Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot)

Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot) In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort. Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different. Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.