What is a "significant" adverse environmental effect? Is it determined by scientists? Governments? Proponents? If determined by thresholds, how do we decide those thresholds?
Environmental impact assessments raise many difficult questions. We can debate all we want about how to assess projects, but one value must inform our decisions: consistency.
I envision a world where all public servants and government officials strictly adhere to the thresholds in environmental legislation. If a proposed project surpasses a threshold, regulatory approval should only be granted in the rarest cases. Currently, nearly every project that undergoes an environmental assessment receives regulatory approval, even if it surpasses thresholds. If regulators enforce existing thresholds, companies will adhere to the new regulations if they are enforced consistently.
My proposed intervention is legislation that caps the number of federally approved projects annually. The biggest barrier to my vision is conflict of interest. Governments depend on projects to generate short-term economic growth and win re-election. However, if governments were limited in their ability to approve projects, there would be more public scrutiny on the approval process for each individual project, incentivizing governments to approve projects below existing thresholds.
@CoSphere
Hey Philip, I think the current standards for a lot of federal restrictions really need to be reconsidered. I think resource extraction is something that has corrupted our government so extremely. We have to reconsider our entire legislative infrastructure to change our priorities away from extraction and towards sustainability.
Hi Philip! I agree with you that a lack of consistency definitely does exist. If government officials adhered more strictly to the thresholds in environment legislation, it would immediately remove potentially harmful projects. I think your proposed invention is super interesting!
I really like how specific your intervention is! It's an interesting idea, and I guess what we also need is the consultation of scientists when implementing caps so that we can find a good balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Great post!
Hi, Philip. I agree with the idea that the governments and the scientists ought to stay in consistency while facing environmental issues, that is, the government needs to govern scientifically and be regulated by the experts in the fields to make sure the projects are on the right track. The scientists and experts should also give suggestions based on science and social reality to solve the problems by cooperating the government.
Interesting idea! Limiting the number of approved projects could force the government to look to long-term benefits and be more careful of what gets approved. Although, in a world where governments have an abundance of progressive projects, a cap may limit progress and delay or stifle some projects.
You bring up a very good point about limiting federally approved programs while being monitored by the public. I don't think it would be difficult to ban single-use plastics with the help of the government.
Hi Philip,
This is a fantastic post! I love your idea for a cap on federally approved projects. I think this could be a great and realistic way to create actual change with regards to sustainability.
Hi Philip,
This is a very interesting idea, to elongate the process of start up companies. I actually really like this idea and I think it could work. However, what's to say that a little bribery won't just make the government look the other way on doing things right. Maybe the projects that do get approved have to be accepted by 5 nationally recognized environmental protection organizations