By Mario Loyola
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has staked his
legacy on the persecution of “climate deniers.” It’s a cause for which he seems
ideally suited: He is the sort of person who would have been perfectly
comfortable persecuting heretics during the Spanish Inquisition.
Senator Whitehouse thinks that our collective failure to
do anything serious about the climate crisis is the fault of the diabolical
Koch brothers and the conservative think tanks that do their demonic bidding.
In fact, the senator has only himself and his environmentalist allies to blame
for the daunting obstacles facing any clean-energy transition.
Consider the latest calamity to befall the
Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission project, which grid operators hoped would
carry electricity from Iowa to Wisconsin. Like hundreds of other
clean-electricity projects, this one has faced a Homeric odyssey of trials and
tribulations through federal red tape and local opposition — chiefly from
left-wing environmentalists with precisely the same ideological priors as
Senator Whitehouse. Now, just as the project had finally obtained all the
permits needed for completion, a federal district court in Wisconsin quashed
the permits, almost certainly killing the project.
As Energywire explains, the high-voltage line was approved by grid
operators a decade ago to run from western Iowa to southern Wisconsin. The
whole purpose
of the project, which would be up to 125 miles long, is to make significant
new solar and wind power available to the regional electricity grid.
The project’s feasibility depends upon a right-of-way
through the 240,000-acre Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge, one of the nation’s largest floodplain habitats. The proposed crossing
of the Mississippi River in that area requires permits from a half-dozen
federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency.
After a decade of studying ways to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate the project’s impacts on the wildlife refuge and other environmental
resources, the federal agencies decided to grant the required permits, with
Fish and Wildlife issuing its key permit to cross the wildlife refuge in 2020 —
under President Trump.
That was a consistent pattern, incidentally: The Trump
administration, in which I served, tried hard to get renewable-energy projects
through the permits process for the simple reason that American infrastructure
is suffocating in red tape, and there should be bipartisan consensus on fixing
it. (There isn’t, alas. Neither the infrastructure bill nor the ill-fated
“green dream” reconciliation bill did much of anything to address the problem
of red tape, which raises a serious question about how serious Senator
Whitehouse and his Democratic colleagues really are about climate change.)
As was to be expected, a coalition of
environmental-advocacy groups sued to stop the project. In March 2021, the
utilities asked Fish and Wildlife to amend the proposed route in order to avoid
an Indian burial ground; then, a few months later, they instead proposed a land
exchange in which they would donate an additional 30 acres to the refuge,
thereby hopefully circumventing the burial ground through a quicker agency
process. But then in August, Fish and Wildlife suddenly withdrew its 2020
permit, apparently hoping to fix a technical error in its description of the
right-of-way before the permit was vacated by this very court.
The agency’s stratagem proved unavailing, as the district
court decided to quash the permit in virtually whatever form Fish and Wildlife
might propose to grant it.
The court starts by affirming that the plaintiffs have
“standing” to sue. Normally, plaintiffs in a federal court case must
demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct has or will cause them some particular
injury — caring deeply is not enough to create a legal “case or controversy”
under the Constitution. Alas for today’s proponents of clean energy, federal
courts going back decades have bent over backward to loosen defendants’
constitutional protections when the plaintiff is an environmental-advocacy
group.
Here, as in so many other cases, the court found that the
environmental-advocacy groups can sue on behalf of their members, on the
thinnest of claimed injuries. In this case, according to the court, one Jean
Luecke, a dues-paying member of Defenders of Wildlife, “says that she visited
the Refuge twice in 2020 in lieu of her family’s yearly cruise ship vacation.
Luecke also stated that she planned to go back in the summer of 2021 to do some
boating.” Because the view she enjoys during these trips would be disrupted,
she can block construction of transmission lines that Senator Whitehouse thinks
we desperately need to save the planet. Talk about “white privilege” trumping
“environmental justice.”
One reason the court vacated the Fish and Wildlife permit
is that the transmission line would fragment natural habitat. Well, obviously:
As we know from scientists of an environmental bent, habitat fragmentation is
one of the central drivers of the biodiversity crisis, which is now well on its
way to driving 20 percent of plants and animals to extinction by 2050. This is
just one example among many of how the climate crisis and biodiversity crises
point to opposite solutions.
Whatever danger climate change may pose to certain
exquisitely fragile kinds of wildlife — for example coral reefs — the
overwhelming fact is that the deployment of solar and wind projects on a scale
necessary for a zero-carbon electricity grid would require the modification and
destruction of huge amounts of natural habitat. Retiring all the fossil-fuel
generation in America would require building the equivalent of perhaps 2,400
utility-scale solar projects. Never mind that only a small fraction of such
projects could even get permits in the next decade, a large utility-scale solar
project covers five square miles or more. Do the math.
Another reason for the court’s decision to toss the Fish
and Wildlife permit is its totally mistaken reading of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The act requires agencies to study the
environmental impact of every proposed federal action, as well as “alternatives
to the proposed action.” The proposed action in a typical case is an agency’s
decision on a permit application. But, like all too many courts, the district
court in this case conflates the purpose and need for the federal
action with the purpose and need for the project.
Alternatives to the federal action are few: Grant the permit or deny the
permit. But alternatives to the project are infinitely many. Hence it’s an
interested mistake: Any court wanting to block an agency action need only
ignore the actual working of NEPA, think of an alternative to the proposed
project that the agency didn’t consider, and presto — agency action vacated.
The biggest lesson in this epic travesty is that even if
President Biden were truly committed to decarbonizing the economy (which is to
be seriously doubted, given how fast he backed away from a gasoline tax, among
other things), the resistance of Democrats at regional-agency level, among
environmental groups, and in the federal judiciary makes it almost impossible
to imagine how he could succeed. For example, this week’s court order was
written by Judge William Conley, a Democrat appointed by Barack Obama in 2010.
Not only are the major obstacles to what Senator
Whitehouse calls “climate action” on his side of the aisle, but all the
progress that the United States has made in reducing carbon emissions over the
last decade happened because of the switch from coal to natural gas as the
country’s main source of electricity, a transition made possible by the
shale-gas revolution and the very people Senator Whitehouse dreams of
incarcerating for heresy.
Senator Whitehouse lives in a fantasy. If only it were a
harmless one.
No comments:
Post a Comment