6 ms·

This is extremely dangerous. Waiving environmental review and consideration when building roads and bridges is extremely foolish. They greatly effect water qual

This is extremely dangerous. Waiving environmental review and consideration when building roads and bridges is extremely foolish. They greatly effect water quality at crossings and alongside the roads. My guess is this will be held up in courts and not allowed to go further -- it is an extreme deviation from what we currently do (which is held up by supreme court precedent). Entire industries are built on doing environmental impact studies and mitigation.

Lammy 6y ago
Environmental review is constantly used to stop housing construction and entrench existing segregation. Let's build some more of that so we won't need to drive anywhere :) e: Since when do people on HN downvote calls to build more housing??
- Tallasatree 6y ago
  Stopping a mid-rise building during SEPA review because of migratory bird flight paths is one thing, but macro scale environmental impacts that could occur during the constructions of freeways etc - yea we should review thoroughly.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I agree that environmental protection is a top priority, but I think it will be overall better for the environment if we accept the reality of having a little visible infrastructure/manufacturing in our collective faces. If anything, visibility should drive us to develop cleaner alternatives instead of the current reality where things like the Foxconn iPhone factory suicide netting is a funny joke to many of us. I believe the move away from domestic manufacturing created an even bigger climate problem from the thousands and thousands of ships and planes carrying materials across the planet for assembly, carrying them back for sale, and spewing unchecked amounts of pollution the entire way. The offshoring of US manufacturing jobs also disproportionately hurt Black Americans and others who were once able to use those jobs as an accessible path to a middle-class life: https://equitablegrowth.org/african-american-workers-are-hurt-more-by-the-decline-in-union-and-manufacturing-jobs/ https://equitablegrowth.org/african-american-workers-are-hur...
    - p1necone 6y ago
      I'm trying to unpack what you're saying here because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You think we should roll back environmental protections so that the negative effects of manufacturing are more in peoples faces so that they care more with an end goal of... putting those same protections back I assume?
      - Lammy 6y ago
        Pretty close, yeah! More like with an end goal of developing cleaner manufacturing processes that we can stand to be around. I think the environmental laws we have just take the same old dirty tech we've always had and move it far enough away that we don't see local negatives. The statistics I've seen about the environmental impact of the shipping industry are pretty alarming, and I suspect the actual impact is way worse than that since the entire area is so poorly explored. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... (Paywall: http://archive.is/Pf7Bw http://archive.is/Pf7Bw ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
        p1necone 6y ago
        I don't understand why fixing issues with shipping requires us to dismantle environmental protections elsewhere. This just seems like whataboutism to me.
    - rudolph9 6y ago
      Could an executive order be made to make the approval process more effective and efficient? We did the fist part of the work by identifying the bottle necks (at least broadly), the Acts where approved by Congress, so now let’s optimize. It seems like a lot of these executive order get thrown out which if true seems like a big waste of time and resources.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        I would be down for that, yeah. That's why I don't like the way Trump approaches things as mandates instead of conversations. I think it just ratchets up the divisiveness to the point that people start downvoting you on here if you like one thing Trump does because you think it's good to build houses and give people jobs to buy them with :p
  - corty 6y ago
    We should first examine environmental laws for their impact on communities, people and the economy. Far too often the environment is just a veil for NIMBY.
- xxpor 6y ago
  The problem there is mostly state law, which this wouldn't affect.
- rockinghigh 6y ago
  This is mostly about pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and highways. In reality, it’s to appease the energy lobbyists.
- draw_down 6y ago
  If this change actually results in that, then great. I seriously doubt that; this deregulation shit is always a giveaway to energy corporations and whatever other villains.
- peterwwillis 6y ago
  > Let's build some more of that so we won't need to drive anywhere Have you been to the projects? There's housing, and nothing else. People still have to sit 2 hours on a bus to get groceries because it's still a food desert. Businesses won't show up because there's no money, because there's no job training programs and no public transit to where the jobs are, etc. Eliminating segregation and raising people out of poverty is complex, and I don't think eliminating environmental review would move the needle.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Can those kinds of environmental issues be fixed later, or are they generally unrecoverable? It may be worth some number of fixable environmental issues to recover from the pandemic faster.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Anechoic 6y ago
  Some environmental impacts can be fixed later, but it generally much more expensive to "bolt-on" a fix than to design the project properly in the first place. This of course means the fix is rarely implemented. According to NEPA, when an impact is identified, the intent is to develop an alternative to avoid the impact entirely. It's only when alternatives are found to be infeasible that other mitigation methods can be considered.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
  These are permanent solutions to a temporary problem. No one is digging up the roads and pipelines after the economy has recovered.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think you've gotten confused - my question was whether they are indeed permanent solutions, or if we can fix them later without having to dig the whole thing up.
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  The SF bay area is still fixing environmental damage from 50 years ago (semiconductors) or even 170 years ago (gold rush/mercury mines). Environmental problems can outlive everyone that will decide this issue.
LanceH 6y ago
Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. By doing what? Protest?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I agree with the general principle, but in this case Congress can't exactly pass a bill for every project requiring environmental review. They have to delegate some authority to the executive here.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    In parliamentary democracies, this sort of thing is normally a devolved ministerial power. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get rid of a naughty minister.
  - tekdude 6y ago
    I always thought the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process was intuitive. Congress passed an act tasking the executive branch to pick which military bases to close, then there was a guaranteed for/against vote with minimal deliberation and no delays or Filibuster.
- unclebucknasty 6y ago
  >here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house. Solution to that is a functioning Congress, which requires less polarization (i.e. more compromise) and sane campaign finance laws. Term limits couldn't hurt either.
- nitwit005 6y ago
  It's a two party system where neither seems to care that the presidency wields too much power, so fixing it is probably in the realm of constitutional amendments at the moment.
jimbob45 6y ago
Something’s gotta give. There’s always going to be some sort of gross underbelly to this level of economic damage. I would personally prefer vastly higher taxes but I recognize that it has to come from somewhere.

Lammy 6y ago

Environmental review is constantly used to stop housing construction and entrench existing segregation. Let's build some more of that so we won't need to drive anywhere :) e: Since when do people on HN downvote calls to build more housing??

Tallasatree 6y ago
Stopping a mid-rise building during SEPA review because of migratory bird flight paths is one thing, but macro scale environmental impacts that could occur during the constructions of freeways etc - yea we should review thoroughly.
- Lammy 6y ago
  I agree that environmental protection is a top priority, but I think it will be overall better for the environment if we accept the reality of having a little visible infrastructure/manufacturing in our collective faces. If anything, visibility should drive us to develop cleaner alternatives instead of the current reality where things like the Foxconn iPhone factory suicide netting is a funny joke to many of us. I believe the move away from domestic manufacturing created an even bigger climate problem from the thousands and thousands of ships and planes carrying materials across the planet for assembly, carrying them back for sale, and spewing unchecked amounts of pollution the entire way. The offshoring of US manufacturing jobs also disproportionately hurt Black Americans and others who were once able to use those jobs as an accessible path to a middle-class life: https://equitablegrowth.org/african-american-workers-are-hurt-more-by-the-decline-in-union-and-manufacturing-jobs/ https://equitablegrowth.org/african-american-workers-are-hur...
  - p1necone 6y ago
    I'm trying to unpack what you're saying here because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You think we should roll back environmental protections so that the negative effects of manufacturing are more in peoples faces so that they care more with an end goal of... putting those same protections back I assume?
    - Lammy 6y ago
      Pretty close, yeah! More like with an end goal of developing cleaner manufacturing processes that we can stand to be around. I think the environmental laws we have just take the same old dirty tech we've always had and move it far enough away that we don't see local negatives. The statistics I've seen about the environmental impact of the shipping industry are pretty alarming, and I suspect the actual impact is way worse than that since the entire area is so poorly explored. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... (Paywall: http://archive.is/Pf7Bw http://archive.is/Pf7Bw ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
      - p1necone 6y ago
        I don't understand why fixing issues with shipping requires us to dismantle environmental protections elsewhere. This just seems like whataboutism to me.
  - rudolph9 6y ago
    Could an executive order be made to make the approval process more effective and efficient? We did the fist part of the work by identifying the bottle necks (at least broadly), the Acts where approved by Congress, so now let’s optimize. It seems like a lot of these executive order get thrown out which if true seems like a big waste of time and resources.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      I would be down for that, yeah. That's why I don't like the way Trump approaches things as mandates instead of conversations. I think it just ratchets up the divisiveness to the point that people start downvoting you on here if you like one thing Trump does because you think it's good to build houses and give people jobs to buy them with :p
- corty 6y ago
  We should first examine environmental laws for their impact on communities, people and the economy. Far too often the environment is just a veil for NIMBY.
xxpor 6y ago
The problem there is mostly state law, which this wouldn't affect.
rockinghigh 6y ago
This is mostly about pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and highways. In reality, it’s to appease the energy lobbyists.
draw_down 6y ago
If this change actually results in that, then great. I seriously doubt that; this deregulation shit is always a giveaway to energy corporations and whatever other villains.
peterwwillis 6y ago
> Let's build some more of that so we won't need to drive anywhere Have you been to the projects? There's housing, and nothing else. People still have to sit 2 hours on a bus to get groceries because it's still a food desert. Businesses won't show up because there's no money, because there's no job training programs and no public transit to where the jobs are, etc. Eliminating segregation and raising people out of poverty is complex, and I don't think eliminating environmental review would move the needle.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Can those kinds of environmental issues be fixed later, or are they generally unrecoverable? It may be worth some number of fixable environmental issues to recover from the pandemic faster.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Anechoic 6y ago
Some environmental impacts can be fixed later, but it generally much more expensive to "bolt-on" a fix than to design the project properly in the first place. This of course means the fix is rarely implemented. According to NEPA, when an impact is identified, the intent is to develop an alternative to avoid the impact entirely. It's only when alternatives are found to be infeasible that other mitigation methods can be considered.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
These are permanent solutions to a temporary problem. No one is digging up the roads and pipelines after the economy has recovered.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think you've gotten confused - my question was whether they are indeed permanent solutions, or if we can fix them later without having to dig the whole thing up.
bcrosby95 6y ago
The SF bay area is still fixing environmental damage from 50 years ago (semiconductors) or even 170 years ago (gold rush/mercury mines). Environmental problems can outlive everyone that will decide this issue.

LanceH 6y ago

Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. Then, here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house.

inetknght 6y ago
> Perhaps we can push back against what is effectively legislation by the executive branch. By doing what? Protest?
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I agree with the general principle, but in this case Congress can't exactly pass a bill for every project requiring environmental review. They have to delegate some authority to the executive here.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  In parliamentary democracies, this sort of thing is normally a devolved ministerial power. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get rid of a naughty minister.
- tekdude 6y ago
  I always thought the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process was intuitive. Congress passed an act tasking the executive branch to pick which military bases to close, then there was a guaranteed for/against vote with minimal deliberation and no delays or Filibuster.
unclebucknasty 6y ago
>here's the tough part, don't expand executive power when your own party is in the white house. Solution to that is a functioning Congress, which requires less polarization (i.e. more compromise) and sane campaign finance laws. Term limits couldn't hurt either.
nitwit005 6y ago
It's a two party system where neither seems to care that the presidency wields too much power, so fixing it is probably in the realm of constitutional amendments at the moment.

jimbob45 6y ago

Something’s gotta give. There’s always going to be some sort of gross underbelly to this level of economic damage. I would personally prefer vastly higher taxes but I recognize that it has to come from somewhere.