Who Is Going To Pay For Ignoring Climate Change While Building Infrastructure In The U.S.?

Photo: ERO Resources

President Trump last week stood up at a podium in the White House and spoke about his new infrastructure building plan, which involves changing legislation to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  NEPA is an environmental law that ensures that any new construction or infrastructure change in the United States involves the following regulations (i.e., rules and restrictions).  Which is to say, the NEPA ensures that changes are regulated by laws which encompass the regulations put into place by various agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with others.

You may ask yourself the following question: What changes can President Trump make to NEPA that would cause significant concern?

If you consider environmental groups (for one example), you may be surprised to hear that the regulations set in place by NEPA mandate that corporations need to take into consideration 'climate change' as a factor when making infrastructure changes in the United States.  Sounds reasonable, right?



To give context to the above introduction, shown below is the opening introduction to the Wikipedia page for the National Environmental Policy Act:

  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970.[2] To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.[3]

Prior to NEPA, Federal agencies were mission oriented. An example of mission orientation was to select highway routes as the shortest route between two points. NEPA was necessary to require Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions.[4]:2–3 NEPA's most significant outcome was the requirement that all executive Federal agencies prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). These reports state the potential environmental effects of proposed Federal agency actions.[5] Further the U.S. Congress recognizes that each person has a responsibility to preserve and enhance the environment as trustees for succeeding generations.[6] NEPA's procedural requirements do not apply to the President, Congress, or the Federal courts since they are not a "Federal agency" by definition.[5][7] However, a Federal agency taking action under authority ordered by the President may be a final agency action subject to NEPA's procedural requirements.[4]:117–118 A U.S. District Court describes the need for even the President to have the NEPA analysis information before making a decision as follows:

"No agency possesses discretion whether to comply with procedural requirements such as NEPA. The relevant information provided by a NEPA analysis needs to be available to the public and the people who play a role in the decision-making process. This process includes the President." "And Congress has not delegated to the President the decision as to the route of any pipeline."[8]

The above excerpts indicate that NEPA gave rise to the 'EIS' or 'Environmental Impact Statement.'  Any project in the United States needs an 'EIS' before the start or completion of the infrastructure project.  Imagine what the world was like before that requirement?  The 'Environmental Impact Statement' can vary and be weakened, which is what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish last week.  There are consequences, though, to that action.

As an example, take building the homes in Houston (Texas) on a flood plain before Hurricane Harvey.  Construction corporations should have been wary of building houses on an actual flood plain.  A location is known to flood.  Why would a corporation build homes and let a company sell them when the next flood would wipe them out?  President Trump gave the 'go-ahead' to the construction, and the disaster is what followed as a result of the destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey.  

First-time homeowners were sold homes without flood insurance (What are the chances this area will flood?).

Someone Has To Pay?

According to reporting by Politico Agriculture, depending on the amount of consideration of climate change in infrastructure proposals, the taxpayer can expect to pay the difference.  What?  Yes, insurance corporations will pass on the cost of not sufficiently accounting for climate change into new projects onto taxpayers.  

Any structure or project which is built by less than desirable regulated permits will be questioned by insurers.  If the project is found to have been created by not taking into account relevant climate change effects, the taxpayer will provide the difference in cost.  Why would we (as taxpayers) let corporations get by without paying (and planning) for expected climate change impacts in a given infrastructure project? Unbelievable.

Groups are speaking up in both directions!

Groups are coming out of the woodwork in support (or opposition) of the changes to NEPA.  Contractors and construction agencies love what the new changes entail.  While environmental groups are scared that the fall-out of not considering climate change into the policies and regulations will have dire consequences.  

The result will be that everyone's insurance policies will increase by an appropriate amount to make up for the lack of (financial) consideration for climate change in policies and regulations while building new infrastructure.  If you do not mind paying for the consequences of not considering environmental changes that would harm or danger new infrastructure, then there is no problem. 

On the other hand, if you are not comfortable with policies and regulations which lack the consideration of climate change, then the current changes should be worrisome.  Call your local state and federal elected official and express your concern. We tax-payers should not be on the hook for the misguided policies of the federal government.

Related Blog Post:




Pesticide Atrazine: Benefits Outweigh Potential Harm To People?


Hemp Growers Now Is Your Chance To Comment On USDA Regulations


Mitigating Pollution from Slaughter Houses -- Why Not Try If Technology Exists?