2014 ndi – Pre Camp Natural Gas Negative
***Solvency*** 2NC SQ Circumvents NEPA – CP is Key
Download 1.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- NEPA exemption makes environmental catastrophes like the Gulf spill more likely
- 2NC CP Solves Effectiveness
***Solvency***2NC SQ Circumvents NEPA – CP is KeyDeepwater drilling is exempted – it’s believed to be deep and untested qualifying it for being exempt.Lopez, 2011 (Jaclyn, Staff Attorney at Center for Biological Diversity, “ARTICLE: BP's Well Evaded Environmental Review: Categorical Exclusion Policy Remains Unchanged” 37 Ecology L. Currents 93) MMS does not have a fixed definition of deepwater. It has been described as depths greater than 400 meters (approximately 1,312 feet), 25 and at other times depths greater than 500 feet. 26 Regardless of the numerical definition of deepwater, MMS regards the areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are subject to the categorical exclusion policy as "relatively untested or remote" compared to other areas. The MMS further concedes that the Department of Interior Departmental Manual requires that an EA be prepared for operations proposed in these "relatively untested deepwater or remote areas." 27 Yet, the MMS has and continues to approve deepwater drilling pursuant to a categorical exclusion. Absurdly, it justifies the use of the categorical exclusion policy in an area [*99] of the Gulf of Mexico, that by its own admission is deep and relatively untested, by explaining that "[i]mplemention of this strategy will, over time, result in the grid areas no longer being considered untested or remote, thereby eliminating this as a trigger for preparing an EA." 28 The exploration plan for the BP Macondo well was approved pursuant to the categorical exclusion policy despite the fact that the plan called for, and the company drilled, the Macondo well in water over 4,990 feet deep. Approving the plan pursuant to the categorical exclusion policy was in clear contravention of NEPA and the agency's own policy as the plan called for drilling in deep, relatively untested water. Even after the BP spill, MMS continues to approve exploration plans and DOCDs contemplating drilling in deepwater pursuant to this categorical exclusion policy. NEPA exemption makes environmental catastrophes like the Gulf spill more likelyDaily Kos 5/24/2010 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/24/869452/-Oil-and-Gas-Exemptions-in-NEPA Oil and Gas Exemptions in NEPA With me so far? Now, Administrations have had their Agencies utilize NEPA in varying degrees, from practically not at all to more often than not. So, how did oil and gas get an exemption? Not by Amending NEPA; rather through The Halliburton/Cheney Energy Policy Act of 2005 which changed the rules for oil and gas by creating a "rebuttable presumption" that several oil and gas related activities ought to be analyzed and processed by the Interior and Agricultural Departments under a less stringent process known as a "categorical exclusion" (CE). The CE is considerably less comprehensive than the traditional environmental assessment (EA) or the environmental impact statement (EIS) and does not allow for any public comment. . . . snip Under the "rebuttable presumption," section 390 effectively shifts the burden from the agency to the public to prove that an activity requires further analysis. Prior to 2005, the agency had the burden of showing that no harm will occur from the type of activity at issue. Now, the public has the burden of proving that the above activities occur in an area with "extraordinary circumstances" and require a full NEPA review. "Extraordinary circumstances" are those in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect, thus requiring additional analysis and action. Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project at pp. 15-16 Basically, the Energy Policy of 2005 made it so much easier for Minerals Management to completely circumvent NEPA by never finding any "extraordinary circumstances" and rubberstamp drilling activities without benefit of any permit process. If NEPA were fully implemented, regulations adhered to and science and engineering respected for the last number of decades back to President Reagan, perhaps the Gulf crime against nature might never have occurred. Perhaps many other thousands of acres of land and water would not be contaminated. 2NC CP Solves EffectivenessNEPA as contract approach increases assessment effectiveness by switching burden to the industry.BARSA-prof law NU, 2011 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 219, *LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING NEPA TO AVOID THE NEXT PREVENTABLE DISASTER Now imagine that we re-conceptualize NEPA and related environmental reviews in two important respects. First, instead of being seen as a process or requirement that the agency manages and takes legal responsibility for, the NEPA process would be openly recognized as an undertaking of the company seeking the award of a lease or other benefit from the government agency. BP and other companies would have to fully own their reviews, and the lack of quality or comprehensiveness in them. Second, rather than being seen as having no downside consequences, at least in the absence of a citizen suit, the environmental review would have potentially serious consequences for the company's bottom line; companies could be severely penalized financially for having conducted a dishonest or grossly inadequate environmental review as part of the process of obtaining the lease, exploration plan approval, or permission to drill. Imagine, in particular, a scheme in which a company such as BP would be required to conduct and publish an environmental review at the time of leasing, exploration, and drilling, and then its rights to retain any leases, exploration plan approvals, or drilling permissions would be tied to the quality of the environmental [*240] review it submitted to the agency. The company also would have a duty to update its reviews, in the same way that agencies have a duty now to update their reviews under NEPA when new information comes to light. 130 If it were later discovered that the company's environmental review was conducted in a dishonest or grossly inadequate way, the lease, approval, or permission could be rescinded without the payment of any compensation. 131 In the case of a rescinded lease, the government would then be free to re-lease the relevant tract. In the case of a rescinded exploration plan approval or drilling plan permission, the lease would remain in place but the lessee would need to restart the process of obtaining the required approval, including the completion of an updated, adequate environmental review. In practice, rescissions of approvals of this sort would translate into real delays in resource extraction, and hence significant foregone revenue. We label our re-conceptualization NEPA-as-contract because it would transform the NEPA environmental review process into a contractual bargain where the industry actor offers a realistic, thorough environmental review--including mitigation planning--as consideration for the receipt of the lease or government permission. From a contractual perspective, it is only right that industry should lose its benefit from the bargain if it is found out that it provided illusory consideration. 132 One analogy is a contract for insurance coverage. When an individual applies for insurance, the insurance company requires the disclosure of certain information. 133 If an individual fails to provide the correct information, and the company subsequently learns that is the case, the company can treat the policy as rescinded and then deny any [*241] claims under the policy. 134 More broadly, contracts of all sorts may be treated as rescinded by one party if it is discovered that the other party to the contract made material misstatements at the time the contract was formed. 135 For example, the seller of property implicitly warrants that it has good title and if it is later found that it does not, the buyer can elect to treat the purchase contract as rescinded. 136 Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 1.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|