Yes, infrastructure projects may bring about positive change in certain areas; however, this must be balanced against the potential harm done to wildlife and the environment. It is simply not the case that infrastructure is only ever a positive force. To think that it is always "UrRong" is an overly simplistic view of the issue.
Take the $2 trillion infrastructure package as an example; yes, it has the potential to benefit many people, but not without exacting a cost from wildlife and their habitats. And yes, wildlife must be taken into consideration when implementing such projects, but this cannot mitigate the harm done by them. As stated in Nikhil's essay, this package is effectively like building a billion Great Walls and a million Suez Canals smack in the middle of trillions of animals’ homes, and no amount of consideration to wildlife can change the fact that in this instance, these habitats are destroyed.
The point Nikhil was making in his essay is not that infrastructure projects are always wrong, but rather that it should not be taken lightly when weighed against the destruction of natural habitats. Infrastructure projects often come at a heavy cost to animals and their homes, and it's simply wrong to ignore that fact. So while infrastructure can also be a positive force, it's important to acknowledge the potential negative consequences of these projects before they are implemented. And "UrRong" to think otherwise!