Now you know how the nuclear power industry feels, with hysterical anti-nuke fanatics spreading lies and rumors about how awful even a little extra radiation is. In war, truth is the first casualty.
NEPA has been used as a weapon to torpedo development of all kinds for many, many years. What is described here isn't new. As a NEPA practitioner for nearly 50 years, I've seen it work for good as well as bad. I’ve also seen how the protections NEPA was intended to provided are sacrificed at the alter of the Church of Carbon. Ignoring T&E considerations are the most heinous example of this practice and is frequently used by Cabinet-level agencies to insure more rapid deployment of renewables. So-called “take permits” are nothing more than saying “a little murder is OK.
Regulatory reform of NEPA is not needed in its enabling regulations, but rather in its assurance of good faith agency reviews, particularly for energy and energy-related civil works. I’ve sat in agency meetings and heard representatives of the EPA say unequivocally that they will disapprove any project that makes it easier to mine coal, regardless of the health and safety benefits that project might have. I’ve sat in agency meetings and heard Heads of Regulatory Agencies proclaim, “this is not about health and safety, it’s about regulatory interpretation!” (that was eventually rebuked, at severe cost to the agency, in Federal Circuit Court). Developers have a right to expect agencies to review their proposals in good faith, and in the equitable enforcement of regulations.
Lawfare is an inevitable product of our system of justice. Regulations, and in many cases the enabling legislation, contain deliberate ambiguities that create uncertainty for developers to manage, and create loopholes for litigants to exploit. Lawfare could be better controlled by closing some of these loopholes and by assigning liability to litigants. That liability should be, as a minimum, the additional project costs suffered by the developer. In the case I referenced above, the state was required not only to pay the developers costs, but was also penalized an additional 50 percent of costs because the courts deemed the state regulator acted in bad faith. NGOs such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, and others have substantial war chests to accept such responsibilities. (See Bryce, 18 Feb 2023, among others, https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-anti-industry-industry?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email .
Energy projects are a particular hot-button. Lawfare with such developments could be constrained if regulators applied their rules equitably. For example, “community consent” is a major criterion in selecting a site for disposing of radioactive waste. Yet, many communities who object to the siting of windfarms near their domiciles are ignored, and their pleas are overwhelmed by the virtue signaling of politicians whose agenda is clearly not well-informed. (Again, see Bryce, Lovering, and others who have written about communities rejecting wind farms).
Regulatory reform and lawfare can be best implemented through an energy policy based on physics, not politics or the “crisis-du-jour”). A physics-based policy should recognize energy and power densities as the most important factors in energy and resource management. Power dense fuels require far less resources (such as land) than sources that merely harvest energy. Such a policy would establish a clear line for agencies in development and consideration of alternatives (the heart of the NEPA process) that would accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed works. Nuclear and gas works require far less land than renewables, and much of the lawfare rises from questions of land use. Nuclear and gas works also require fewer mineral resources, enhance energy security, provide more skilled employment jobs, and provide reliable, affordable, and safe electricity to our economy.
It is an essential truth that no energy source is without risk. Utilities are faced with many complex technical and economic decisions during the planning for new energy facilities. Regulatory uncertainty and inequity should not be one of those risks. The licensing process should be clear, well-defined and free from ambiguity so that all parties may understand the rules an trust that corruption is not occurring.
This 81+ scientist is totally convinced that the AGW hysteria is wrong, deceptive and destructive.
Solar and wind gadgets are expensive, high fossil fuel consuming and short lived and making them and trying to use them is destroying the global economy.
We need fossil fuel and nuclear power urgently using the current power grids because global cooling cycle has started already, in 2020 and will last until 2053.
The power will keep us warmer, cold kills, and the carbon dioxide will help maintain the food supply because colder weather makes for lower yields.
Fossil fuel and nuclear can then be used to make solar panels and windmills for third world power where size, earthquakes and political instability precludes nuclear power plants
This is ridiculous for organizations who claim to be fighting for the environment to fight against the construction of electrical power lines to bring carbon-free hydropower to New England. If they care so much about carbon emissions, then they would be fighting for it.
Unfortunately, this is just one example of how Greens increase carbon emissions:
"The majority of those lawsuits were filed by a small set of national NGOs who lost upwards 70% of their cases. In other words, these cases function to delay and add costs to infrastructure development, not to improve environmental outcomes"... is a direct quote from your article.
If we could sue these NGOs for the increased cost plus our cost of litigation I firmly believe these operatives would quit. They are doing no good but the establishment, administrative state allows this to happen. Replace the progressive judges that allow these suits to go forward and we will have a better place to make our mark in bringing real advancement
Add to that they take $billions in anonymous personal donations that are tax deductible to these grifter billionaires who use that to increase their wealth, has nothing to do with environmental or altruistic objectives. i.e. if your name is Bezos, you can donate to a dozen or more mercenary ENGOs who will launch environmental lawsuits against his competitor SpaceX at every opportunity. Good profit for Bezos. Tax deductible. Win. Win. For the Public & American Productivity its Lose, Lose.
Now you know how the nuclear power industry feels, with hysterical anti-nuke fanatics spreading lies and rumors about how awful even a little extra radiation is. In war, truth is the first casualty.
NEPA has been used as a weapon to torpedo development of all kinds for many, many years. What is described here isn't new. As a NEPA practitioner for nearly 50 years, I've seen it work for good as well as bad. I’ve also seen how the protections NEPA was intended to provided are sacrificed at the alter of the Church of Carbon. Ignoring T&E considerations are the most heinous example of this practice and is frequently used by Cabinet-level agencies to insure more rapid deployment of renewables. So-called “take permits” are nothing more than saying “a little murder is OK.
Regulatory reform of NEPA is not needed in its enabling regulations, but rather in its assurance of good faith agency reviews, particularly for energy and energy-related civil works. I’ve sat in agency meetings and heard representatives of the EPA say unequivocally that they will disapprove any project that makes it easier to mine coal, regardless of the health and safety benefits that project might have. I’ve sat in agency meetings and heard Heads of Regulatory Agencies proclaim, “this is not about health and safety, it’s about regulatory interpretation!” (that was eventually rebuked, at severe cost to the agency, in Federal Circuit Court). Developers have a right to expect agencies to review their proposals in good faith, and in the equitable enforcement of regulations.
Lawfare is an inevitable product of our system of justice. Regulations, and in many cases the enabling legislation, contain deliberate ambiguities that create uncertainty for developers to manage, and create loopholes for litigants to exploit. Lawfare could be better controlled by closing some of these loopholes and by assigning liability to litigants. That liability should be, as a minimum, the additional project costs suffered by the developer. In the case I referenced above, the state was required not only to pay the developers costs, but was also penalized an additional 50 percent of costs because the courts deemed the state regulator acted in bad faith. NGOs such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, and others have substantial war chests to accept such responsibilities. (See Bryce, 18 Feb 2023, among others, https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-anti-industry-industry?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email .
Energy projects are a particular hot-button. Lawfare with such developments could be constrained if regulators applied their rules equitably. For example, “community consent” is a major criterion in selecting a site for disposing of radioactive waste. Yet, many communities who object to the siting of windfarms near their domiciles are ignored, and their pleas are overwhelmed by the virtue signaling of politicians whose agenda is clearly not well-informed. (Again, see Bryce, Lovering, and others who have written about communities rejecting wind farms).
Regulatory reform and lawfare can be best implemented through an energy policy based on physics, not politics or the “crisis-du-jour”). A physics-based policy should recognize energy and power densities as the most important factors in energy and resource management. Power dense fuels require far less resources (such as land) than sources that merely harvest energy. Such a policy would establish a clear line for agencies in development and consideration of alternatives (the heart of the NEPA process) that would accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed works. Nuclear and gas works require far less land than renewables, and much of the lawfare rises from questions of land use. Nuclear and gas works also require fewer mineral resources, enhance energy security, provide more skilled employment jobs, and provide reliable, affordable, and safe electricity to our economy.
It is an essential truth that no energy source is without risk. Utilities are faced with many complex technical and economic decisions during the planning for new energy facilities. Regulatory uncertainty and inequity should not be one of those risks. The licensing process should be clear, well-defined and free from ambiguity so that all parties may understand the rules an trust that corruption is not occurring.
This 81+ scientist is totally convinced that the AGW hysteria is wrong, deceptive and destructive.
Solar and wind gadgets are expensive, high fossil fuel consuming and short lived and making them and trying to use them is destroying the global economy.
We need fossil fuel and nuclear power urgently using the current power grids because global cooling cycle has started already, in 2020 and will last until 2053.
The power will keep us warmer, cold kills, and the carbon dioxide will help maintain the food supply because colder weather makes for lower yields.
Fossil fuel and nuclear can then be used to make solar panels and windmills for third world power where size, earthquakes and political instability precludes nuclear power plants
This is what elite overproduction looks like in practice.
This is ridiculous for organizations who claim to be fighting for the environment to fight against the construction of electrical power lines to bring carbon-free hydropower to New England. If they care so much about carbon emissions, then they would be fighting for it.
Unfortunately, this is just one example of how Greens increase carbon emissions:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-greens-increased-carbon-emissions
"The majority of those lawsuits were filed by a small set of national NGOs who lost upwards 70% of their cases. In other words, these cases function to delay and add costs to infrastructure development, not to improve environmental outcomes"... is a direct quote from your article.
If we could sue these NGOs for the increased cost plus our cost of litigation I firmly believe these operatives would quit. They are doing no good but the establishment, administrative state allows this to happen. Replace the progressive judges that allow these suits to go forward and we will have a better place to make our mark in bringing real advancement
Add to that they take $billions in anonymous personal donations that are tax deductible to these grifter billionaires who use that to increase their wealth, has nothing to do with environmental or altruistic objectives. i.e. if your name is Bezos, you can donate to a dozen or more mercenary ENGOs who will launch environmental lawsuits against his competitor SpaceX at every opportunity. Good profit for Bezos. Tax deductible. Win. Win. For the Public & American Productivity its Lose, Lose.