(highlight:: There are practical reasons for procedural laws to dominate environmental regulation. Proceduralism is a flexible tool that can be adapted to circumstances as needed. The uncertain nature of science, and the time it takes to observe potential long-term effects, mean that regulations can take years to author. Meanwhile, industry introduces thousands of new chemicals every year, and constantly changes the formulation of older ones.
By contrast, substantive environmental laws that regulate specific actions or pollutants may have a hard time keeping up as the world changes. When the EPA began to write regulations for 65 toxic water pollutants, the process took 11 years. Afterward, it was forced to write another round of regulations for toxic chemicals that had been introduced in the interim. And while substantive laws are often reactive, addressing problems as they are revealed, procedural laws force agencies to address environmental impacts that could happen in the future.
However, this very flexibility is the weakness of procedural regulation. Because it can be used against anything, laws like NEPA end up being used against everything. Every project faces some opposition, and laws like NEPA empower opponents at the expense of everyone else who would benefit. Because NEPA’s provisions are purely procedural, it can’t be used to stop projects. But it can slow them down (by requiring ever-more detailed environmental impact statements) to the point where it becomes infeasible to pursue them, a strategy on which activists have increasingly relied.)
- View Highlight
-

This procedural burden weighs especially heavily on new players and novel technologies that haven’t had time to work the system. Oil and gas drilling companies, for instance, have been granted several NEPA exceptions that reduce the requirements for things such as drilling exploratory wells. Geothermal energy, on the other hand, does not receive such exceptions, even though it involves drilling wells like those for oil and gas. Procedural requirements, like most regulations, heavily favor the incumbents.
- View Highlight
-

We need a new era of environmentalism that learns from the successes and failures of the past. Environmentalists rightly tout triumphs over acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT, and lead exposure. But these wins were not the result of preparing ever longer environmental impact statements for specific projects. They were the product of putting a price on pollution, via cap and trade programs, or outright banning a pollutant when necessary.
- View Highlight
-
- [note::Are there any market-based strategies for improving animal welfare?]

(highlight:: There are practical reasons for procedural laws to dominate environmental regulation. Proceduralism is a flexible tool that can be adapted to circumstances as needed. The uncertain nature of science, and the time it takes to observe potential long-term effects, mean that regulations can take years to author. Meanwhile, industry introduces thousands of new chemicals every year, and constantly changes the formulation of older ones.
By contrast, substantive environmental laws that regulate specific actions or pollutants may have a hard time keeping up as the world changes. When the EPA began to write regulations for 65 toxic water pollutants, the process took 11 years. Afterward, it was forced to write another round of regulations for toxic chemicals that had been introduced in the interim. And while substantive laws are often reactive, addressing problems as they are revealed, procedural laws force agencies to address environmental impacts that could happen in the future.
However, this very flexibility is the weakness of procedural regulation. Because it can be used against anything, laws like NEPA end up being used against everything. Every project faces some opposition, and laws like NEPA empower opponents at the expense of everyone else who would benefit. Because NEPA’s provisions are purely procedural, it can’t be used to stop projects. But it can slow them down (by requiring ever-more detailed environmental impact statements) to the point where it becomes infeasible to pursue them, a strategy on which activists have increasingly relied.)
- View Highlight
-

This procedural burden weighs especially heavily on new players and novel technologies that haven’t had time to work the system. Oil and gas drilling companies, for instance, have been granted several NEPA exceptions that reduce the requirements for things such as drilling exploratory wells. Geothermal energy, on the other hand, does not receive such exceptions, even though it involves drilling wells like those for oil and gas. Procedural requirements, like most regulations, heavily favor the incumbents.
- View Highlight
-

We need a new era of environmentalism that learns from the successes and failures of the past. Environmentalists rightly tout triumphs over acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT, and lead exposure. But these wins were not the result of preparing ever longer environmental impact statements for specific projects. They were the product of putting a price on pollution, via cap and trade programs, or outright banning a pollutant when necessary.
- View Highlight
-
- [note::Are there any market-based strategies for improving animal welfare?]