Can you provide some details on the statement that a large percentage of projects continued as originally planned? What is the percentage? What is the percentage of instances in which plans were modified due to environmental impact assessments?CAA Flagship wrote:Meh. Statistics show that, historically, a large percentage of the projects continued on as originally planned. Sometimes it took years of litigation to get it, though. That litigation enriched lawyers and environmental consultants. The change brings minimal risk.JohnStOnge wrote:https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/79485752 ... mental-law
https://www.rollcall.com/news/trump-adm ... l-projects
You know, I have historically taken the position that environmental regulations are somewhat over the top. But do you REALLY want a combination scam artist/real estate developer at the head of doing this sort of thing?
I think that this is inevitably going to create some stories about environmental damage as well as human health consequences if it actually goes into effect. There will be some horror stories. It's just a question of whether Trump will still be in office at the time and suffer from it.
We should all want potential impact assessments including assessments of cumulative impacts. The idea of saying we don't have to think about cumulative impacts is of particular concern. That is willfully closing eyes. A "see no evil" approach.