The Baseline Bar

Nadia Ahmad
{"title":"The Baseline Bar","authors":"Nadia Ahmad","doi":"10.17161/1808.25558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own Government to save our environment.” (Ansel Adams) \nThe road to sustainability for the planet’s people and natural ecosystems does not include rampant extractivism. A recent study suggests that more than 80 percent of the world’s known hydrocarbon reserves must remain in the ground to avoid runaway climate change. This article challenges the dominant paradigm as to why the “no action” alternative provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is used more as a tool of assessment to move a project forward than instead as a tool of prohibition to halt a project and its deleterious environmental impacts. To strengthen the “no action” alternative, this article recommends a more detailed analysis to conserve delicate environmental spaces and alleviate the phenomenon of environmental racism. Increased detail and specificity would establish what I refer to as “the baseline bar,” the point at which environmental, social, and economic metrics for a proposed federal agency action lead to a recommendation of “no action.” The baseline bar can be achieved through NEPA’s “no action” alternative as well as through other environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, inter alia. The baseline bar would operate to halt project development once specific metrics are not satisfied or delay them so they become economically unfeasible. Manifestations of the baseline bar have led up to the earlier rejection of extractive industry projects, such as Alaska’s Pebble Mine and TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline. Yet these projects and many other hydrocarbon and mining enterprises now face rebirth. Adherence to NEPA’s procedural requirements could delay or inhibit such projects. The lack of a baseline bar is evident in the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and the armed standoff over grazing rights in Oregon. Further, this analysis of the baseline bar will work toward understanding the next wave of environmental lawsuits and dispute resolution.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.25558","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own Government to save our environment.” (Ansel Adams) The road to sustainability for the planet’s people and natural ecosystems does not include rampant extractivism. A recent study suggests that more than 80 percent of the world’s known hydrocarbon reserves must remain in the ground to avoid runaway climate change. This article challenges the dominant paradigm as to why the “no action” alternative provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is used more as a tool of assessment to move a project forward than instead as a tool of prohibition to halt a project and its deleterious environmental impacts. To strengthen the “no action” alternative, this article recommends a more detailed analysis to conserve delicate environmental spaces and alleviate the phenomenon of environmental racism. Increased detail and specificity would establish what I refer to as “the baseline bar,” the point at which environmental, social, and economic metrics for a proposed federal agency action lead to a recommendation of “no action.” The baseline bar can be achieved through NEPA’s “no action” alternative as well as through other environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, inter alia. The baseline bar would operate to halt project development once specific metrics are not satisfied or delay them so they become economically unfeasible. Manifestations of the baseline bar have led up to the earlier rejection of extractive industry projects, such as Alaska’s Pebble Mine and TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline. Yet these projects and many other hydrocarbon and mining enterprises now face rebirth. Adherence to NEPA’s procedural requirements could delay or inhibit such projects. The lack of a baseline bar is evident in the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and the armed standoff over grazing rights in Oregon. Further, this analysis of the baseline bar will work toward understanding the next wave of environmental lawsuits and dispute resolution.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基准条
“为了拯救我们的环境,我们不得不与我们自己的政府斗争,这太可怕了。(安塞尔·亚当斯)地球人和自然生态系统的可持续发展之路不包括猖獗的采掘活动。最近的一项研究表明,为了避免失控的气候变化,世界上80%以上的已知碳氢化合物储量必须留在地下。关于为什么《国家环境政策法》(NEPA)的“不作为”替代条款更多地被用作推动项目的评估工具,而不是作为禁止停止项目及其有害环境影响的工具,本文对主流范式提出了挑战。为了加强“不作为”的选择,本文建议进行更详细的分析,以保护脆弱的环境空间,缓解环境种族主义现象。增加细节和专门性将建立我所说的“基线”,即联邦机构拟议行动的环境、社会和经济指标达到这一点,就会导致“不采取行动”的建议。基准标准可以通过《国家环境政策法》的“不采取行动”替代方案以及其他环境法来实现,包括《清洁水法》、《清洁空气法》、《濒危物种法》等。一旦特定的指标没有得到满足,基线标准就会停止项目开发,或者推迟它们,使它们在经济上变得不可行的。基线限制的表现导致了采掘业项目早些时候的拒绝,比如阿拉斯加的卵石矿和横加公司的Keystone XL管道。然而,这些项目以及许多其他碳氢化合物和采矿企业现在面临着重生。遵守《国家环境法》的程序要求可能会推迟或阻止此类项目。在密歇根州弗林特市的水危机和俄勒冈州围绕放牧权的武装对峙中,基线的缺失是显而易见的。此外,对基准标准的分析将有助于理解下一波环境诉讼和争议解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A tributação e o desenvolvimento sustentável (Taxation and Sustainable Development) U.S. Supreme Court Issues a Major Ruling on NPDES Permits Legal and Policy Issues in the Development of Nigeria’s Mining Sector: Charting the Way Forward A Cost Benefit Analysis of Shale Gas Well Bonding Systems in Pennsylvania Governance of Ecosystem Services Across Scales in Bangladesh
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1