1. Does the proposed legislation include any measures that would “level the playing field” for all energy projects. Wind projects typically include exclusionary language for T&E species and raptors. This is not the case for hydro projects. Why is it ok for wind to kill an eagle, but not a hydro to kill a minnow?
2. How do agencies define “Indigenous Knowledge?”
3. Your discussion makes it unclear what conditions of the Rosemont decision were overturned, and it that in fact allows the project to continue. As I read your discussion, the court was clearly correct to challenge the FWS “assumption” that the company had permission to dispose of waste on unauthorized lands.
4. I found the language in the Offshore Leasing section very disappointing. First “existing leasing moratorium” does nothing to allow exploration for new deposits. Second, Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to establish a national goal of 30 gigawatts for offshore wind energy production, set a target date to achieve that goal, and periodically revise the goal. Personally, I found this to be most offensive. The government should be a referee, not an active player. “Goals” should be set by the market, and NOT SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-YEAR POLITICAL CYCLE.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation! Please keep up the fight!
1) I have to review this section again, I believe it may tackle this. But you can read the legislation text for yourself and see, as well. Under this administration "take" (or kill) permits are overwhelmingly granted to "clean energy" projects like wind and solar. Hydro - they want to dismantle in certain places and would be unlikely to grant exemptions to oil, gas, nuclear, hydro. It's net-zero at all costs.
2) Indigenous Knowledge is very subjective. The Washington Free Beacon first brought this to light. They wrote in February of 2024: "In Canada, Native input on climate change studies often proved useless. A 2004 academic survey there from “16 [Native] community members and elders considered to be local experts on ice” provided no unique insights on the effects of climate change. Quotes from participants included “‘Ice goes up quicker now … It is different,’ ‘Freeze-up is way later,’ and ‘The weather nowadays [is] sometimes cold, but sometimes hot too … [but at the] wrong time.’" I have a blog post at IWF explaining the implications of inserting non-scientific criteria into energy infrastructure projects: https://www.iwf.org/2024/02/21/epa-draft-scientific-integrity-policy-puts-dei-ahead-of-science/
3) I updated the hard mines section about ancillary activities while mining. See the post now!
4) Yeah, I wasn't too happy about the OWS section. I highlighted the sections I like most. It's a boondoggle - especially with subsidies - that's doomed to collapse very soon. That 30 GW offshore wind goal will NEVER be met, given local opposition to their presence and ever-increasing electric bill price increases, supply chain issues, inflation, etc.
And thank you for the feedback! It's not the most perfect bill, but it's, at least, a decent start. The likelihood of it passing? It's now summer recess and then we'll enter election season and lame duck post-election period. Depends on the election outcome. As I mention, the Trump-era NEPA reforms on permitting reforms were fantastic. Now, in a post-Chevron world, Congress should re-write it in this manner - but more conservatively. Ha.
In response to a comment on Bryce's recent post, "breaking wind" I wrote that the issue lies with the "weaponization of the executive branch." Hopefully the Chevron decision can reduce that. The Electric Grandma was spot on correct when she said beware of legislatures that write laws that cannot be enforced or even interpreted.
Have you ever watched the movie "Inherit the Wind?" A spectacular motion picture from 1960 with Florence Eldridge, Gene Kelly, Fredrick March, and Spencer Tracy. There is a line from that movie that strikes me a very relevant to this conversation:
I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy; you can only punish. And I warn you, that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches. Its upholders as well as its defiers…Because fanaticism and ignorance are forever busy, and need feeding.
thanks very much, ma'am. "take" (kill) permits are an insult to anyone with an average intelligence, a classic example of human arrogance that thinks one species should survive while another shouldn't. really, really pissed me of when I saw the "take" permit for eagles on a new wind farm in Wyoming.
Yes, the bill is a decent start, but in reality its window dressing, something to make it appear that they are addressing the real problems.
Nicely done, ma’am. Thank you. Some questions:
1. Does the proposed legislation include any measures that would “level the playing field” for all energy projects. Wind projects typically include exclusionary language for T&E species and raptors. This is not the case for hydro projects. Why is it ok for wind to kill an eagle, but not a hydro to kill a minnow?
2. How do agencies define “Indigenous Knowledge?”
3. Your discussion makes it unclear what conditions of the Rosemont decision were overturned, and it that in fact allows the project to continue. As I read your discussion, the court was clearly correct to challenge the FWS “assumption” that the company had permission to dispose of waste on unauthorized lands.
4. I found the language in the Offshore Leasing section very disappointing. First “existing leasing moratorium” does nothing to allow exploration for new deposits. Second, Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to establish a national goal of 30 gigawatts for offshore wind energy production, set a target date to achieve that goal, and periodically revise the goal. Personally, I found this to be most offensive. The government should be a referee, not an active player. “Goals” should be set by the market, and NOT SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-YEAR POLITICAL CYCLE.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation! Please keep up the fight!
1) I have to review this section again, I believe it may tackle this. But you can read the legislation text for yourself and see, as well. Under this administration "take" (or kill) permits are overwhelmingly granted to "clean energy" projects like wind and solar. Hydro - they want to dismantle in certain places and would be unlikely to grant exemptions to oil, gas, nuclear, hydro. It's net-zero at all costs.
2) Indigenous Knowledge is very subjective. The Washington Free Beacon first brought this to light. They wrote in February of 2024: "In Canada, Native input on climate change studies often proved useless. A 2004 academic survey there from “16 [Native] community members and elders considered to be local experts on ice” provided no unique insights on the effects of climate change. Quotes from participants included “‘Ice goes up quicker now … It is different,’ ‘Freeze-up is way later,’ and ‘The weather nowadays [is] sometimes cold, but sometimes hot too … [but at the] wrong time.’" I have a blog post at IWF explaining the implications of inserting non-scientific criteria into energy infrastructure projects: https://www.iwf.org/2024/02/21/epa-draft-scientific-integrity-policy-puts-dei-ahead-of-science/
3) I updated the hard mines section about ancillary activities while mining. See the post now!
4) Yeah, I wasn't too happy about the OWS section. I highlighted the sections I like most. It's a boondoggle - especially with subsidies - that's doomed to collapse very soon. That 30 GW offshore wind goal will NEVER be met, given local opposition to their presence and ever-increasing electric bill price increases, supply chain issues, inflation, etc.
And thank you for the feedback! It's not the most perfect bill, but it's, at least, a decent start. The likelihood of it passing? It's now summer recess and then we'll enter election season and lame duck post-election period. Depends on the election outcome. As I mention, the Trump-era NEPA reforms on permitting reforms were fantastic. Now, in a post-Chevron world, Congress should re-write it in this manner - but more conservatively. Ha.
In response to a comment on Bryce's recent post, "breaking wind" I wrote that the issue lies with the "weaponization of the executive branch." Hopefully the Chevron decision can reduce that. The Electric Grandma was spot on correct when she said beware of legislatures that write laws that cannot be enforced or even interpreted.
Have you ever watched the movie "Inherit the Wind?" A spectacular motion picture from 1960 with Florence Eldridge, Gene Kelly, Fredrick March, and Spencer Tracy. There is a line from that movie that strikes me a very relevant to this conversation:
I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy; you can only punish. And I warn you, that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches. Its upholders as well as its defiers…Because fanaticism and ignorance are forever busy, and need feeding.
Have a great weekend!
I was born in the 90s so the movie is a bit before my time but I'll add it to my ever-growing list of movies to watch. Ha!
thanks very much, ma'am. "take" (kill) permits are an insult to anyone with an average intelligence, a classic example of human arrogance that thinks one species should survive while another shouldn't. really, really pissed me of when I saw the "take" permit for eagles on a new wind farm in Wyoming.
Yes, the bill is a decent start, but in reality its window dressing, something to make it appear that they are addressing the real problems.
Thanks again.
Concur. Thanks, again, for the feedback!