If we truly accept and use sustainable design and sustainable industry practices, we would enhance the earth's ecosystems, and at the same time, improving the quality of life of the entire earth's population. However, greed for money and power are the mantra today both on the left and on the right. So, environmental legislation, such as NEPA, remains as a necessary impediment to unbridled development fostered by this greed. However, how we apply the regulations that result from this very excellent law can either benefit the outcomes or degrade them. The law remains, and it will be enforced. Taking years and spending millions to obtain permits for development that enhances the environment makes no sense at all, yet that is the disposition and universal behavior of the regulators today, especially in the U.S. I have written in the past about the concept of compliance incentives, however, this idea did not take root in our regulatory community. On the other side of the coin, legal avenues still exist and will always exist in the U.S. under our constitution to fight development that is either destructive or not sustainable. The challenge is that social pressures are often not driven by science, but often by hysteria and lies. A good example of this confusion is the demonizing of the element carbon, which is the element of life, and the molecule, carbon dioxide, which is the molecule of life. It is a scientific fact that, if there is not a significant amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, there would be and will not be any life on this planet. Where do people think our oxygen comes from? It is from the metobilzation of carbon dioxide by plant life. And, over the billions of years that plant life has existed on our planet, the sequestrarion of carbon dioxide has built am immense reservoir of readily available carbon dioxide in all medias, that keeps the concentration in the atmosphere at a level that is determined by the ambient temperature of the atmosphere/media - via the laws of stoichiometry and kinetics. So, those who are fighting the use of petroleum products, picked the wrong metric with which to measure what is hysterically called climate change. Carbon dioxide is the wrong metric, as it is the most important component in our atmosphere. As I have said in other posts, we should diminish and eventually curtail our use of these other non-renewal resources, so that we can have them available for other beneficial use later - however, we do need to continue to search for and develop other viable sources of renewable energy, including very safe nuclear energy. This may require a slightly different thinking when it comes to environmnetal laws and regulations. We also must sustain our economy, or we will crash and burn, and find ourselves back into living in caves. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." Balance is everything, and incentivized sustainability is the best way to balance environmental compliance.
------------------------------
Patrick Vasicek P.E., M.ASCE
Senior Civil Engineer
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2020 09:09 AM
From: Mitchell Winkler
Subject: NEPA Rollback - Implications Good or Bad?
I'm curious how others see the implications of a less restrictive process? While it appears good for business, and civil engineers by association, do you see any unintended consequences? Alternatively, how do think a less restrictive process will impact the environmental and societal impacts that the act, in its original intent, was designed to protect?
------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E., M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------