|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
There is widespread support in Congress and across the country for new legislation to deal with the increasingly apparent problem of anthropogenic climate change and global warming. However in the opinion of a new report released today by CAP, waiting for Congress is unnecessary because the U.S. already possesses powerful laws which are unfortunately being under-employed in the fight - The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) - the list is extensive. The latter act, in particular could be better utilised.
NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the likely environmental and social effects of major projects before initiation. Unfortunately, even when this is complied with, the assessment rarely looks at how larger global environmental trends will affect the action over the long term. In an example given by Bill Clinton's Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, the keynote speaker in an event hosted by CAP to coincide with the report's publication, the Army Corps of Engineers made a major error when planning their Coast 2050 project in Louisiana. The $14 billion endeavour, covering a 10,000 square mile section of the Mississippi delta in Louisiana, ignored the world-wide problem of rising sea levels when making its environmental assessment. According to Mr. Babbitt, 95% of the area is less than 3 ft above sea level and is subsiding (sinking) at an average rate of 1 ft per century. At the time of the assessment, IPCC estimates for the rise in sea levels over the same century were approx. 1 metre (roughly 3 ft). Therefore, over the course of the hundred years most of the area which the Corps would have worked on will end up a foot under water, thus making the project a massive waste.
The CAP report "outline[s] an Executive Order that clarifies what we believe is already a requirement under NEPA — that federal agencies can and should explicitly assess the implications of their actions for greenhouse gas emissions and global warming." It represents an entreaty to the current and future Presidents, a request that they use their executive prerogatives to help apply the existing law properly. Government efficiency, helping the environment - what's not to love?
How about the EPA recognizing the Massachusetts judge who recognizing the harmful effects of carbon emissions? Where's the regulation to follow? Or the California judge who gave the White House 30 days to decide whether or not to put the Polar Bear on the ESA?
The biggest problem lies within the public. We need to hoot-and-holler about the blatant disregard for both US and International Law. We need to initiate a change just like Rachel Carson and Silent Spring did back then. Get on the bus people.