3 ms·

> " This style of thinking is present especially in environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the federal level, or the California

> " This style of thinking is present especially in environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the federal level, or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the state level. These laws both require the government to conduct an exhaustive review of government projects—sometimes even permitting decisions on private projects—that might have negative environmental impacts." There's a reason those laws were passed, and it's because of all the massive groundwater and air and soil contamination problems created by unregulated free-for-all industrial development that have had to be cleaned up at great public expense. Those waste problems are solvable but solutions are often expensive, adding a large percentage onto the end-to-end cost of a manufacturing line for semiconductors, for example: https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment/superfund-sites-reuse-california https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment/superfund-sites-... As far as large-scale public infrastructure projects, a lot of that is repair and rebuilding of existing installations (bridges etc.), so there's not as much environmental review there - just a need to devote resources to the task. I suppose a more autocratic country like China (which has rapidly built out high-speed rail) wouldn't bother about EPA reviews, but the air in China can be pretty bad. As far as doing things quickly? The global supply chain problem is pretty evident right now, maybe offshoring and 'just in time' manufacturing wasn't such a great idea due to its lack of robustness under stress? Critical supply chains should be located domestically. Yes, that would either raise prices or cut profits due to increased domestic labor costs and pollution regulations.

ethbr0 5y ago
What probably should have been done was to write a provision into the law for priority projects, allowing some activities to be waived or timeboxed. It's a bit unreasonable to expect a process that efficiently handles $x million / 2-year projects to scale to $xxx million / 10-year projects. If the risks of not having a port expansion / bridge or dam repair / rail transit / nuclear power are greater than the risks of not completing a comprehensive environmental review... well, there you are.
robinjhuang 5y ago
I don’t think blaming the supply chain is fair. Big transportation projects, big city’s housing problems all existed way before our current supply chain problems. Clearly considering the environment is important. But the costs of over worrying about the environment is becoming clear too. Negative externalities like the homeless crisis in the West coast are affecting everyone.
dionidium 5y ago
> There's a reason those laws were passed, and it's because of all the massive groundwater and air and soil contamination problems created by unregulated free-for-all industrial development that have had to be cleaned up at great public expense. OK, sure, but what does that have to do with building a bridge or a train station? A similar objection occurs on a smaller scale when we talk about opening up zoning laws to allow more apartments. "There's a reason those laws were passed. You're saying you want a chemical treatment plant built by your school?" No, what I said is that it should be legal to build apartments. Who said anything about a chemical plant? Supporting quick approvals for less hazardous projects doesn't suggest support for more hazardous projects, but implying that it does is an effective opposition tactic.

ethbr0 5y ago

What probably should have been done was to write a provision into the law for priority projects, allowing some activities to be waived or timeboxed. It's a bit unreasonable to expect a process that efficiently handles $x million / 2-year projects to scale to $xxx million / 10-year projects. If the risks of not having a port expansion / bridge or dam repair / rail transit / nuclear power are greater than the risks of not completing a comprehensive environmental review... well, there you are.

robinjhuang 5y ago

I don’t think blaming the supply chain is fair. Big transportation projects, big city’s housing problems all existed way before our current supply chain problems. Clearly considering the environment is important. But the costs of over worrying about the environment is becoming clear too. Negative externalities like the homeless crisis in the West coast are affecting everyone.

dionidium 5y ago

> There's a reason those laws were passed, and it's because of all the massive groundwater and air and soil contamination problems created by unregulated free-for-all industrial development that have had to be cleaned up at great public expense. OK, sure, but what does that have to do with building a bridge or a train station? A similar objection occurs on a smaller scale when we talk about opening up zoning laws to allow more apartments. "There's a reason those laws were passed. You're saying you want a chemical treatment plant built by your school?" No, what I said is that it should be legal to build apartments. Who said anything about a chemical plant? Supporting quick approvals for less hazardous projects doesn't suggest support for more hazardous projects, but implying that it does is an effective opposition tactic.