

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

U.S. Coast Guard crews work to put out a fire during the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. (Photo: U.S. Coast Guard)
The Trump administration was again accused of moving to attack the environment and wildlife in response to reports that the White House is moving to gut a five decade-old law referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental legislation.
The proposal targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed in to law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. It requires federal agencies to identify and consider the environmental and climate impacts of proposed actions including federal permits for infrastructure projects such as pipelines, and gives the public a chance to weigh in on the proposals.
"It's shameful that the Trump administration is ripping apart America's cornerstone environmental law on its 50th anniversary," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in statement Monday.
"Trump's attack on NEPA means we'll likely see more massive oil spills and other environmental catastrophes."
--Brett Hartl, Center for Biological DiversityThe Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees implementation of NEPA, will reportedly make the announcement Wednesday.
In addition to nixing the requirement that cumulative impacts are considered, "the administration will more narrowly define the type of project that requires an environmental review," the New York Times first reported Friday, citing an anonymous government official.
Reuters reported:
The CEQ is also expected to limit the scope of projects that would trigger stringent environmental reviews called environmental impact studies, expand the number of project categories that can be excluded from NEPA reviews, and allow companies or project developers to conduct their own environmental assessments, the sources said.
The revamp, the Times added, would be a revision of "the rules that guide the implementation of the law" and has the potential to "sharply reduce obstacles to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been stymied when courts ruled that the Trump administration did not properly consider climate change when analyzing the environmental effects of the projects."
The plan drew outrage from Hartl, who said, "Trump's gift to the fossil fuel industry and special interests will silence ordinary Americans while giving polluters a free pass to trash the environment, destroy public lands, and kill wildlife."
The White House hinted at the changes in a statement released January 1 marking the 50th anniversary of NEPA. It said it would unveil a proposal to "address the many concerns my administration has heard from hardworking Americans, small businesses, and state and local officials" regarding the law and would mark a continuation of Trump's slashing of "burdensome regulations."
The proposal appears to fulfill an industry wish.
As Reuters reported in November,
33 groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute, sent a letter to White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Mary Neumayr asking the agency to "expeditiously proceed" with efforts to "modernize" National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. [...]
Streamlining the process could hasten approvals for future proposals like the Keystone pipeline, which has been held up by federal courts for not undergoing a rigorous NEPA study.
To ponder the possible consequences of the change, Hartl pointed to the catastrophic impacts of the 2010 oil spill--BP's notorious Deepwater Horizon rig took advantage (pdf) of a "categorical exclusion" to avoid a full environmental analysis.
"Trump's attack on NEPA means we'll likely see more massive oil spills and other environmental catastrophes," said Hartl. "Forcing federal agencies to ignore environmental threats is a disgraceful abdication of our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations."
Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel for the non-profit law organization Earthjustice, also rebuked the proposal. The Trump administration, Schima told the Washington Post, is "trying to institutionalize climate denial into federal decision-making."
Other noted figures expressing criticism of the proposal Monday included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called it "disastrous," and actress and singer Barbara Streisand, who said, "Trump is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry and surrendering the lead in renewable technologies to other nations."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Trump administration was again accused of moving to attack the environment and wildlife in response to reports that the White House is moving to gut a five decade-old law referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental legislation.
The proposal targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed in to law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. It requires federal agencies to identify and consider the environmental and climate impacts of proposed actions including federal permits for infrastructure projects such as pipelines, and gives the public a chance to weigh in on the proposals.
"It's shameful that the Trump administration is ripping apart America's cornerstone environmental law on its 50th anniversary," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in statement Monday.
"Trump's attack on NEPA means we'll likely see more massive oil spills and other environmental catastrophes."
--Brett Hartl, Center for Biological DiversityThe Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees implementation of NEPA, will reportedly make the announcement Wednesday.
In addition to nixing the requirement that cumulative impacts are considered, "the administration will more narrowly define the type of project that requires an environmental review," the New York Times first reported Friday, citing an anonymous government official.
Reuters reported:
The CEQ is also expected to limit the scope of projects that would trigger stringent environmental reviews called environmental impact studies, expand the number of project categories that can be excluded from NEPA reviews, and allow companies or project developers to conduct their own environmental assessments, the sources said.
The revamp, the Times added, would be a revision of "the rules that guide the implementation of the law" and has the potential to "sharply reduce obstacles to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been stymied when courts ruled that the Trump administration did not properly consider climate change when analyzing the environmental effects of the projects."
The plan drew outrage from Hartl, who said, "Trump's gift to the fossil fuel industry and special interests will silence ordinary Americans while giving polluters a free pass to trash the environment, destroy public lands, and kill wildlife."
The White House hinted at the changes in a statement released January 1 marking the 50th anniversary of NEPA. It said it would unveil a proposal to "address the many concerns my administration has heard from hardworking Americans, small businesses, and state and local officials" regarding the law and would mark a continuation of Trump's slashing of "burdensome regulations."
The proposal appears to fulfill an industry wish.
As Reuters reported in November,
33 groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute, sent a letter to White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Mary Neumayr asking the agency to "expeditiously proceed" with efforts to "modernize" National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. [...]
Streamlining the process could hasten approvals for future proposals like the Keystone pipeline, which has been held up by federal courts for not undergoing a rigorous NEPA study.
To ponder the possible consequences of the change, Hartl pointed to the catastrophic impacts of the 2010 oil spill--BP's notorious Deepwater Horizon rig took advantage (pdf) of a "categorical exclusion" to avoid a full environmental analysis.
"Trump's attack on NEPA means we'll likely see more massive oil spills and other environmental catastrophes," said Hartl. "Forcing federal agencies to ignore environmental threats is a disgraceful abdication of our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations."
Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel for the non-profit law organization Earthjustice, also rebuked the proposal. The Trump administration, Schima told the Washington Post, is "trying to institutionalize climate denial into federal decision-making."
Other noted figures expressing criticism of the proposal Monday included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called it "disastrous," and actress and singer Barbara Streisand, who said, "Trump is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry and surrendering the lead in renewable technologies to other nations."
The Trump administration was again accused of moving to attack the environment and wildlife in response to reports that the White House is moving to gut a five decade-old law referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental legislation.
The proposal targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed in to law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. It requires federal agencies to identify and consider the environmental and climate impacts of proposed actions including federal permits for infrastructure projects such as pipelines, and gives the public a chance to weigh in on the proposals.
"It's shameful that the Trump administration is ripping apart America's cornerstone environmental law on its 50th anniversary," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in statement Monday.
"Trump's attack on NEPA means we'll likely see more massive oil spills and other environmental catastrophes."
--Brett Hartl, Center for Biological DiversityThe Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees implementation of NEPA, will reportedly make the announcement Wednesday.
In addition to nixing the requirement that cumulative impacts are considered, "the administration will more narrowly define the type of project that requires an environmental review," the New York Times first reported Friday, citing an anonymous government official.
Reuters reported:
The CEQ is also expected to limit the scope of projects that would trigger stringent environmental reviews called environmental impact studies, expand the number of project categories that can be excluded from NEPA reviews, and allow companies or project developers to conduct their own environmental assessments, the sources said.
The revamp, the Times added, would be a revision of "the rules that guide the implementation of the law" and has the potential to "sharply reduce obstacles to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been stymied when courts ruled that the Trump administration did not properly consider climate change when analyzing the environmental effects of the projects."
The plan drew outrage from Hartl, who said, "Trump's gift to the fossil fuel industry and special interests will silence ordinary Americans while giving polluters a free pass to trash the environment, destroy public lands, and kill wildlife."
The White House hinted at the changes in a statement released January 1 marking the 50th anniversary of NEPA. It said it would unveil a proposal to "address the many concerns my administration has heard from hardworking Americans, small businesses, and state and local officials" regarding the law and would mark a continuation of Trump's slashing of "burdensome regulations."
The proposal appears to fulfill an industry wish.
As Reuters reported in November,
33 groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute, sent a letter to White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Mary Neumayr asking the agency to "expeditiously proceed" with efforts to "modernize" National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. [...]
Streamlining the process could hasten approvals for future proposals like the Keystone pipeline, which has been held up by federal courts for not undergoing a rigorous NEPA study.
To ponder the possible consequences of the change, Hartl pointed to the catastrophic impacts of the 2010 oil spill--BP's notorious Deepwater Horizon rig took advantage (pdf) of a "categorical exclusion" to avoid a full environmental analysis.
"Trump's attack on NEPA means we'll likely see more massive oil spills and other environmental catastrophes," said Hartl. "Forcing federal agencies to ignore environmental threats is a disgraceful abdication of our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations."
Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel for the non-profit law organization Earthjustice, also rebuked the proposal. The Trump administration, Schima told the Washington Post, is "trying to institutionalize climate denial into federal decision-making."
Other noted figures expressing criticism of the proposal Monday included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called it "disastrous," and actress and singer Barbara Streisand, who said, "Trump is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry and surrendering the lead in renewable technologies to other nations."