Received an interesting comment on the last post about Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and the need to not only examine what happens if an action does take place but also, what are the impacts if the action is not approved.
The comment goes to the heart of a problem with the typical EIS.
Most EIS analysis, at least in the United States, contain a "No Action Alternative." Most analysis does not take the no action alternative seriously. A few weak comments about this or that impact regarding the current conditions may be included in commentary but, for the most part the overall approach is, "no action, no change."
A proper EIS should aggressively look at the positive or negative impacts of "no action." If coal is not delivered to produce power to a region now without electricity will more people starve? If the potential future pool of good paying jobs is reduced will more people live in poverty? And so on....
 |
| San Diego, California in the 1850s. What if an EIS regarding the impacts of growth had been done then? What would the town look like now? |
The comment goes to the heart of a problem with the typical EIS.
Most EIS analysis, at least in the United States, contain a "No Action Alternative." Most analysis does not take the no action alternative seriously. A few weak comments about this or that impact regarding the current conditions may be included in commentary but, for the most part the overall approach is, "no action, no change."
A proper EIS should aggressively look at the positive or negative impacts of "no action." If coal is not delivered to produce power to a region now without electricity will more people starve? If the potential future pool of good paying jobs is reduced will more people live in poverty? And so on....
No comments:
Post a Comment