other concerns. As an aside, part of the argument that isn't good: to hold SpaceX to the same standard as NASA in 1960's Florida. A government agency. Florida was basically an uninhabited jungle then compared to today. This argument is "no more rockets, ever" in sheep's clothing, because those conditions will never exist again.