By Roger Caiazza, New York Pragmatic Environmentalist
Oliver McPherson-Smith of the American Consumer Institute writes, “To combat climate change, President Biden must retire NEPA.” The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of proposed key federal measures before they take them Make decisions. McPherson-Smith argues that “Biden must bring the climate struggle to NEPA and its Byzantine review process”. The parallel between the infamous Vietnam War-era quote “It was necessary to destroy the city to save it” and this argument was too tempting not to comment.
NEPA ensures that all measures taken by the federal authorities take into account significant environmental impacts through a prohibited environmental assessment process. Section 102 of NEPA sets out procedural requirements that apply this national policy to proposals for major federal measures that significantly affect the quality of the human environment by requiring federal agencies to provide a detailed statement on: (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (2) any adverse effects that cannot be avoided; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between local short-term use of the human environment and the maintenance and improvement of long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irreversible commitments which would be involved in the proposed action. 42 USC 4332 (2) (C). It has produced similar requirements in many countries and can certainly be described as a “Byzantine” process. On the other hand, the quality of the environment has certainly improved since the law was signed in 1970.
The McPherson-Smith background shows no apparent relevant background for NEPA. He writes on economic policy for the American Consumer Institute. He received his BA in Land Economy from the University of Cambridge before working as a television journalist in the Middle East and Africa. Oliver holds a Masters in Middle East Studies from Harvard University and is currently completing a DPhil in Politics from the University of Oxford. “
Mcpherson-Smith writes:
“The carbon-free electricity target for 2035 is just a key concern of Biden’s remarkably ambitious climate change agenda. By teaching Biden miners to code, building charging stations for Tesla owners, and increasing the number of union subscriptions, Biden’s team is saving no creativity in transforming America and trying to bring the economy to zero by 2050. “
“However, the government’s renewable ambitions are on a collision course with the regulatory barriers of reality, particularly due to the bureaucratic process associated with the National Environmental Law. NEPA was passed in 1970 and introduced the basic requirement that federal agencies be aware of how their actions affect the environment. These measures include the granting of grants, loans and permits to private companies, triggering the need for an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a longer Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). “
“However, no good deed goes unpunished. Despite the basic, sensible agenda of the legislation, NEPA has become a practical tool for opponents of infrastructure expansion to halt development through lengthy and expensive legal proceedings. Given the risk of lengthy litigation, EAs and EISs have become mammoth tasks that can take years to complete. For example, EISs released in 2018 had been in development for 4.9 years. “
The New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) is a test bed for national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Always at the forefront of virtue signaling, New York has a large power plant licensing process that pales in comparison to NEPA requirements. When it became clear that renewable projects would have to get through this process, Governor Cuomo put the Accelerated Renewable Growth and Community Benefits Act (AREGCBA) into the state budget for that at the height of the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic Fiscal year 2020-2021. AREGCBA is best described by a knowledgeable friend as “Once again the idiots in Albany have proven they are ready to dive off the high board without seeing if there is water in the pool.” The bottom line is that New York now has a renewable energy office that “will streamline and accelerate the location of large renewable energy projects and associated transmission facilities to help meet the state’s clean energy and climate goals while helping the strong Environmental and environmental goals of the state maintain standards for public participation ”. Cynics like me see this as just another state bureaucracy that challenges local renewable development concerns in their communities.
As part of the CLCPA process to achieve the 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels, seven advisory bodies have presented their enabling strategies to the Climate Protection Council. I have reviewed and commented on these strategies and want to highlight one specific inconsistency. The Agriculture and Forestry Panel recommended that the current levels of arable land and forests be maintained as a carbon sequestration strategy. The Land Use and Local Government Board recommended incentives for the development of clean energy sites without taking into account the space requirements of diffuse solar and wind energy. As a result, there is a significant inconsistency between the agricultural and forestry strategy to minimize the loss of arable land and forests and the land use planning strategy which does not take into account the contradicting need to develop these areas for renewable energy.
The fact is that converting the electrical power system to wind and solar resources will require an enormous number of turbines and panels. The current wind capacity in New York is almost 2,000 MW onshore wind and no offshore wind. A recent study of the resources required for the New York transition estimated 35,200 MW of onshore wind and 21,063 MW of offshore wind. A comparison of the space required only for the required wind turbines with the amount of agricultural land suggests that all wind turbines, if they were installed on agricultural land, would take up more than half. There is no way that this is not a significant land use problem.
The environmental problem is cumulative environmental impacts. In New York, an environmental impact assessment of a wind farm estimated that 85 bald eagles would be killed in a 124 MW wind turbine during the 30-year life of the project. If you add this to the total number of turbines required, you get an estimate of hundreds of bald eagles per year. Note that this is only the direct environmental cost. This does not include the effects of rare earth metal mining on the materials needed for the turbines or the effects of the large wind turbines on the construction.
The myriad of societies envisioning the transition to Biden’s carbon-free electricity target for 2035 will have such negligible environmental impacts that they should be ignored as the existential threat posed by climate change is false on many levels. Every time we see this bullshit we all have to speak and say out loud, check the numbers. Otherwise, the environment could be destroyed to protect it from a non-existent threat.
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.