• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Trump’s Move To Streamline NEPA Sends Greens Into Frenzy

by Valerie Richardson
February 13, 2020, 8:42 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
5

interstate 70 tunnelBefore Colorado could reconstruct and widen an aging 10-mile stretch of Interstate 70, the state had to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a hurdle that soon turned into a brick wall.

The federal permitting process for the $1.2 billion central Denver project took more than 13 years, resulting in a document nearly 60,000 pages long in what civil engineer Matt Girard called “the poster child for the need to update the NEPA process.”

“At the end of the day, the document included 148 individual mitigation requirements that cost the taxpayers roughly $50 million,” said Mr. Girard, who represents the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. “At the end of that, the project still saw five legal actions against it.”

Seeking to untangle the increasingly complex and time-consuming NEPA process is the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which held on Tuesday the first of two hearings on a proposed rule to streamline and update the 1970 law by, for example, setting deadlines and page limits for environmental impact statements and assessments.

“We haven’t modernized the rules for projects since 1978,” said Ed Mortimer, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, at a press conference. “At the same time, the infrastructure in this country, most of it was built 80 to 100 years ago … You look at other parts of the world that are making these modernizations, and the U.S. is falling behind.”

First, however, the proposed rule must overcome the objections of Democrats and leading environmentalists who accuse the Trump administration of seeking to line the pockets of industry by weakening NEPA’s charge to “look before you leap.”

“Make no mistake: Rolling back NEPA’s procedures is not about modernizing, but make it easier to rubber-stamp projects,” said Yvette Arellano, senior staff at Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, at a rally near the hearing at the EPA Region 8 building.

Speaking of those folks, here they are gathered just across the street outside the Alliance Center, where they’ll be rallying in opposition to the rollback as the hearings proceed throughout the day pic.twitter.com/8i9vyJApA8

— Chase Woodruff (@dcwoodruff) February 11, 2020

Another bone of contention is the proposed rule’s declaration that “analysis of cumulative effects is not required under NEPA,” a major change aimed at curbing limitless “what if” scenarios, but one that the Sierra Club warned would “fast-track hundreds of polluting projects around the country.”

Rep. Diana DeGette, Colorado Democrat, and former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the proposal presented last month would “gut core protections” and “could effectively take climate change considerations off the table.”

By requiring the federal government to assess the environmental impact of federal actions — and solicit public input — NEPA has prevented the clear-cutting of aspen groves in Gunnison National Park and stopped drilling on Colorado’s North Fork Valley, they said in an op-ed in The Denver Post.

“NEPA was enacted to fix a system that was once broken — one that allowed agencies to divide and destroy neighborhoods so a highway could be built; one that allowed them to build dams without any thought about how they would affect the local salmon runs or native fishing grounds; one that led to federal taxpayers spending billions of dollars on projects that were later found to be devastating to our environment,” they said.

The problem, say critics, is that anti-development forces have weaponized the law to delay for years infrastructure projects like highways, bridges, and pipelines.

In some cases, NEPA has stalled projects that would actually benefit the environment. Mr. Girard cited the Central 70 reconstruction in Denver, which would reduce the amount of time that vehicles spend idling in traffic during rush hour.

The NEPA process also has begun to hamstring projects designed to combat rising atmospheric carbon dioxide such as solar and wind farms, said Emily Haggstrom, spokeswoman for Consumer Energy Alliance.

“The people who would benefit most from these streamlined regulations will not only be traditional energy organizations, but also our farmers, ranchers, and wind and solar developers,” said Ms. Haggstrom. “That’s really something our communities are demanding right now, and they’re having just as many problems and issues as our traditional energy folks.”

The average time period for an environmental impact statement is 4½ years, and the average length is over 600 pages, but “reviews for some projects have taken much longer,” according to the CEQ. An EIS for a federal highway project averages seven years.

Former Interior Secretary Gale Norton said that the permitting process has grown lengthier as managers attempt to fireproof the permits from the inevitable court challenges. Environmental assessments that were once an inch thick now take up “bookshelves,” she said.

For Ms. Norton, who served from 2001-06 under President George W. Bush, the specter of watching trees die year after year in beetle-kill forests was especially dispiriting.

“It was so frustrating to see a hillside devastated by pine beetles, to know there was a huge fire danger, and not to be able to do anything about it without years of analysis, without our professional foresters spending their time preparing documents instead of actually managing the forests,” said Ms. Norton.

“It’s important to analyze environmental impacts, but it’s also important to do it in a way that allows us to achieve end results in a timely way.”

The second CEQ hearing on the NEPA proposed rule is scheduled for Feb. 25 at the Interior Department in Washington, D.C.

Read more at Washington Times

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. HawkDriver says:
    6 years ago

    But it’s ok to fast track development of Wind Turbine and Solar Panel Farms at the expense of untold millions of dead birds, bats and terrible pollution! All for marginal return on high cost and inconsistent energy, sounds like more Lefty Stupidity

    Reply
  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    6 years ago

    The back to nature freaks and the tree huggers listen to all their load of malarkey i can still remember seeing this idiots on TV pulling off stupid protests against logging the same way they go naked for those jerks from PETA its all a big game of Look at me look at me

    Reply
    • Leo S says:
      6 years ago

      They are not just tree huggers. They are “tree fuck#rs” now. They are literally having sex with the trees. I wonder if they can be prosecuted for the rape since a tree never verbally agrees to have an intercourse with the leftist’s psychopaths.

      Reply
      • Sonnyhill says:
        6 years ago

        Are you sure? Their lawyers might say that they were merely looking for squirrels.

        Reply
  3. Sonnyhill says:
    6 years ago

    The eco – anarchists are poor losers. The environmental review process in Canada is getting more complicated, not less. Everybody and their auntie seems to have standing. If a project passes all the challenges, including the Supreme Court, the trouble isn’t over. Today, the losers are blocking railways and bridges, throwing a nation wide tantrum.
    Where’s our Prime Minister? AWOL.

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • oil rig drillAmerica’s Energy Boom Exposes The Folly Of Britain’s Net Zero Disaster
    Oct 3, 2025
    America’s energy boom and policy flexibility are widening the economic gap with Britain, where high prices and net zero goals are stalling growth. […]
  • Arctic sunsetNew Study Shows Arctic Sea Ice Decline Slowing, Driven More by Natural Variability Than Emissions
    Oct 3, 2025
    New study shows Arctic sea ice decline has slowed since 2012, driven more by natural variability than greenhouse gas emissions. […]
  • Attorney General Rob BontaNewsom Backs Off Climate Fight As AG Bonta Doubles Down On Suing Energy Firms
    Oct 3, 2025
    Two years after launching a high-profile climate lawsuit, Newsom is backing off while AG Rob Bonta doubles down on lawfare against major energy firms. […]
  • Farm irrigationMeteorologist Debunks Reuters’ Claim That Climate Change Threatens Europe’s Resources
    Oct 2, 2025
    Data show Europe’s droughts, weather, and biodiversity issues stem from mismanagement, not climate change, despite alarmist media claims. […]
  • Russ VoughtTrump Nixes $8B In ‘Green New Scam Funding’ In NYC, Blue States
    Oct 2, 2025
    Trump DOE halted billions in green energy projects citing poor economics, DEI hiring, and weak energy impact, sparking backlash in blue states. […]
  • SherrillRising Energy Costs And Dem Green Policies Top Of Mind In NJ Gubernatorial Race
    Oct 2, 2025
    New Jersey voters face rising energy costs as Democratic green policies and offshore wind expansion drive utility bills higher. […]
  • Hochul's green stringsHochul’s Election-Year ‘Inflation Refund’ Checks Can’t Cover Costs Of Her Green Agenda
    Oct 2, 2025
    Hochul’s election-year ‘inflation refund’ checks won’t offset the soaring living costs and utility hikes her green-energy agenda created. […]
  • South Asia monsoonSouth Asia Monsoons Not Becoming More Dangerous From Climate Change, Data Confirms
    Oct 1, 2025
    Claims that climate change is making South Asia’s monsoons more extreme ignore history, data, and other major causes of flooding. […]
  • wildfire carsRick Scott Wants Answers On What California Did With Federal Wildfire Funds
    Oct 1, 2025
    Sen. Rick Scott is demanding answers on how California spent federal money earmarked for preventing and fighting wildfires. […]
  • Biden test driving an all-electric Ford F-150.Ford CEO Warns U.S. EV Sales Could Halve After Federal Subsidies End
    Oct 1, 2025
    Ford warns U.S. electric vehicle sales could drop as much as 5% after the $7,500 taxpayer-funded federal subsidies expire in a month. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky