Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
Most of us do, but I'm not so sure about the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
Most of us do, but I'm not so sure about the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
You think too highly of us, I'm afraid.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
You think too highly of us, I'm afraid.
LOL. I suppose your right! Such a simple concept- yet we elect a man to be president who cannot differentiate between local climate and global weather. Facepalm!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
Most of us do, but I'm not so sure about the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
People keep stating that yet when there is a hurricane or a forest fire then hot damn local weather is damn sure the same as global climate. Now where did I put that sweater?!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
For anyone living in the north-east part of North America, that a good idea. They're expecting record cold in those parts.
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
People keep stating that yet when there is a hurricane or a forest fire then hot damn local weather is damn sure the same as global climate. Now where did I put that sweater?!
You don't read my posts very closely do you, BS? Tsk tsk!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
How cute, you're a denier.
*shocked*
lol
Nah...but I’ve published in a peer reviewed journal and am just not impressed by the religious dogma that is being substituted for scientific thought.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
How cute, you're a denier.
*shocked*
lol
Nah...but I’ve published in a peer reviewed journal and am just not impressed by the religious dogma that is being substituted for scientific thought.
Omminie reekee ohhh nahhh ree!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Back to the original question. What will we do? Probably not enough. We ask questions like, "Is global warming real?" and too often we seek the answer that is most comfortable, that implies the least amount of effort, that requires no change in our behaviors, that eases our concerns. Anything but the truth. I grow weary and cynical of the whole rotten mess.
We are in another drought year in the west. Fires are raging in winter. Last night I dreamed about the drought. The time was now, late December, and the weather warned to the point where what little bit of snow we've had was melting and the rivers were running with the melted off. I dipped my feet into the river and considered that if I jumped in, these last waters would carry me away, far, far away. I wish.
I know what I'm going to do. Buy another sweater.
How cute, you're a denier.
*shocked*
lol
Nah...but I’ve published in a peer reviewed journal and am just not impressed by the religious dogma that is being substituted for scientific thought.
The White House has drafted a proposal
to scale back environmental requirements in an effort to make it easier
to construct roads, bridges and pipelines across the country as part of
an infrastructure plan that President Trump could release as soon as
next week, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
The
plan would change things such as how officials decide a pipeline route,
how a proposed border wall with Mexico would be built and whether the
National Park Service could object to a development that would impair
tourists’ views from scenic parks such as the Grand Canyon.
Administration
officials — who have briefed GOP lawmakers, multiple trade associations
and other groups about their plans — have emphasized they are willing
to alter elements of the legislative package to win enough votes to pass
it in the Senate. But they have made it clear they are seeking to make
the most sweeping changes in decades to how the federal government
approves and oversees infrastructure projects.
“We
have no intention of eroding environmental protections,” said Alex
Hergott, associate director of infrastructure at the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, when he addressed the Transportation Research
Board’s annual conference earlier this month. “However, there is no
denying that there is duplication and redundancy in the process that is
worth taking a hard look at.”
A White House official on Friday
described the document as an earlier “discussion draft.” But individuals
familiar with the plan said many of the proposals are still the basis
for negotiations with lawmakers.
“Smarter
regulation doesn’t mean that we are abandoning our responsibility to
the environment,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss ongoing internal deliberations.
Trump
identified an infrastructure bill as a top priority for his first 100
days in office, but it was delayed while he focused on bruising
legislative battles over health care and tax cuts. Aides say the
president will pitch his plan during next week’s State of the Union
address and flesh out the details shortly afterward.
Critics
of the administration said the proposal, outlined in the document,
would gut key environmental protections enshrined in laws dating back to
the 1970s, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act.
“The administration’s legislative
outline for infrastructure sacrifices clean air, water, the expertise of
career agency staff and bedrock environmental laws,” National Parks
Conservation Association President and CEO Theresa Pierno said in an
email. “In short, the proposal reveals that this administration is not
serious about restoring America’s infrastructure.”
Trump has
argued that voluminous environmental studies should be pared down to “a
few simple pages,” and he has made broad declarations about how easy and
productive the world would be without complex regulations.
Now, his allies said, the administration is crafting proposals that will convert the president’s words into actions.
“Clearly
they are trying to get these things built more quickly. That can be
done while maintaining the necessary environmental protections, because a
lot of what holds this up is needless, duplicative review,” said Nick
Goldstein, vice president of regulatory and legal issues at the American
Road & Transportation Builders Association. “From now until at
least 2020, there’s going to be somebody there considering regulatory
reform.”
The
White House plan identifies many aspects of the current permitting
process that lead to delays, including the fact that multiple agencies
often weigh in on the same permit and that the federal government lacks
resources to assess projects in a timely manner. To address this, it
would make major changes in the arcane procedures that lie at the heart
of federal oversight.
New limits and deadlines would be imposed
on federal agencies reviewing projects, and in some cases agencies —
especially the Environmental Protection Agency — could be limited in
their ability to weigh in on the permitting process.
The dozens
of proposals, many esoteric, are meant to amplify each other so they
pack a bigger cumulative punch. One, for instance, would make it much
easier for federal agencies to declare that certain projects have no
significant impact on the environment and are not required to undergo
further study. Such declarations — known as “categorical exclusions” —
are already widely used, easing the approval of many highway and other
projects.
The
Trump proposal would allow federal agencies to piggyback on other
agencies’ decisions about the kinds of projects that should be exempt
from deeper environmental study to “reduce duplication and unnecessary
environmental analysis.” Another would exempt any of these rulings from
judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law outside
groups often use to challenge regulatory rollbacks.
It would also
expand the government’s ability to have private firms pay for the
environmental reviews conducted by federal officials of their own
projects. Any such change would “include appropriate controls for
potential conflicts-of-interest.”
Keith Benes, an environmental
consultant who played a key role in overseeing TransCanada’s permit
application for the Keystone XL pipeline as a State Department
attorney-adviser, said in an interview that the document highlights some
significant problems in the current system. But in almost every
instance, he noted, it simply eliminates a legal requirement that delays
federal approval for projects.
“It’s not, ‘Let’s streamline it or make it more effective,” Benes said. “’It’s just, ‘Let’s get rid of that.’”
In
several instances the plan limits the extent to which the EPA can weigh
in or block a project from going forward. In doing so, it could allow
one particularly aggressive, pro-development corner of the federal
bureaucracy set a standard for the government as a whole.
The
proposal would eliminate EPA’s ability to evaluate another agency’s
Environmental Impact Statement, a power which it invoked during the
Obama administration’s first term to stall approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
It also aims to “eliminate duplicative oversight” by abolishing EPA’s
authority to “veto” a project on the grounds that it poses too grave a
risk under the Clean Water Act.
EPA used this authority in 2014
to block construction of a massive gold and copper mine near Alaska’s
Bristol Bay. Under Trump, the EPA reached a settlement with the mine’s
sponsor, Pebble Limited Partnership, and is now allowing the firm to
apply for federal permits.
...................... ran out of space. See link.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,310
The White House has drafted a proposal
to scale back environmental requirements in an effort to make it easier
to construct roads, bridges and pipelines across the country as part of
an infrastructure plan that President Trump could release as soon as
next week, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
The
plan would change things such as how officials decide a pipeline route,
how a proposed border wall with Mexico would be built and whether the
National Park Service could object to a development that would impair
tourists’ views from scenic parks such as the Grand Canyon.
Administration
officials — who have briefed GOP lawmakers, multiple trade associations
and other groups about their plans — have emphasized they are willing
to alter elements of the legislative package to win enough votes to pass
it in the Senate. But they have made it clear they are seeking to make
the most sweeping changes in decades to how the federal government
approves and oversees infrastructure projects.
“We
have no intention of eroding environmental protections,” said Alex
Hergott, associate director of infrastructure at the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, when he addressed the Transportation Research
Board’s annual conference earlier this month. “However, there is no
denying that there is duplication and redundancy in the process that is
worth taking a hard look at.”
A White House official on Friday
described the document as an earlier “discussion draft.” But individuals
familiar with the plan said many of the proposals are still the basis
for negotiations with lawmakers.
“Smarter
regulation doesn’t mean that we are abandoning our responsibility to
the environment,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss ongoing internal deliberations.
Trump
identified an infrastructure bill as a top priority for his first 100
days in office, but it was delayed while he focused on bruising
legislative battles over health care and tax cuts. Aides say the
president will pitch his plan during next week’s State of the Union
address and flesh out the details shortly afterward.
Critics
of the administration said the proposal, outlined in the document,
would gut key environmental protections enshrined in laws dating back to
the 1970s, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act.
“The administration’s legislative
outline for infrastructure sacrifices clean air, water, the expertise of
career agency staff and bedrock environmental laws,” National Parks
Conservation Association President and CEO Theresa Pierno said in an
email. “In short, the proposal reveals that this administration is not
serious about restoring America’s infrastructure.”
Trump has
argued that voluminous environmental studies should be pared down to “a
few simple pages,” and he has made broad declarations about how easy and
productive the world would be without complex regulations.
Now, his allies said, the administration is crafting proposals that will convert the president’s words into actions.
“Clearly
they are trying to get these things built more quickly. That can be
done while maintaining the necessary environmental protections, because a
lot of what holds this up is needless, duplicative review,” said Nick
Goldstein, vice president of regulatory and legal issues at the American
Road & Transportation Builders Association. “From now until at
least 2020, there’s going to be somebody there considering regulatory
reform.”
The
White House plan identifies many aspects of the current permitting
process that lead to delays, including the fact that multiple agencies
often weigh in on the same permit and that the federal government lacks
resources to assess projects in a timely manner. To address this, it
would make major changes in the arcane procedures that lie at the heart
of federal oversight.
New limits and deadlines would be imposed
on federal agencies reviewing projects, and in some cases agencies —
especially the Environmental Protection Agency — could be limited in
their ability to weigh in on the permitting process.
The dozens
of proposals, many esoteric, are meant to amplify each other so they
pack a bigger cumulative punch. One, for instance, would make it much
easier for federal agencies to declare that certain projects have no
significant impact on the environment and are not required to undergo
further study. Such declarations — known as “categorical exclusions” —
are already widely used, easing the approval of many highway and other
projects.
The
Trump proposal would allow federal agencies to piggyback on other
agencies’ decisions about the kinds of projects that should be exempt
from deeper environmental study to “reduce duplication and unnecessary
environmental analysis.” Another would exempt any of these rulings from
judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law outside
groups often use to challenge regulatory rollbacks.
It would also
expand the government’s ability to have private firms pay for the
environmental reviews conducted by federal officials of their own
projects. Any such change would “include appropriate controls for
potential conflicts-of-interest.”
Keith Benes, an environmental
consultant who played a key role in overseeing TransCanada’s permit
application for the Keystone XL pipeline as a State Department
attorney-adviser, said in an interview that the document highlights some
significant problems in the current system. But in almost every
instance, he noted, it simply eliminates a legal requirement that delays
federal approval for projects.
“It’s not, ‘Let’s streamline it or make it more effective,” Benes said. “’It’s just, ‘Let’s get rid of that.’”
In
several instances the plan limits the extent to which the EPA can weigh
in or block a project from going forward. In doing so, it could allow
one particularly aggressive, pro-development corner of the federal
bureaucracy set a standard for the government as a whole.
The
proposal would eliminate EPA’s ability to evaluate another agency’s
Environmental Impact Statement, a power which it invoked during the
Obama administration’s first term to stall approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
It also aims to “eliminate duplicative oversight” by abolishing EPA’s
authority to “veto” a project on the grounds that it poses too grave a
risk under the Clean Water Act.
EPA used this authority in 2014
to block construction of a massive gold and copper mine near Alaska’s
Bristol Bay. Under Trump, the EPA reached a settlement with the mine’s
sponsor, Pebble Limited Partnership, and is now allowing the firm to
apply for federal permits.
...................... ran out of space. See link.
What a foolish, people hating, planet hating man.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
But of course, as we all know, local weather is not the same as global climate.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
This guy is just disgusting!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
*shocked*
lol
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-plan-would-reduce-environmental-requirements-for-infrastructure-projects/2018/01/26/b15bd66a-0248-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.e8aa4791bc23&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1
White House plan would reduce environmental requirements for infrastructure projects
President Trump speaks at an infrastructure meeting with mayors and governors at the White House in June. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
The White House has drafted a proposal to scale back environmental requirements in an effort to make it easier to construct roads, bridges and pipelines across the country as part of an infrastructure plan that President Trump could release as soon as next week, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
The plan would change things such as how officials decide a pipeline route, how a proposed border wall with Mexico would be built and whether the National Park Service could object to a development that would impair tourists’ views from scenic parks such as the Grand Canyon.
Administration officials — who have briefed GOP lawmakers, multiple trade associations and other groups about their plans — have emphasized they are willing to alter elements of the legislative package to win enough votes to pass it in the Senate. But they have made it clear they are seeking to make the most sweeping changes in decades to how the federal government approves and oversees infrastructure projects.
“We have no intention of eroding environmental protections,” said Alex Hergott, associate director of infrastructure at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, when he addressed the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference earlier this month. “However, there is no denying that there is duplication and redundancy in the process that is worth taking a hard look at.”
A White House official on Friday described the document as an earlier “discussion draft.” But individuals familiar with the plan said many of the proposals are still the basis for negotiations with lawmakers.
“Smarter regulation doesn’t mean that we are abandoning our responsibility to the environment,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing internal deliberations.
Trump identified an infrastructure bill as a top priority for his first 100 days in office, but it was delayed while he focused on bruising legislative battles over health care and tax cuts. Aides say the president will pitch his plan during next week’s State of the Union address and flesh out the details shortly afterward.
Critics of the administration said the proposal, outlined in the document, would gut key environmental protections enshrined in laws dating back to the 1970s, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
“The administration’s legislative outline for infrastructure sacrifices clean air, water, the expertise of career agency staff and bedrock environmental laws,” National Parks Conservation Association President and CEO Theresa Pierno said in an email. “In short, the proposal reveals that this administration is not serious about restoring America’s infrastructure.”
Trump has argued that voluminous environmental studies should be pared down to “a few simple pages,” and he has made broad declarations about how easy and productive the world would be without complex regulations.
Now, his allies said, the administration is crafting proposals that will convert the president’s words into actions.
“Clearly they are trying to get these things built more quickly. That can be done while maintaining the necessary environmental protections, because a lot of what holds this up is needless, duplicative review,” said Nick Goldstein, vice president of regulatory and legal issues at the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. “From now until at least 2020, there’s going to be somebody there considering regulatory reform.”
The White House plan identifies many aspects of the current permitting process that lead to delays, including the fact that multiple agencies often weigh in on the same permit and that the federal government lacks resources to assess projects in a timely manner. To address this, it would make major changes in the arcane procedures that lie at the heart of federal oversight.
New limits and deadlines would be imposed on federal agencies reviewing projects, and in some cases agencies — especially the Environmental Protection Agency — could be limited in their ability to weigh in on the permitting process.
The dozens of proposals, many esoteric, are meant to amplify each other so they pack a bigger cumulative punch. One, for instance, would make it much easier for federal agencies to declare that certain projects have no significant impact on the environment and are not required to undergo further study. Such declarations — known as “categorical exclusions” — are already widely used, easing the approval of many highway and other projects.
The Trump proposal would allow federal agencies to piggyback on other agencies’ decisions about the kinds of projects that should be exempt from deeper environmental study to “reduce duplication and unnecessary environmental analysis.” Another would exempt any of these rulings from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law outside groups often use to challenge regulatory rollbacks.
It would also expand the government’s ability to have private firms pay for the environmental reviews conducted by federal officials of their own projects. Any such change would “include appropriate controls for potential conflicts-of-interest.”
Keith Benes, an environmental consultant who played a key role in overseeing TransCanada’s permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline as a State Department attorney-adviser, said in an interview that the document highlights some significant problems in the current system. But in almost every instance, he noted, it simply eliminates a legal requirement that delays federal approval for projects.
“It’s not, ‘Let’s streamline it or make it more effective,” Benes said. “’It’s just, ‘Let’s get rid of that.’”
In several instances the plan limits the extent to which the EPA can weigh in or block a project from going forward. In doing so, it could allow one particularly aggressive, pro-development corner of the federal bureaucracy set a standard for the government as a whole.
The proposal would eliminate EPA’s ability to evaluate another agency’s Environmental Impact Statement, a power which it invoked during the Obama administration’s first term to stall approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. It also aims to “eliminate duplicative oversight” by abolishing EPA’s authority to “veto” a project on the grounds that it poses too grave a risk under the Clean Water Act.
EPA used this authority in 2014 to block construction of a massive gold and copper mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Under Trump, the EPA reached a settlement with the mine’s sponsor, Pebble Limited Partnership, and is now allowing the firm to apply for federal permits.
...................... ran out of space. See link.-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"