Jim Tankersley has an interesting article from last week’s Los Angeles Times that reports the Obama administration is considering issuing an order that would require federal agencies to account for how “major actions they take, such as building highways or logging national forests,” will affect climate change, or how the projects themselves will be affected by current climate change problems, such as rising sea levels near newly constructed or repaired roads and bridges.The measure, which Tankersley reports has long been sought by environmentalists, would expand the landmark National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was passed during the Nixon administration forty years ago.
It would be an interesting move by the administration at a time when “brick and mortar” projects from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) are being implemented to help the US economy recover from the current recession.
Tankersley writes that Republican legislators oppose such a measure for fear it would inhibit economic growth. Senator James M. Inhofe states in a letter sent to the administration about the proposal that such changes ‘“will slow our economic recovery while providing no meaningful environmental benefits [.]”’
NEPA does currently require federal agencies to conduct environmental impact reports on issues like land use and air and water quality that may be affected by a federal project when determining whether or not to approve such projects.
Tankersley reports that some agencies already consider climate affects when conducting these environmental impact statements, but such an expansion by the administration could create a new avenue “for environmentalists to attack, delay or halt proposed government actions. The environmental impact statements originally required by the act have become routine battlegrounds for environmentalists, developers and others.”
While White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley, notes the decision is not yet final, she did state in an interview “that federal agencies ‘should think about both the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, and the effects of climate change, on decisions they make.”’ Sutley also responded to the Inhofe letter by noting that the current law, under NEPA, can’t be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, in effect “suggesting that the administration would not block projects” because they would add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
As far as ARRA goes, Sutley maintains that no projects to date have been delayed because of NEPA, and this supposedly would not change even with a new executive order requiring climate consideration in federally-funded projects.
There is no word on whether or not the administration is considering the measure to show US commitment to fighting climate change despite having not passed any new legislation to that affect. The world community just met in Copenhagen on the issue, and future meetings are planned, but many developing nations have indicated they will not take major steps on climate change without significant commitments from the US and China.
To read the Tankersley article click here.
Posted: 01/06/10
