温室气体管理专家的看法:CEQ对气候变化的指导和NEPA 1

Q3 Social Sciences

Environmental Practice Pub Date : 2017-01-02 DOI:10.1080/14660466.2017.1275716

Doug Huxley

{"title":"温室气体管理专家的看法:CEQ对气候变化的指导和NEPA 1","authors":"Doug Huxley","doi":"10.1080/14660466.2017.1275716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT After two draft documents and more than seven years, in the August 5, 2016 edition of the Federal Register, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published final guidance for federal agencies to incorporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change into National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. Questions and legal opinions on the final guidance are plentiful. Is the final guidance consistent with existing case law, is it binding, will it adequately protect agencies and project proponents from litigation, or does it require agencies to force reductions on project proponents? Questions and opinions aside, this article focuses on the practical implications of the final guidance—how environmental professionals can prepare NEPA reviews that align with its spirit and intent, meaningfully assess potential impacts and compare alternatives, and maintain consistency with established GHG accounting principles.","PeriodicalId":45250,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A GHG management professional’s take: CEQ’s guidance for climate change and NEPA 1\",\"authors\":\"Doug Huxley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14660466.2017.1275716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT After two draft documents and more than seven years, in the August 5, 2016 edition of the Federal Register, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published final guidance for federal agencies to incorporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change into National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. Questions and legal opinions on the final guidance are plentiful. Is the final guidance consistent with existing case law, is it binding, will it adequately protect agencies and project proponents from litigation, or does it require agencies to force reductions on project proponents? Questions and opinions aside, this article focuses on the practical implications of the final guidance—how environmental professionals can prepare NEPA reviews that align with its spirit and intent, meaningfully assess potential impacts and compare alternatives, and maintain consistency with established GHG accounting principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2017.1275716\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2017.1275716","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

经过两份文件草案和七年多的时间，白宫环境质量委员会(CEQ)在2016年8月5日的联邦公报上发布了最终指南，指导联邦机构将温室气体(GHG)排放和气候变化纳入国家环境政策法案(NEPA)审查。关于最终指导意见的问题和法律意见很多。最终指南是否与现有的判例法一致，是否具有约束力，是否能够充分保护机构和项目支持者免受诉讼，或者是否要求机构强制减少项目支持者?撇开问题和意见不谈，本文主要关注最终指南的实际意义——环境专业人士如何准备符合其精神和意图的《国家环境政策法》审查，有意意地评估潜在影响并比较替代方案，并保持与既定温室气体核算原则的一致性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A GHG management professional’s take: CEQ’s guidance for climate change and NEPA 1

ABSTRACT After two draft documents and more than seven years, in the August 5, 2016 edition of the Federal Register, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published final guidance for federal agencies to incorporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change into National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. Questions and legal opinions on the final guidance are plentiful. Is the final guidance consistent with existing case law, is it binding, will it adequately protect agencies and project proponents from litigation, or does it require agencies to force reductions on project proponents? Questions and opinions aside, this article focuses on the practical implications of the final guidance—how environmental professionals can prepare NEPA reviews that align with its spirit and intent, meaningfully assess potential impacts and compare alternatives, and maintain consistency with established GHG accounting principles.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Environmental Practice ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Environmental Practice provides a multidisciplinary forum for authoritative discussion and analysis of issues of wide interest to the international community of environmental professionals, with the intent of developing innovative solutions to environmental problems for public policy implementation, professional practice, or both. Peer-reviewed original research papers, environmental reviews, and commentaries, along with news articles, book reviews, and points of view, link findings in science and technology with issues of public policy, health, environmental quality, law, political economy, management, and the appropriate standards for expertise. Published for the National Association of Environmental Professionals