Cheap internet has made information easily accessible, but somehow, the habit of actually researching a topic before forming an opinion seems to be disappearing. Why was there no outrage when Torrent Power received approval for the project, when the proposed PSP site was already known? Why wake up now and start questioning the project without even understanding its background? Yes, the estimated number of trees to be felled is high, and that deserves scrutiny. Environmental concerns are legitimate. But the entire purpose of a Pumped Storage Project (PSP) is to support renewable energy storage and grid stability. You cannot oppose every infrastructure project in the name of the environment while conveniently ignoring the need for reliable, cleaner energy. And Can't people even read and understand the project details before making allegations? Dragging unrelated names into the debate without establishing the facts is a ridiculous argument. The logic that saving the environment means opposing energy storage while continuing to depend on coal-fired power is equally absurd. What exactly is the alternative being proposed? Ironically, people living in high-rise towers across expanding urban areas are now lecturing everyone about environmental protection. If this were a data centre or any other project with questionable environmental or economic implications, we would be equally critical. The point is not to support every project blindly; it is to evaluate projects based on facts, technical merits, environmental impact, and long-term benefits. The project site also reportedly falls outside the Ecologically Sensitive Zone. If that is the case, then the discussion should focus on actual environmental clearances, ecological assessments, mitigation measures, and the project's necessity , not misinformation and manufactured outrage. People need to develop the habit of reading official documents, understanding the facts, and researching before jumping to conclusions. This is exactly how Maharashtra risks losing big-ticket investments and infrastructure projects to other states. When every major project becomes a political controversy, investors eventually look for places where execution is less complicated. The irony is even greater when the same people oppose river-linking projects but demand uninterrupted water and electricity supply, 24×7. They want development, but oppose the infrastructure required to support it. They demand environmental protection, but how many of them actually plant trees, protect local ecosystems, or contribute to conservation themselves? Environmental protection and infrastructure development are not mutually exclusive. The real debate should be about responsible development, credible environmental safeguards, and evidence-based decision-making—not uninformed outrage. Maharashtra needs informed citizens who can question projects intelligently, not people who oppose everything first and research later.