I'm glad your on this. EIS reform is desperately needed and most people have no idea how f'd up this whole process is. Deregulation is nice, but environmental permitting is an order of magnitude more destructive.
For the Eagle County case, couldn't you deal with the oil well/refinery issue by arguing that that's an economic effect, not an environmental one, and therefore isn't required by NEPA? The oil wells will probably require their own NEPA report anyway. The petitioner's frustration is that they're being required to talk about second- and third- order effects and I don't see why the text really requires that.
There's this concept in environmental impact analysis called "cumulative effects" where an EIS should not just consider the immediate impact of the effect, but also these second and third order effects you mention. It works both forwards and backwards, so you also have to consider how the projects adds to the cumulative effects of previous development.
Like with all these things, there's a narrow case to be made. If previous development f*kd up the local environment you probably don't want more development even if that particular project is minor. And one should consider the impacts not just of construction of a project, but it's operation also. But letting these effects enter into consideration explodes the scope across time and encourages ridiculous levels of speculation, exacerbated by the ratcheting effect mentioned in the substack.
AI would unquestionably be used f environmental impact reports were done by private businesses. But what incentive does government have to do this? One would think it might cause an uproar and they would shy away. For that matter, what are rules, regulations and norms for using AI in government legal work now? I would think we end up with a scenario in which government lawyers use AI because it’s easier but drag out the process in order to have to do less work and also preempt any suspicions that they outsourced the work to a computer. Are the reports done by outside consultants? In this case, there’s more hope AI would do it quickly but I’d still suspect they’d try to hide the fact that it is done by AI.
The EIS in this case states that the government was working with a third-party consultant, although a consultant might object too depending on how it is compensated.
I think there aren't any rules, regulations, or norms at the moment governing the use of AI. It won't be used unless agency leadership is committed to using it (or Congress requires its use).
I'm glad your on this. EIS reform is desperately needed and most people have no idea how f'd up this whole process is. Deregulation is nice, but environmental permitting is an order of magnitude more destructive.
My AI can beat up your AI any day!
For the Eagle County case, couldn't you deal with the oil well/refinery issue by arguing that that's an economic effect, not an environmental one, and therefore isn't required by NEPA? The oil wells will probably require their own NEPA report anyway. The petitioner's frustration is that they're being required to talk about second- and third- order effects and I don't see why the text really requires that.
There's this concept in environmental impact analysis called "cumulative effects" where an EIS should not just consider the immediate impact of the effect, but also these second and third order effects you mention. It works both forwards and backwards, so you also have to consider how the projects adds to the cumulative effects of previous development.
Like with all these things, there's a narrow case to be made. If previous development f*kd up the local environment you probably don't want more development even if that particular project is minor. And one should consider the impacts not just of construction of a project, but it's operation also. But letting these effects enter into consideration explodes the scope across time and encourages ridiculous levels of speculation, exacerbated by the ratcheting effect mentioned in the substack.
AI would unquestionably be used f environmental impact reports were done by private businesses. But what incentive does government have to do this? One would think it might cause an uproar and they would shy away. For that matter, what are rules, regulations and norms for using AI in government legal work now? I would think we end up with a scenario in which government lawyers use AI because it’s easier but drag out the process in order to have to do less work and also preempt any suspicions that they outsourced the work to a computer. Are the reports done by outside consultants? In this case, there’s more hope AI would do it quickly but I’d still suspect they’d try to hide the fact that it is done by AI.
The EIS in this case states that the government was working with a third-party consultant, although a consultant might object too depending on how it is compensated.
I think there aren't any rules, regulations, or norms at the moment governing the use of AI. It won't be used unless agency leadership is committed to using it (or Congress requires its use).
This is an extremely lucid, useful post.
As a fan of ground dwelling birds, I appreciate the Sage Grouse AI art