A climate-constrained nepa

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

The fight to force climate change into environmental-impact assessment. pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), has been long, hitter, and mostly pointless. Even'where agencies have relented in litigation or have proactively worked to integrate climate-change considerations into their NEPA documents, ihe factoring done has consigned those considerations to the margins. Impact assessment naturally does so. Every such action/assessment will involve what amounts to a drop in a bucket of contributory causes to a globally scaled, temporally remote catastrophe. Aggregative analyses minimize such contributions behind other, more proximate choice factors. A 2014 proposed guidance on climate change and NEPA from the Council on Environmental Quality ignored this fact. Likewise, the Office of Management and Budget's "social cost of carbon" estimates allow almost everything they inform to go forward essentially unchanged. This Article argues that a new approach is both urgently needed and feasible. The approach sketched here consists of the development of programmatic alternatives pursuant to NEPA § 102(2)(E). This provision of the act requires all agencies to study and develop alternative uses of "available resources," regardless of the magnitude or timing of their actions' marginal environmental impacts. This Article makes the case that our principal "resource" where climate change is concerned now is what remains of the planet's cycling and sinking capacities. If we are to pursue the mitigation goals the U.S. Government committed to in Paris in December, 2015, this approach is urgently needed. The steps outlined in Part V of this Article will help speed the U.S.'s development of mitigation options while avoiding some of the frictions other approaches entail.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1091-1135
Number of pages45
JournalUniversity of Illinois Law Review
Volume2017
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

climate change
climate
environmental impact
Environmental Policy Act
factoring
social costs
environmental quality
resources
budget
cause
management

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

@article{a8eb28fabba14dbb9090e862c0bd64fe,
title = "A climate-constrained nepa",
abstract = "The fight to force climate change into environmental-impact assessment. pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ({"}NEPA{"}), has been long, hitter, and mostly pointless. Even'where agencies have relented in litigation or have proactively worked to integrate climate-change considerations into their NEPA documents, ihe factoring done has consigned those considerations to the margins. Impact assessment naturally does so. Every such action/assessment will involve what amounts to a drop in a bucket of contributory causes to a globally scaled, temporally remote catastrophe. Aggregative analyses minimize such contributions behind other, more proximate choice factors. A 2014 proposed guidance on climate change and NEPA from the Council on Environmental Quality ignored this fact. Likewise, the Office of Management and Budget's {"}social cost of carbon{"} estimates allow almost everything they inform to go forward essentially unchanged. This Article argues that a new approach is both urgently needed and feasible. The approach sketched here consists of the development of programmatic alternatives pursuant to NEPA § 102(2)(E). This provision of the act requires all agencies to study and develop alternative uses of {"}available resources,{"} regardless of the magnitude or timing of their actions' marginal environmental impacts. This Article makes the case that our principal {"}resource{"} where climate change is concerned now is what remains of the planet's cycling and sinking capacities. If we are to pursue the mitigation goals the U.S. Government committed to in Paris in December, 2015, this approach is urgently needed. The steps outlined in Part V of this Article will help speed the U.S.'s development of mitigation options while avoiding some of the frictions other approaches entail.",
author = "Colburn, {Jamison Edward}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2017",
pages = "1091--1135",
journal = "University of Illinois Law Review",
issn = "0276-9948",
publisher = "University of Illinois College of Law",
number = "3",

}

A climate-constrained nepa. / Colburn, Jamison Edward.

In: University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2017, No. 3, 01.01.2017, p. 1091-1135.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - A climate-constrained nepa

AU - Colburn, Jamison Edward

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - The fight to force climate change into environmental-impact assessment. pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), has been long, hitter, and mostly pointless. Even'where agencies have relented in litigation or have proactively worked to integrate climate-change considerations into their NEPA documents, ihe factoring done has consigned those considerations to the margins. Impact assessment naturally does so. Every such action/assessment will involve what amounts to a drop in a bucket of contributory causes to a globally scaled, temporally remote catastrophe. Aggregative analyses minimize such contributions behind other, more proximate choice factors. A 2014 proposed guidance on climate change and NEPA from the Council on Environmental Quality ignored this fact. Likewise, the Office of Management and Budget's "social cost of carbon" estimates allow almost everything they inform to go forward essentially unchanged. This Article argues that a new approach is both urgently needed and feasible. The approach sketched here consists of the development of programmatic alternatives pursuant to NEPA § 102(2)(E). This provision of the act requires all agencies to study and develop alternative uses of "available resources," regardless of the magnitude or timing of their actions' marginal environmental impacts. This Article makes the case that our principal "resource" where climate change is concerned now is what remains of the planet's cycling and sinking capacities. If we are to pursue the mitigation goals the U.S. Government committed to in Paris in December, 2015, this approach is urgently needed. The steps outlined in Part V of this Article will help speed the U.S.'s development of mitigation options while avoiding some of the frictions other approaches entail.

AB - The fight to force climate change into environmental-impact assessment. pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), has been long, hitter, and mostly pointless. Even'where agencies have relented in litigation or have proactively worked to integrate climate-change considerations into their NEPA documents, ihe factoring done has consigned those considerations to the margins. Impact assessment naturally does so. Every such action/assessment will involve what amounts to a drop in a bucket of contributory causes to a globally scaled, temporally remote catastrophe. Aggregative analyses minimize such contributions behind other, more proximate choice factors. A 2014 proposed guidance on climate change and NEPA from the Council on Environmental Quality ignored this fact. Likewise, the Office of Management and Budget's "social cost of carbon" estimates allow almost everything they inform to go forward essentially unchanged. This Article argues that a new approach is both urgently needed and feasible. The approach sketched here consists of the development of programmatic alternatives pursuant to NEPA § 102(2)(E). This provision of the act requires all agencies to study and develop alternative uses of "available resources," regardless of the magnitude or timing of their actions' marginal environmental impacts. This Article makes the case that our principal "resource" where climate change is concerned now is what remains of the planet's cycling and sinking capacities. If we are to pursue the mitigation goals the U.S. Government committed to in Paris in December, 2015, this approach is urgently needed. The steps outlined in Part V of this Article will help speed the U.S.'s development of mitigation options while avoiding some of the frictions other approaches entail.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019606403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019606403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85019606403

VL - 2017

SP - 1091

EP - 1135

JO - University of Illinois Law Review

JF - University of Illinois Law Review

SN - 0276-9948

IS - 3

ER -