Comments on: This could be HUGE: Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:24:28 +0000

Hydraulic fracturing Is incredibly greedy of the large companies that are supported by our government.. The amount of pollution that comes from the pressurized fluid alone is astonishing. Known carcinogens and other harmful chemicals are shot into the ground and given off into the atmosphere as poisonous vapor. The petroleum and gas pollute underground water as well as the atmosphere, threatening thousands of Americans that rely on underground wells for water. When these citizens complain to the company that fracked they are either ignored or offered money to sell their land to the company and keep their mouth shut. Its about time the government supported the EPA instead of their personal interests. The petroleum that these big companies extract with pollution is burned, creating even more toxic fumes. Humans are destroying the planet, and the steady increase in global warming suggests its not happening slowly. “Only when the last tree Is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, will humans realize they cannot eat money”

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:02:32 +0000

In reply to CCinRI. Think of the blog that guy would have written ...

By: CCinRI

CCinRI — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 07:43:48 +0000

Greg, remember Twains* warning about arguing with idiots. “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

*loose attribution.

By: Jim Thomerson

Jim Thomerson — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:02:50 +0000

This sounds sort of reasonable. NEPA mandates consideration of all costs and benefits. So, if a project affects global warming, then it should be determined if that is a cost or a benefit, or no significant impact.

As a side comment, If I could not produce an acceptable FONSI (Finding Of No Significant Impact) for a proposed project, I would probably recommend abandoning the project.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:28:36 +0000

Michael (#13): Not really. I posted a story which was based on one report at Bloomberg and gave that link. I threw in a few comments to go along with it. I’m not really obligated to provide references that might have backed up the Bloomberg post. The law in question is well known and not at all obscure. I’m sure there are countless references to existing laws on this blog, by me and by commenters, and elsewhere on the blogosphere that do not happen to give references to the original law and associated case law and regulatory documents!

(I didn’t already know the URL, by the way. Had that been handy I probably would have provided the link.)

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:25:54 +0000

Michael, exactly. What is really happening here is the implementation of a law that I suspect was ignored during the Great Gutting of Federal regulatory action and authority under Bush which I suspect was not undone as much as it could have been done (mainly perhaps because of the financial crisis) during the first Obama term.

By: Michael Kelsey

Michael Kelsey — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:07:37 +0000

On a more positive note, this _is_ really interesting, and potentially highly effective. Since Congress (in a past incarnation) has already passed NEPA, they have explicitly given their consent to Obama’s rumored directive to his (Executive Branch) agencies.

The fact that courts have already held that NEPA applies to any project, at _any_ level, which either receives federal funding (even partially!) or involves federally issued permits, is what gives Obama’s rumored action teeth.

Since the issuance of a permit, or release of federal funds, is an action _by_ the agency, it can be halted as a result of a negative EIS. Loss of partial funding alone may not stop a project (since states may be likely to provide those funds instead, depending on the politics involved), but failure to secure necessary permits certainly will.

It will be very interesting to see how this develops over the coming year.

By: Michael Kelsey

Michael Kelsey — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:58:10 +0000

Greg, you must be in a bad mood today, because you are being quite defensive (I refuse to engage in scatological insults).

You are inordinately fond, and rightly so, of calling out denialists and other crackpots for making superficially “factual” statements without providing citations to back up their claims. You got called out (fairly politely, and not actually inaccurately) for doing the same thing. Goose, meet gander. Gander, this is goose. Now go play quietly together while the grownups talk.

“Nixon-era” covers at least six years of legislative history (more if you count Gerry’s half term), and a wide range of laws.

The information you provided to readers to narrow down that range was the acronym “NEPA,” which refers both to the act enabling use of EIS’s but also to the heavy coal-producing region of Pennsylvania. Both interpretations may be reasonable chosen by a reader in the context of climate change.

Making that ambiguous acronym a hyperlink in your text would have been zero cost (since you already knew the URL).

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:07:44 +0000

Craig, I have news for you. Ready?

YOU’RE READING A BLOG AND SO WAS CAT!!!

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:05:02 +0000

Sean, I think you mean blog POST.

Anyway , ths law as been in effect fr years and as I say in the post, which actually does ave content, isn’t all that strong.