Green versus green: The case against holistic environmental permitting processes

Globally, there is a strong interest in investments in zero‑carbon technologies, e.g., in industry and the electricity generation sector, but projects supporting the climate transition are argued to be held back by environmental permitting challenges. For this reason, there are calls for novel regulatory reforms that broaden the scope of environmental permitting, and the underlying legal rules, by assigning a more prominent place for projects' climate benefits, i.e., the carbon dioxide emissions displaced elsewhere in the economy. This commentary argues against such a reform, which could create more problems than it solves. It risks increasing the complexity and the uncertainty of environmental permitting process, e.g., by making it more difficult to evaluate how various legal rules should be applied in the context of individual permit applications. Such a reform also clashes with the anti-anti-environment task of environmental law and permitting. The development of zero‑carbon projects and the protection of environmental harms involve difficult trade-offs, but the main role of environmental permitting is to identify measures that allow these goals to co-exist. The solution to this green versus green dilemma is not to reform the scope of permitting processes, but rather improve the ways in which existing legislation is implemented.