Are Environmental Impact Studies worth the paper they are written on?
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
November 15, 2011 12:47pm CST
The TransCanada Pipe line from Alberta, Canada to Nebraska was put on hold for a while to give the government a chance to study the route and the possible environmental impact it would have on parts of Nebraska. The State Department studied 13 different routs and selected the one. The environmental study done at the time showed no environmental threat. Now we are hearing that there are many threats to the environment. With the Alaskan Pipeline we were told that it would disrupt wildlife and ruin the environment. What has happened - nothing that I have heard reported.
My question is why do the study if you are not going to follow the results? Once again we bow to the environmentalist who would be happy if everyone on earth was eliminated, except them, and turn this planet back to the animals. Companies pay for these studies and get them approved and then apply for the permits and start the process of building the project when some person files a suit and brings it to a halt on the premises that this might in some way harm the environment. In most cases the threat is almost non existent other than in someone mind. Recently in Alaska there was a 40 million dollar project and many jobs were scrapped because some one decided to challenge the project on the basis that if the wind were from the right direction and the right force and the plant were operating at a certain level it might impact the air quality of a local village several miles away. The bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin has been on hold for several years because different environmental groups keep going to court and each time the bridge is given the go ahead only to be stopped by another group.
In 10 years from now and we are freezing and can't get to work, if you still have a job, where will the environmentalist be - Still fighting to get people removed from the planet.
2 people like this
3 responses
@topffer (42155)
• France
15 Nov 11
There are a lot of environmentalists since 10/15 years ; when I was preparing a PhD on international environmental laws in the 80's, many countries were still thinking that environment was all about fishing and hunting
.
I don't know your local problems, but this is what I think : it is always bad to question an environmental impact study when it has been made by a credible independent company/organism, even if something important has been missed. Doing this environmentalists will only win strong reaction like yours.
Bridges can have a terrible impact on environment, but it does not mean that they can't be build. A good example in my country is the bridge connecting the Ré island to the continent since 1988 : Ré is an island with small villages, salt pans, nice beaches and natural sites. On the other side is the city of La Rochelle, and the risk of a bridge was to see the island becoming a suburb and its natural places destroyed. It did not happened, because a toll has been fixed for this bridge important enough to dissuade people to cross it daily. This solution has been approved by the population living in the island, and the island has not really changed, though the communication has improved with the bridge and people living there can know go to the hospital on the other side during a storm.
Personally I think that the best way to get people removed from this planet in the next centuries is to NOT respect the environment
.
.
I don't know your local problems, but this is what I think : it is always bad to question an environmental impact study when it has been made by a credible independent company/organism, even if something important has been missed. Doing this environmentalists will only win strong reaction like yours.
Bridges can have a terrible impact on environment, but it does not mean that they can't be build. A good example in my country is the bridge connecting the Ré island to the continent since 1988 : Ré is an island with small villages, salt pans, nice beaches and natural sites. On the other side is the city of La Rochelle, and the risk of a bridge was to see the island becoming a suburb and its natural places destroyed. It did not happened, because a toll has been fixed for this bridge important enough to dissuade people to cross it daily. This solution has been approved by the population living in the island, and the island has not really changed, though the communication has improved with the bridge and people living there can know go to the hospital on the other side during a storm.
Personally I think that the best way to get people removed from this planet in the next centuries is to NOT respect the environment.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
16 Nov 11
My point was why spend the money on the study if it is not going to be followed or can be changed after the fact. In the case of the pipeline it was studied and found to be within acceptable limits. Now for political reasons it is being challenged with a 'NEW" concern that "MIGHT" impact the environment. They don't have to prove it just make the charge.
In the case of the bridge I refered to one case involved a person who complained that any bridge would spoil the view of the river. The present bridge was shut down for safety reasons and now people have to drive 20 miles down river or 25 miles up river to the next bridge. Is hundreds of people driving 80 to 100 miles extra a day very good for the environment?
1 person likes this
@topffer (42155)
• France
16 Nov 11
Nit-pickers are not only concerned by environment. I am sure you understand that a "might" argument will not stop a project for a long time.
If the gas was at the same price in your country than in Europe, people would have find a new job on their side of the river, or a new home on the other side, and that would have been really good for both the environment and their own quality of life.
. I am sure you understand that a "might" argument will not stop a project for a long time.
If the gas was at the same price in your country than in Europe, people would have find a new job on their side of the river, or a new home on the other side, and that would have been really good for both the environment and their own quality of life.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
17 Nov 11
In America, "might" is a project stopper word. Once it is introduced, a project can die because it takes too long from "might" to approval. "Might" costs money. At some point, the company is going to ditch the project because costs are too high to make it financially successful.
If the gas of price were the same here as in Europe, the Occupy protesters would have a real purpose and President Obama would be a one-term President. He wouldn't have a chance in being re-elected.
But you are making the assumption that America is so small that the people can easily move from one side of the river to the other. That's not the case. In fact, you don't even have regular public transportation in most major cities. There are only a few cities that actually have subways. Not even the Amway trains are that convenient.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
16 Nov 11
This is like the 4th one that has been done. You would think that by now, they would have all the information memorized.
If Nebraska doesn't want it through their state then I could see a real reason for the delay. But that really isn't the case.
Instead I think this is another way that President Obama is trying to establish himself as a "green" President.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
16 Nov 11
The politicians all want to be Green and will support wind which has killed more birds than a coal or nuclear power plant, but that is OK because it is green energy. When you look at the foot print that solar panels in the desert take up it makes me wonder what the environmental impact is, but again it is green so it is OK. I think it is time we require an economic impact of each environmental impact study and what the implementation of the rules will have on jobs, people and the economy.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
16 Nov 11
What is sad is that none of these energies are truly green.
My best example of not-so-green technology is the Mercury light bulbs. Replacing CO2 with Mercury is just a bad idea. If people knew how bad Mercury actually is, they would be demanding their old light bulbs back. Yeah, I wonder where those Environmental impact forms are.
@deebomb (15304)
• United States
16 Nov 11
I wonder how many of the environmentalists drive cars and heat their homes with gas. They probably get their food from the grocery stores too. I'm sure they enjoy all the conveniences that come with gas and oil.
The caribou in Alaska That were to die off have gone from 6,000 to 27,000.
Environmentalist are the same as the labor unions all for them selves and not the country. I do think we should look after our environment but in a more responsible way. As far as the pine line goes it is all a political move.
