There are stark choices available on sea defences in today's papers.
And as it also says:
Both are about sea defences. The threats are different. One is remote in the extreme. The other very real. One has real impact on lives now. The other would probably end life as we know it making a great many other decisions almost irrelevant.
So there are decision criteria to be used.
Which one is about hope?
Which one is about community?
Which one can enhance life?
Which one ensures we have time to adapt to a better future?
There's only once choice, and it is not the one the government is backing.
Why is that?