dne aff

1ac

contention 1: delineated natural ecosystemsStatus quo suits fail to protect the environment because the courts deny standing---absent the aff, that crushes biodiversity.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

Currently, nature is wholly dependent on local and federal government agencies (such as the EPA) to promulgate appropriate environmental protection regulations and enforce these regulations and existing environmental laws.[28] If the agency fails to do so, human plaintiffs or inanimate organizations can attempt to seek the judiciary’s review using common law theories ,[29] writs,[30] or pursuant to specific legislative authorization.

At the federal level, environmental legislation has authorized ordinary citizens to enforce environmental protection laws through citizen suits. The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) all contain citizens’ suit provisions. The ESA provides:

[A]ny person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency . . . who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under the authority thereof; or to compel the Secretary to apply . . . the prohibitions set forth in or authorized pursuant to . . . this title with respect to the taking of any resident endangered species or threatened species . . . ; or against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to perform any act or duty under . . . this title which is not discretionary with the Secretary. The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any such provision or regulation, or to order the Secretary to perform such act or duty, as the case may be.[31]

The CAA contains one section that permits citizen suits against CAA violators and a second section that allows for citizen suits challenging EPA actions made pursuant to the Act.[32] The CWA provides that “[any person] having an interest which is or may be adversely affected” may bring suit. [33]

When the alleged harm to nature does not fall under a statute with citizen suit authorization, a human plaintiff or an organization that is “adversely affected” or “aggrieved” may turn to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to challenge federal government agency actions.[34] The APA independently authorizes review only when “there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” and provides that a court may set aside government agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”[35]

At first blush, the legislative authorization of ordinary citizens to bring claims to enforce environmental protection laws would appear to be a powerful tool for the humans and organizations seeking to protect nature. These plaintiffs, however, often have difficulty convincing the courts they have a “direct stake” in the litigation that confers standing. This has rendered citizen suit provisions and any potential standing under the APA impotent to prevent or stop the very injury that the applicable law was designed to prevent. This is the case unless that injury (1) also harms the organizational or human plaintiff and (2) cannot be redressed without also

redressing the organizational or human plaintiff. [36] To compound the problem, the injuries the Court has recognized to establish standing often are short-term and comparatively inconsequential “economic,” “recreational,” or “aesthetic” injuries.

In the seminal case Sierra Club v. Morton , the fate of the Sequoia National Forest and National Park took a back seat to the economic, recreational or aesthetic injury of the Sierra Club (a corporation) and its human members for access to the court system.[37] In Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.,[38] the Court held that there need not be any harm to water quality to support citizen suit standing under the Clean Water Act. According to the Court, “[t]he relevant showing for purposes of Article III standing . . . is not injury to the environment but injury to the plaintiff.” [39] What was relevant was the human plaintiffs’ “reasonable concerns” about the effects of mercury discharges into a river, which in turn affected those plaintiffs’ recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests.[40]

Even when humans or organizations plead recreational, aesthetic, economic or professional injury, the

Supreme Court does not readily recognize either human or organizational interests in environmental protection as meeting the “injury in fact” prong of the standing test. [41] Sierra Club v. Morton, for example, arose

from a challenge to a decision by the U.S. Government to license the construction of a Disney ski resort on National Forest and National Park land of exceptional ecological value.[42] The Sierra Club claimed that the license agreement was illegal and asserted standing based upon its

long-standing interest in, and concern for, the protection of the environment.[43] The Court held that this generalized interest and concern for nature failed the Court’s standing test because neither the Club nor its members pled a particular cognizable injury such as loss of recreational opportunities or aesthetic enjoyment associated with the license to deforest and develop part of Sequoia National Forest and Park .[44]

In Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (“ Lujan I ”) , the claimants challenged the U.S. government’s efforts to review and

classify hundreds of parcels of public lands in a manner that might have resulted in their use for mining.[45] Following the precedent set in

Sierra Club, the claimants asserted injury to their “recreational and aesthetic” enjoyment of lands in the vicinity of public lands that had been opened to mining and oil and gas leasing claims .[46] The Court denied standing, since the claimants alleged only that they used unspecified lands “in the vicinity” of “immense tracts of territory, only on some portions of which mining activity had occurred or probably will occur” by virtue of the manner by which the government had classified the

public lands.[47] The Court held that an interest in lands that “simply lay in the vicinity of areas subject to development” was inadequate to confer standing.[48]

In Lujan II , Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, made clear that the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act could not give a citizen standing to protect an endangered species absent a concrete human (or corporate) injury.[49] In that case, the Department of the Interior promulgated a regulation that exempted actions taken by the U.S. Government overseas or on the high seas from the Endangered Species Act. The Defenders of Wildlife’s claim to injury (to assert standing) was that two of its human members (“the plaintiffs”) had traveled to foreign countries and observed endangered animals (Nile crocodiles, Asian elephants and leopards) in their native habitat, and these animals were now threatened with extinction by the action of the U.S. Government in financing foreign dam building projects, including the Aswan Dam in Egypt.[50] The human plaintiffs asserted that they intended to go back to

the endangered animals’ habitat and would be harmed if the animals were to become extinct. They asserted an ecosystem nexus argument (a human who uses part of the ecosystems has standing), an animal nexus argument (humans who have an interest in

studying or seeing the endangered animals have standing) and a vocational nexus argument (humans who have a professional

interest in endangered animals have standing) to support their claims.[51]

In rejecting these arguments, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how extinction of the endangered animals would produce any imminent injury to the humans since they did not have any definite, concrete plans to return to the countries and native habitats of the animals .[52] The Court stated: “To say that the [Endangered Species] Act protects ecosystems is not to say that the Act creates (if it were possible) rights of action in [humans] who have not been injured in fact, that is, [humans] who use portions of an ecosystem not perceptibly affected by the unlawful action in

question.”[53] According to the Court, the plaintiffs’ claims were too broad and insufficiently particularized to show concrete and imminent injury:

. . . there is absolutely no basis for making the Article III inquiry turn on the source of the asserted right. Whether the courts were to act on their own, or at the invitation of Congress, in ignoring the concrete injury requirement described in our cases, they would be discarding a principle

fundamental to the separate and distinct constitutional role of the Third Branch–one of the essential elements that identifies those “Cases” and “Controversies” that are the business of the courts rather than of the political branches.[54]

The rhetorical statement that harm to ecosystems that are the habitat of endangered species does “not perceptibly affect” humans lacks both moral and factual grounding. In fact, if we put aside the troubling moral implications of a legal regime that permits humans to extinguish other species at our choosing ,[55]

Justice Scalia’s statement rings false from a purely utilitarian perspective. Humans are dependent on the Earth’s natural functioning ecosystems and the biodiversity they sustain . Humans rely on rivers for clean water and edible food. Animals play important roles in maintaining these functional ecosystems.

Crocodiles “clean up” those rivers as they eat carcasses of other species and balance rivers’ aquatic populations.[56] Elephants play a crucial role in the forest ecosystems: commonly referred to as a ‘keystone’ species,

elephants help open up forest clearings and distribute the seeds of trees and shrubs [57] upon which humans rely for food, shelter, clean air, and clean water.

As a predator, the Asian leopard fulfills an important ecological role in controlling the populations and health of the species on which it preys. Thus, predators affect the ability of biodiversity to persist as part of a healthy natural ecosystem.[58]

The plan’s mechanism grants legal personhood, which reverses the standing concern.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

Instead of the legal acrobatics currently required when individuals or environmental groups seek judicial action to protect nature, the most current and verifiable scientific methods , frameworks and

technology can be used to identify and then delineate the natural ecosystem that is adversely affected. [100] In essence, the DNE proxy mechanism is tailored to identify the plaintiff that meets all of the

Court’s Article III standing requirements for each case .[101]

For example, if faced with a factual scenario like that of Sierra Club v. Morton, science-based classification approaches could identify the DNE plaintiff(s)and application of an operational definition would delineate and describe each DNE plaintiff and the injury it faces within the framework of a natural ecosystem’s four fundamental elements. Finally, GIS technology could provide a map demonstrating numerous data layers of information regarding the fundamental aspects of the DNE proxy , including its spatial boundaries.

But who files the suit and how will this work in an actual case?

Just as litigation attorneys regularly are hired to represent other juristic persons such as corporations ,

litigation attorneys would be hired to represent the DNE proxy . The attorneys need not be scientists

themselves because, as in other litigation contexts, the lawyers can work with one or more qualified expert witnesses. [102] For instance, an attorney representing an injured person in a medical malpractice case works with one or more qualified medical expert witnesses to conduct the necessary physical examinations, submit reports to the court, and testify when necessary.[103]

Similarly, the attorney retained to challenge the permits issued to convert a natural forest ecosystem to a ski resort and highway, as in Sierra Club v. Morton, would work with qualified expert witnesses, such as biologists and ecologists, to identify and delineate the DNE proxy/proxies and to describe the concrete and particularized injury facing the DNE(s) that would be proximately caused by the permitted recreational “development” of the DNE(s)’ forests.[104]

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,[105] the Supreme Court established a non-exclusive checklist for trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. The key factors include the following:

whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested—that is, whether the expert’s theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability;

whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and

whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.[106]

The use of a DNE proxy to establish nature’s legal personhood and right to exist and defend itself would be novel. The underlying information, methods, technology, standards and frameworks, however, are not;–this work is the subject of objective, verifiable peer-reviewed publications, and studies and projects that adhere to rigorous standards and controls.[107] The “novelty” is limited to the context in which this work now could be applied.[108]

Thus, a DNE proxy, seeking to protect itself from direct and imminent injury, could oppose the agency that issued the permit, as well as the company or companies seeking to build the resort and highway . This action “preserves the vitality of the adversarial process by assuring both that the parties before the court have an actual, as opposed to professed, stake in the outcome, and that the legal questions presented . . . will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action.”[109] In this instance, Nature’s DNE proxy is fighting for its continued existence against the permitting government agency and the development company that seek to end the DNE’s existence .

Biodiversity collapse causes extinction cascades.Geib 18 – Claudia Geib is an Associate Editor. ("Losing biodiversity could lead to "extinction cascades"," 2-20-2018, Futurism, https://futurism.com/losing-biodiversity-extinction-cascades)//tdi

A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that less biodiversity in an area increases the risk of a domino effect of extinctions , where one species’ disappearance can cause other species to follow

suit.

The research, conducted by ecologists at the University of Exeter, shows that losing a species in an area is dangerous in that it makes the surrounding ecological community simpler, and therefore less robust to change .

It makes sense: the fewer species that exist in an area, the fewer that are available to “fill the gap” left by other extinctions. Other species in the ecosystem will have fewer alternatives to turn to . For example, if there are fewer insects left overall across a region, the bats and amphibians that eat them will feel the loss of just one species much more severely.

“Interactions between species are important for ecosystem stability,” said Dirk Sanders, lead author and professor in

Exeter’s Center for Ecology and Conservation, in a news release. “And because species are interconnected through multiple interactions, an impact on one species can affect others as well.”

The Exeter team investigated this idea by removing a species of wasp from test ecosystems. In many of these systems, the wasp’s disappearance caused indirect extinctions of other species at the same level of the food web . In simple communities, the effect was even stronger. Sanders emphasized the biodiversity loss could cause “run-away

extinction cascades.”

This research sounds yet another dire warning bell at a time of biodiversity crisis. Even if you don’t care for poster-child species like polar bears,

the crisis could also have ramifications for species that everyone cares about, like the crops that are the foundation of our global food supply. Studies that show how broadly single extinctions reverberate across ecosystems might buoy further efforts to protect global biodiversity.

Continued biodiversity loss will cause extinctionCarrington 10/29 [(Damian, the Guardian's Environment editor) "Humanity has wiped out 60% of a animal populations since 1970, report finds," The Guardian, 10/29/18] TDI

Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, leading the world’s foremost experts to warn that the annihilation of wildlife is now an emergency that threatens

civilisation .

The new estimate of the massacre of wildlife is made in a major report produced by WWF and involving 59 scientists from across the globe. It

finds that the vast and growing consumption of food and resources by the global population is destroying

the web of life , billions of years in the making, upon which human society ultimately depends for clean air, water and everything else.

“We are sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff” said Mike Barrett, executive director of science and conservation at WWF. “If there was a 60% decline in the human population, that would be equivalent to emptying North America, South America, Africa, Europe, China and Oceania. That is the scale of what we have done.”

“This is far more than just being about losing the wonders of nature, desperately sad though that is,” he said. “This is actually now jeopardising the future of people . Nature is not a ‘nice to have’ – it is our life-support system .”

“We are rapidly running out of time ,” said Prof Johan Rockström, a global sustainability expert at the Potsdam Institute for

Climate Impact Research in Germany. “Only by addressing both ecosystems and climate do we stand a chance of safeguarding a stable planet for humanity’s future on Earth.”

Many scientists believe the world has begun a sixth mass extinction , the first to be caused by a species – Homo sapiens. Other recent analyses have revealed that humankind has destroyed 83% of all mammals and half of plants since the dawn of civilisation and that, even if the destruction were to end now, it would take 5-7 million years for the natural world to recover.

The Living Planet Index, produced for WWF by the Zoological Society of London, uses data on 16,704 populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians, representing more than 4,000 species, to track the decline of wildlife. Between 1970 and 2014, the latest data available, populations fell by an average of 60%. Four years ago, the decline was 52%. The “shocking truth”, said Barrett, is that the wildlife crash is continuing unabated.

Wildlife and the ecosystems are vital to human life, said Prof Bob Watson, one of the world’s most eminent environmental scientists and

currently chair of an intergovernmental panel on biodiversity that said in March that the destruction of nature is as dangerous

as climate change .

“Nature contributes to human wellbeing culturally and spiritually, as well as through the critical production of food, clean water, and energy, and through regulating the Earth’s climate, pollution, pollination and floods ,” he said.

“The Living Planet report clearly demonstrates that human activities are destroying nature at an unacceptable rate, threatening the wellbeing of current and future generations.”

The biggest cause of wildlife losses is the destruction of natural habitats , much of it to create farmland. Three-quarters of all land on Earth is now significantly affected by human activities. Killing for food is the next biggest cause – 300 mammal species are being eaten into extinction – while the oceans are massively overfished, with more than half now being industrially fished.

Chemical pollution is also significant: half the world’s killer whale populations are now doomed to die from PCB contamination. Global trade introduces invasive species and disease, with amphibians decimated by a fungal disease thought to be spread by the pet trade.

The worst affected region is South and Central America, which has seen an 89% drop in vertebrate populations, largely driven by the felling of vast areas of wildlife-rich forest. In the tropical savannah called cerrado, an area the size of Greater London is cleared every two months, said Barrett.

“It is a classic example of where the disappearance is the result of our own consumption, because the deforestation is being driven by ever expanding agriculture producing soy, which is being exported to countries including the UK to feed pigs and chickens,” he said. The UK itself has lost much of its wildlife, ranking 189th for biodiversity loss out of 218 nations in 2016.

The habitats suffering the greatest damage are rivers and lakes , where wildlife populations have fallen 83%, due to the enormous thirst of agriculture and the large number of dams. “Again there is this direct

link between the food system and the depletion of wildlife, ” said Barrett. Eating less meat is an essential part of reversing losses, he said.

The Living Planet Index has been criticised as being too broad a measure of wildlife losses and smoothing over crucial details. But all indicators, from extinction rates to intactness of ecosystems, show colossal losses. “They all tell you the same story,” said Barrett.

Conservation efforts can work , with tiger numbers having risen 20% in India in six years as habitat is protected. Giant pandas in China and otters in the UK have also been doing well.

But Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International, said the fundamental issue was consumption: “We can no longer ignore the impact of current unsustainable production models and wasteful lifestyles .”

The world’s nations are working towards a crunch meeting of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity in 2020, when new commitments for the protection of nature will be made. “We need a new global deal for nature and people and we have this narrow window of less than two years to get it,” said Barrett. “This really is the last chance. We have to get it right this time.”

Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF, said: “We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it

Thus, the plan: The United States federal government should use a Delineated Natural Ecosystem proxy to grant legal personhood to natural ecosystems.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural

Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

Our laws support corporate rights to exist and thrive economically. That seems logical in capitalist societies, as large fortunes can ride on corporate well-being. Corporations, however, are not connected to the natural world in the way humans are. Humans breathe air, drink water and need food to survive. In the face of modern

society’s attempt to use science to detach itself from nature, science has repeatedly shown that we are inextricably

connected to the environment just like any other living thing .[2]

United States jurisprudence does not yet reflect this connection; there is no legal analog to corporate rights that establishes nature’s right to exist, thrive and defend itself from harm. A lawyer cannot directly represent nature to protect it. Although the Supreme Court’s standing doctrine recognizes a corporation as a “juristic person,” [3] it does not recognize nature in the same way. In fact, injury to the environment is not

relevant in determining whether a person seeking to protect the environment has standing in an environmental protection case.[4]

“Why shouldn’t nature have the same legal standing as the companies seeking to exploit it?”[5]

This question is not new.[6] The concept of nature having rights has its roots in indigenous cultures[7] and has gained traction in some legal systems.[8] There remains a perception however, that recognizing nature as a “juristic person” is bridge too far in the context of the U.S. legal system.[9]

This Article submits that such recognition is entirely manageable and offers a mechanism through which recognition of nature’s legal personhood can conform to established legal doctrines without offending notions of judicial economy or the political question doctrine. [10] Identification and delineation of a natural ecosystem facing harm– a Delineated Natural Ecosystem (“DNE”)–offers a scientifically-based distinct and definable “juristic person” proxy for nature that is comparable to the juristic person construct of a corporation. Of course, a natural ecosystem exists in nature and not the courtroom. But the construct of a DNE–scientists and attorneys using verifiable scientific methodologies and modern technology to establish the DNE by virtue of the location and the effects of the underlying allegations of injury–is fit for the courtroom .

A corporation achieves “legal personhood” via legal forms and registration fees.[11] Nature , on a case-by-case

basis, can achieve “legal personhood” via the identification of the DNE plaintiff using science-based

methods and data . This same science can identify the injury or threatened injury and the proximate cause of such injury. As such, the DNE proxy is a construct that creates a juristic person with functional structure that is both scientifically verifiable and judicially manageable.[12] The DNE proxy will be created and exist, like a corporation, “in contemplation of the law.”[13]

Use of a DNE proxy for nature will align jurisprudence with modern science and provide a mechanism to bring balance to the adversarial judicial process. The DNE tool is tailored to the Supreme Court’s

standing doctrine because it allows the party with a “direct stake in the outcome” [14] to stand before the court and defend itself from those who seek to harm it . From a broader perspective, this mechanism may enable realization of “productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.”[15]

Although using the DNE mechanism to recognize nature’s “legal personhood” requires only a short analytical step, it also requires a willingness to acknowledge our fundamental connection to and responsibility for our natural world. Put another way, it will require us–as Rachel Carson recognized over 50 years ago–to “prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves.”[16]

This is how that works.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

Natural ecosystem classification is not new. Humans have delineated and classified the land in one way or another

for millennia to identify where food , clean water, medicinal plants, and other raw materials could be found.[64] Today, classification of nature is the subject of peer-reviewed scientific literature and relies on verifiable objective information.[65] Numerous ecological classifications “exist at international, national, state and local scales.”[66]

These classifications fulfill a variety of purposes in environmental protection and conservation work . For example, scientists from academic institutions, federal and state agencies, and multiple organizations and international partners have worked together for decades to develop and maintain the International Vegetation Classification (“IVC”).[67] The IVC is used by most federal agencies in the United States as well as state level natural heritage programs.[68] Natural heritage classifications that have been uniquely developed for their own states are either linked or can be “cross-walked” to the IVC or the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (“NVC”).[69] The “community type” level in a natural heritage classification corresponds to the NVC “Association” level.[70] Since 2001, a public-private network of independent organizations know as the “NatureServe Network” has operated across the Western hemisphere, collecting, curating, and analyzing data about animals, plants and ecological communities using a “rigorous set of field and data management and protocols.” [71]

Classification of nature “attempts to organize the ecological complexity of nature; that is, the complex relationships of living things with their non-living environment, into discrete classes. In turn, these classes provide ecosystem targets for inventory, mapping, research, monitoring, restoration, and conservation.”[72]

The Virginia[73] and Maryland[74] Natural Heritage programs provide working examples of state level Natural Community classification approaches.[75] Each is organized into the same four levels from broadest to most specific:

System (Broadest Level)

Ecological Class

Ecological Community Group

Ecological Community Type

Five distinct ecological Systems have been identified in both Maryland and Virginia from broadest to most specific:[76]

Terrestrial

Palustrine

Estuarine

Marine

Riverine

Each System is distinguished from another by large-scale geomorphic , hydrologic , biologic and

chemical features . The Terrestrial System, for example, consists of upland habitats “that have well-drained soils ranging from dry to mesic in moisture regime.”[77] The Terrestrial System “supports vegetation that is predominately upland and never hydrophytic even if occasional flooding or soil saturation occur.” [78] In

contrast, the Palustrine System “encompasses all non-tidal, perennial wetlands,” “characterized by emergent vegetation.[79] It is comprised of hydrophytic vegetation and includes wetlands that are permanently saturated by groundwater seepage, permanently flooded wetlands, and seasonally or intermittently flooded wetlands.”[80]

Within each System are Classes, which “serve to group natural communities based on similar ecological characteristics such as soil moisture (e.g., Mesic Forests versus Dry Forests) or hydrology (e.g., Alluvial Wetlands versus Non-Alluvial Wetlands.).”[81] ” While Virginia and Maryland have many similarities, their physiographic and topographic differences begin to become more obvious at this classification level. The divergence of identified Classes demonstrates the flexibility inherent in the general

concept of classification systems: as long as each classification system is itself internally consistent, the variety of

different classification systems can reflect the variety of nature in different physical settings .

For example, within the Terrestrial System, Maryland has identified:

The Mesic Forest Class

The Dry-Mesic Forests and Woodlands Class

The Dry Forests and Woodlands Class

The Glades, Barrens and Rock Outcrops Class

The Maritime Forests, Woodlands, and Dunes Class[82]

In Virginia, which has higher mountain elevations than Maryland, the following Classes have been identified in the Terrestrial System:

High-Elevation Forests, Grasslands, and Rock Outcrops

Low-Elevation Mesic Forests

Low-Elevation Dry and Dry-Mesic Forests

Low-Elevation Woodlands, Barrens, and Rock Outcrops

Maritime Zone Communities

Sandy Woodlands of the Inner Coastal Plain and Outer Piedmont[83]

Within each Class are Ecological Community Groups, which are “aggregations of finer-level community types that are based on various combinations of topographic, edaphic, physiognomic, and gross floristic similarities.”[84] Two examples of Ecological Community Groups found in Maryland are “northern hardwood forest,” and “maritime swamp.”[85] Natural communities defined at this level (considered a “relatively coarse scale”) are usually more appropriate for “applications such as ecological modeling and vegetation mapping.”[86]

Finally, embedded within each of the Ecological Community Groups are the finer-level Ecological Community Types. Each Ecological Community Type is representative of plant communities because plants “are more easily studied, measured, and are often sensitive to physical and biological factors influencing many types of organisms.”[87] “Plant species are faithful indicators of site conditions, and plant species collectively (i.e. vegetation) reflect the biological and ecological patterns across landscapes.[88] Thus, plants are commonly used as surrogates to characterize and define ecological communities”[89] Moreover, “since plant communities often correspond closely to distinct assemblages of other types of organisms, natural communities can be used as ‘coarse filters’ that ‘capture’ many of the

species and processes in the community even if they have not been specifically identified.”[90] Ecological Community Type is the

level “at which community inventory and conservation action are aimed and, as such, it is the level at which community occurrences are tracked and for which conservation status ranks are assigned.” [91]

Ecological Community Type is likely –although not necessarily–the appropriate scale for identifying nature’s

DNE proxies since this level of classification lends itself to easy interpretation and can be applied on a site-by-site basis. Additionally, Ecological Communities can be cross-referenced with other applicable classification frameworks. If the DNE proxy is located in the Northeast United States, for example, the “Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification System” can provide additional information (focused

on wildlife habitat)[92] to describe the DNE proxy. The Appendix to this Article provides hypothetical case studies to demonstrate how one or more classification approaches can be used to implement the DNE proxy mechanism.

contention 2: nepaTrump is gutting NEPA---he’s commissioned CEQ Executive Mary Neumayr to dismantle public comment, which threatens democracy.Zhang 19 – Sharon Zhang is a freelance writer who covers climate change and race. She has a bachelor's and master's degree in environmental studies from the University of Southern California. ("How Trump Plans to Gut NEPA, a 50-Year-Old Environmental Law," 1-24-2019, Pacific Standard, https://psmag.com/environment/how-trump-plans-to-gut-nepa-environment)//tdi

Under the purview of the White House, the CEQ is NEPA's executive operative, regulating how NEPA is implemented by and between federal agencies. Since the CEQ issued its regulation on NEPA compliance in 1978, the council has only made two amendments to its text—once to change its mailing address, and once to eliminate "worst-case" analysis from the review process (the latter change happened under President Ronald Reagan, though the withdrawal of language was apolitical, more due to confusing wording in the process that made it difficult to implement than to anything else).

Over the past year, the CEQ, under the guidance of the Trump administration, has been working not just to amend NEPA, but to rewrite it altogether.

As long as Trump has been president, the top spot at the CEQ has been vacant—until three weeks ago, when the Senate confirmed Mary Neumayr as chairwoman of the council. (Absent of an official chair, Neumayr had already been in the top spot at the CEQ since March of 2017.)

Though her views on climate are not as extreme as those of the previous nominee—Neumayr at least says she believes in climate change—

she is squarely conservative in her views on government regulation. As ThinkProgress points out, Neumayr once wrote a paper for the conservative Federalist Society criticizing government regulations , including environmental laws , for their alleged " criminalization " of corporate activity . Having served in various energy and

environmental federal counsel positions spanning the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies, she looks a lot like an establishment

conservative. Most important, she has pledged to carry out the agenda of the Trump administration.

As chief of staff at the CEQ, Neumayr had already begun to do so. In 2017, she oversaw the withdrawal of Obama-era guidance requiring agencies to include greenhouse gases and climate change in their NEPA reviews . In

June of last year, the CEQ put out a notice that it would be amending NEPA, and opened the rule for public comment. The notice poses 20 questions to the public, asking generally about whether parts of NEPA could be "updated" or "clarified," and

whether the process could be made more "timely" or "efficient." While the CEQ hasn't put out any legislation yet, the tenor and thrust of these questions suggest that Trump's goal is to slash NEPA by restricting its usage and narrowing its purview .

"There are two strands of attack on NEPA," says Pat Gallagher, legal director at the Sierra Club.* "What they're trying to do via regulation [is] to weaken the actual triggers for when they have to act on NEPA ." Part of that strategy requires massaging the definition of what constitutes a "major federal project," which refers to projects big enough to warrant an environmental review in the first place, and expanding the list of "categorical exclusions," a list of actions that an agency may take that have been predetermined not to warrant a NEPA review.

As an example, Gallagher says that an agency may stipulate that up to 10,000 acres of post-fire logging would be categorically excluded from undergoing an environmental review. "And that's a big problem. They're basically going to try to take big whole classes of actions and just remove them from NEPA ," he says.

That's not just a regulatory problem; it's a problem for democracy as well. A crucial part of NEPA is its

requirement that every project undergoing the environmental review process be open to public

comment . Through this mechanism, communities can drastically change the form of a project through

the public comment process: They can suggest alternatives that may not only be beneficial to their local environment, but also make a project cheaper and more efficient. Public comment on a highway project in Colorado, for instance, helped minimize tree removal and dust due to construction, while adding bike lanes. The community-sourced alternative to the highway project ended up costing less than the original plan. Exempting entire categories of projects from NEPA , then, would "gut the statute. It removes the public from any review," Gallagher laments.

Public comment is key to democracy---it has epistemic value.Sunstein 14 – Cass R. Sunstein is Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School. From 2009 to 2012, he was administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. ("Democratizing Regulation, Digitally," Fall 2014, Democracy Journal, https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/34/democratizing-regulation-digitally/)//tdi

For proposed rules, that access has to include an “opportunity for public comment on all pertinent parts of the rule-making docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings.” Do not be fooled by the jargon (“rule-making docket”) in that last sentence. It means, in essence, that members of the public are allowed to see technical support for regulations, including the

analysis of costs and benefits, and also to see public comments themselves. That form of transparency is exceedingly

important .

Regulations.gov may not be everyone’s favorite website, and it isn’t a lot of fun, but it is worth a look, because what appears there has significant consequences for the nation (and sometimes many nations) and because it is transforming notice-and-comment rule-making.

When an agency proposes a rule, all the world can find it and see it, usually with great ease. If a proposal has a mistake, or veers in a bad direction, there is a genuine opportunity to comment and to get the problem fixed. When I served as administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009 to 2012, I was

surprised by one thing above all: A lot of regulators pay exceedingly close attention to public comments , and they

spend a great deal of time on Regulations.gov. Such comments are carefully read, typically by people who have the authority to move regulations in better directions. Commenters often fear that what they say will go into a black hole but, in general, the fear is misplaced. People with authority end up reading what they write.

It’s not easy to solve the knowledge problem, but in the modern era, regulators are in a far better position to collect

dispersed information from the public . On this view, the goal of notice-and-comment rule-making is emphatically not to

conduct an opinion poll, to take some kind of political temperature, to see how much applause a proposal is able to attract, to defuse public opposition, to engage in some communications strategy, or to collect the digital equivalent of postcards (even though a number of those are

sometimes sent in). Instead, the goal is overwhelmingly substantive, in a sense even Hayekian—to fill gaps in knowledge and to see what might have been overlooked.

In particular, the agency’s assessment of the likely consequences of regulations is subject to close scrutiny . If

the agency has inaccurately assessed costs and benefits, public participation can and often will supply a corrective. Democratization of the regulatory process , through public comment , has an epistemic value . It helps to collect dispersed

knowledge and to bring it to bear on official choices .

Democracy is under threat---preventing backsliding solves war.Kendall-Taylor ’16 (Andrea; deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council, adjunct professor in political science at Georgetown and American Universities, Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, Senior Associate for the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic & International Studies; 7/15/16; “How Democracy’s Decline Would

Undermine the International Order”; https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-democracy%E2%80%99s-decline-would-undermine-international-order; Center for Strategic & International Studies; accessed 12/27/17)

It is rare that policymakers, analysts, and academics agree. But there is an emerging consensus in the world of

foreign policy: threats to the stability of the current international order are rising. The norms, values, laws, and institutions that have undergirded the international system and governed relationships between nations are being

gradually dismantled . The most discussed sources of this pressure are the ascent of China and other non-Western countries, Russia’s

assertive foreign policy, and the diffusion of power from traditional nation-states to nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations,

multinational corporations, and technology-empowered individuals. Largely missing from these discussions, however, is the specter

of widespread democratic decline . Rising challenges to democratic governance across the globe are a major strain on the international system , but they receive far less attention in discussions of the shifting world

order. In the 70 years since the end of World War II, the United States has fostered a global order dominated by states that are liberal, capitalist, and democratic . The U nited States has promoted the spread of democracy to

strengthen global norms and rules that constitute the foundation of our current international system.

However, despite the steady rise of democracy since the end of the Cold War, over the last 10 years we have seen dramatic reversals in respect for democratic principles across the globe. A 2015 Freedom House report stated that the

“acceptance of democracy as the world’s dominant form of government —and of an international system

built on democratic ideals—is under greater threat than at any point in the last 25 years.” Although the

number of democracies in the world is at an all-time high, there are a number of key trends that are working to undermine democracy. The rollback of democracy in a few influential states or even in a number of less consequential ones would almost certainly

accelerate meaningful changes in today’s global order. Democratic decline would weaken U.S.

partnerships and erode an important foundation for U.S. cooperation abroad. Research demonstrates that domestic politics

are a key determinant of the international behavior of states. In particular, democracies are more likely to form alliances

and cooperate more fully with other democracies than with autocracies. Similarly, authoritarian countries have

established mechanisms for cooperation and sharing of “worst practices.” An increase in authoritarian countries, then, would provide a broader platform for coordination that could enable these countries to overcome their divergent

histories, values, and interests—factors that are frequently cited as obstacles to the formation of a cohesive challenge to the U.S.-led international system. Recent examples support the empirical data . Democratic backsliding in Hungary and the hardening of Egypt’s autocracy under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi have led to enhanced relations between these countries and Russia. Likewise, democratic decline in Bangladesh has led Sheikh Hasina Wazed and her ruling Awami League to seek closer relations with China and Russia, in part to mitigate Western pressure and bolster the regime’s domestic standing. Although none of

these burgeoning relationships has developed into a highly unified partnership, democratic backsliding in these countries has provided a basis for cooperation where it did not previously exist. And while the United States certainly finds common cause with authoritarian partners on specific issues, the depth and reliability of such cooperation is limited . Consequently, further democratic decline could seriously compromise the U nited States’ ability to

form the kinds of deep partnerships that will be required to confront today’s increasingly complex challenges .

Global issues such as climate change, migration, and violent extremism demand the coordination and cooperation that democratic backsliding would put in peril. Put simply, the United States is a less effective and influential actor if it loses its ability to rely on its partnerships with other democratic nations. A slide toward

authoritarianism could also challenge the current global order by diluting U.S. influence in critical international institutions, including the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Democratic decline would weaken Western efforts within these institutions to advance issues such as Internet freedom and the responsibility to protect. In the case of Internet governance, for example, Western democracies support an open, largely private, global Internet.

Autocracies, in contrast, promote state control over the Internet, including laws and other mechanisms that facilitate their ability to censor and persecute dissidents. Already many autocracies, including Belarus, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have coalesced in the

“Likeminded Group of Developing Countries” within the United Nations to advocate their interests. Within the IMF and World Bank, autocracies—along with other developing nations—seek to water down conditionality or the reforms that lenders require in exchange for financial support. If successful, diminished conditionality would enfeeble an important incentive for governance

reforms. In a more extreme scenario, the rising influence of autocracies could enable these countries to bypass

the IMF and World Bank all together. For example, the Chinese-created Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank and the BRICS Bank—which includes Russia, China, and an increasingly authoritarian South Africa—provide countries with the potential to bypass existing global financial institutions when it suits their interests.

Authoritarian-led alternatives pose the risk that global economic governance will become fragmented and less

effective . Violence and instability would also likely increase if more democracies give way to autocracy.

International relations literature tells us that democracies are less likely to fight wars against other democracies, suggesting that interstate wars would rise as the number of democracies declines. Moreover,

within countries that are already autocratic, additional movement away from democracy, or an “authoritarian hardening,” would increase global instability . Highly repressive autocracies are the most likely to experience state failure, as was the case in the Central African Republic, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In this way, democratic decline would

significantly strain the international order because rising levels of instability would exceed the West’s ability to respond to the

tremendous costs of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and refugee flows. Finally, widespread democratic decline would contribute to rising anti-U.S. sentiment that could fuel a global order that is

increasingly antagonistic to the United States and its values. Most autocracies are highly suspicious of U.S. intentions and view the creation of an external enemy as an effective means for boosting their own public support. Russian president Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, and Bolivian president Evo Morales regularly accuse the United States of fomenting instability and

supporting regime change. This vilification of the United States is a convenient way of distracting their publics from regime shortcomings and fostering public support for strongman tactics. Since 9/11, and particularly in the wake of the

Arab Spring, Western enthusiasm for democracy support has waned . Rising levels of instability, including in Ukraine and the Middle East, fragile governance in Afghanistan and Iraq, and sustained threats from terrorist groups such as ISIL have increased Western focus on security and stability. U.S. preoccupation with intelligence sharing, basing and overflight rights, along with the perception that autocracy equates with stability, are trumping

democracy and human rights considerations . While rising levels of global instability explain part of Washington’s shift from an historical commitment to democracy, the nature of the policy process itself is a less appreciated factor. Policy discussions tend to occur on a country-by-country basis—leading to choices that weigh the costs and benefits of democracy support within the confines of a single country. From this perspective, the benefits of counterterrorism cooperation or access to natural resources are regularly judged to outweigh the

perceived costs of supporting human rights. A serious problem arises, however, when this process is replicated across countries. The bilateral focus rarely incorporates the risks to the U.S.-led global order that arise from widespread democratic decline across multiple countries. Many of the threats to the current global order, such as China’s rise or the diffusion of power, are driven

by factors that the United States and West more generally have little leverage to influence or control. Democracy, however, is an area where Western actions can affect outcomes . Factoring in the risks that arise from a global democratic

decline into policy discussions is a vital step to building a comprehensive approach to democracy support . Bringing this perspective to the table may not lead to dramatic shifts in foreign policy, but it would ensure that we are having the right conversation.

The plan makes NEPA’s goals justiciableWeston and Bollier 11 [(BURNS H. WESTON, THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF LA AND CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS; DAVID BOLLIER, COMMONS STRATEGY GROUP) “II. The Status of the Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment” Commons Law Project September 2011] TDI

Also illustrative are such legislative initiatives as Japan’s Basic Environmental Law of 1993∂ which provides, inter alia, that “environmental conservation shall be conducted appropriately to∂ ensure that the present and future generations of human beings can enjoy the blessings of a healthy∂ and productive environment . . ..”122 New Zealand’s 1996 Resource Management Amendment Act∂ was designed in part to “[s]ustain the potential of natural and physical resources . . . to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.”123 And the U.S. Congress, in enacting the 1994∂ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), declared its intention “[to] create and maintain∂ conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,∂ economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans,” facilitated in part∂ by mandated environmental impact assessments.∂ 124∂ Similar intentions lie behind the establishment in the United States of state public trusts and∂ parks such as the Alaska Permanent Fund (created “to benefit all generations of Alaskans”125) and∂New York State’s Adirondack Park (the largest protected area in the contiguous United States,∂ declared to be “forever wild”126). Not to be overlooked either are tribal codes such as those giving∂ voice to the “seventh generation principle,”127 extending responsibility for the environment far into∂ the future.128 And worldwide, as one should expect, there are favorably disposed administrative∂ directives and regulations, both national and subnational, interpreting and overseeing environmental∂ actions and laws with an eye to the ecological rights of future generations—though, it appears,∂ exceedingly few judicial decisions .12 In sum, as the foregoing illustrations suggest, the intergenerational right to a clean and healthy∂ environment is backed by powerfully persuasive ethical or moral arguments130 and is well established∂ in law as a matter of principle. Overall, however, legal recognition of intergenerational environmental∂ rights has been hemmed in by doctrines of nonjusticiability  and is limited in scope and practice. The∂ right thus must be understood as still emerging. On the other hand, the rights of future generations∂ could plausibly be applied to climate change and other such large-scale hazards.131∂ 2. Nature’s Environmental Rights∂ On September 28, 2008, the people of Ecuador approved, by a 2 to 1 margin, a new∂ constitution that for the first time in modern history recognizes legally enforceable ecosystem rights.∂ Title II (“Fundamental Rights”), Chapter 7 (“Rights of Nature”) of the new constitution132 grants∂ Nature “the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its∂ life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”133 In short, Nature is put on the same∂ legal footing as individuals and governments, corporations, and other legal persons to enforce it.∂Title II treats the natural world—or “Pacha Mama [Goddess Earth], where life is reproduced and∂ occurs”—as having protective rights of its own; when threatened, they can be adjudicated via human∂ surrogates, thus granting Nature legal standing—potentially even beyond Ecuador, depending on the∂ construct of the

dispute. The constitution stipulates that “all persons, communities, peoples and∂ nations” can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of Nature.”134 It adds that “Nature has∂ the right to be restored” and that “[t]his restoration shall be apart from the obligation of the State∂ and natural persons or legal entities to compensate individuals and communities that depend on∂ affected natural systems.”135∂ This constitutional innovation was inspired by indigenous communities in Ecuador∂demanding environmental protection of their traditional habitats from exploitation and abuse by∂ large, predominantly corporate interests (as in Texaco’s defilement of Ecuador’s Oriente∂ rainforest136). It must be understood as an historic, audacious lifting of the right to a clean and healthy environment to a new, higher level of legal recognition and activism. Not only are plaintiffs∂ stripped of the need to prove self-injury to have legal standing—a hallmark of most judicial systems∂ today—the autonomous right to a clean and healthy environment is converted into an autonomous∂ right of the environment itself to be clean and healthy. “The essence of Nature’s Rights,” affirms∂ former President of Ecuador’s Constituent Assembly Alberto Acosta in a vigorous and eloquent∂ defense of Ecuador’s constitutional daring, “is rescuing the ‘right to existence’ of human beings∂themselves. . . . [H]uman beings cannot live apart from Nature.”137∂ This “Rights of Nature” idea is certainly not without its critics and active resisters. Indeed, it∂ faces an uncertain future in Ecuador itself in light of President Rafael Correa’s recent political shift∂ rightward. Still, these “Rights of Nature” provisions have helped set in motion what has come to be∂ called the “Pachamama” or “Earth Jurisprudence” movement, now spreading elsewhere, in subSaharan Africa, Australia, Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and even the United States, but most∂ prominently in Bolivia.

The aff filters out frivolous suits and reinvigorates NEPA.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

But demonstrating harm to nature is easy–won’t this flood the courts with challenges to every human or corporate act that impacts nature?

As Professor Babcock points out “perhaps the problem is less that nature cannot demonstrate actual or threatened injury, and more that it may be very easy for nature to make these showings . . . [which may] enable[e] a multitude of otherwise dubious claims to reach the courts.”[110] One previously suggested way to avoid this problem is to limit claims on behalf of nature more generally to those involving “important and/or irreplaceable natural resources put in jeopardy by government inaction.”[111] Others such as Professor Christopher Stone have suggested, as early as 1972, that a constitutional list of “preferred objects” be created.[112]

This Article suggests that each and every one of nature’s natural functioning ecosystems threatened with or suffering harm (at the hands of

government, corporations, or other persons) should be provided the opportunity to defend its right to exist through the DNE mechanism. This would not be unmanageable. The DNE proxy mechanism inherently filters out dubious claims because

establishment of each DNE proxy and the harm it faces or has sustained requires application of verifiable scientific methods and data by way of expert witness evidence that passes muster under the Daubert standard . The DNE proxy also preempts and avoids claims by individual constituents of the natural ecosystem because the DNE proxy acts as an umbrella for its “characteristic native biota ;

abiotic environment, key processes and interactions; and spatial distribution.”[113] The DNE proxy comprehensively

represents nature’s interests to exist and thrive in a given geographical area. Finally, DNE proxies are limited to natural ecosystems that exhibit minimal human modification or those that have recovered from past human disruption under mainly natural conditions and native species interactions.

In accord with all of the Court’s precedent on Article III standing, nature’s proxy in the form of the DNE plaintiff would be the party that demonstrates concrete, particularized[114] or distinct and palpable[115] injury–the one with a direct stake in the outcome[116]–that can be redressed by court action when nature is facing or has suffered harm. In acknowledging the right of nature to stand–within the existing rigorous Article III inquiry precedent and

the well-established doctrine of “juristic personhood”–the courts will take a significant step toward realization of the

purpose behind the N ational E nvironmental P olicy A ct.[117] It will enable the formation of a national policy designed to encourage “harmony between man and his environment” and to “promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man” while “enrich[ing] the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation.”[118]

Our models predict the suits would be public.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

If the court grants the injunction and declaratory relief sought, Plaintiff will avoid destruction . The trees,

plants, animals, soil, and water (including the Mineral Queen watershed), will remain intact and will continue to act as a natural functioning ecosystem with natural processes that preserve biodiversity , habitat, land integrity and water and air quality, in addition to acting as a “carbon sink” to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming.

Does this mean that no ski resorts can ever be built again? No. The result of the Plaintiff DNE proxy prevailing in this case would mean that the courts , the permitting government agencies , the developer , and the public may

be made more acutely aware of the very real and far reaching effects of natural ecosystem destruction . The developer of the ski resort can seek another location (one that does not impact a natural ecosystem) or otherwise revise its plans so as to eliminate the possibility of injuring or destroying the Plaintiff.

Independently, NEPA requires environmental impact statements to be filed for things like infrastructure projects, which means effective public comment is vital to ensure ethical decision-making.DeGood 18 – Kevin DeGood is the director of Infrastructure Policy at the Center for American Progress. ("The Importance of NEPA Review for Infrastructure Projects," 8-16-2018, Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2018/08/16/454416/importance-nepa-review-infrastructure-projects/)//tdi

In June 2017, President Donald Trump stood before a crowd at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to discuss the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and declared, “Instead of rebuilding our country, Washington has spent decades building a dense thicket of rules, regulations and red tape.”1 The president continued, “No longer can we allow these rules and regulations to tie down our economy, chain up our prosperity, and sap our great American spirit.”2

Missing from this threadbare caricature of Washington run amok is any recognition that federal environmental review exists as a response to a past littered with projects that were not studied in advance and thereby caused substantial social, environmental, and even economic harms.3

After all, infrastructure facilities are not an unalloyed good: They bring both benefits and burdens. A highway or rail line that connects people to opportunity may also tear up neighborhoods; degrade wetlands and rivers; destroy wildlife habitat; and generate air pollution, disruptive noise, and damaging vibrations, among other impacts.4

This issue brief uses the environmental impact statement (EIS) of the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Blue Line light rail extension to

demonstrate how NEPA strengthens infrastructure projects , as well as how federal environmental , civil rights , and historic preservation statutes guide the content of the review . The light rail line in Charlotte, North

Carolina, also shows that meaningful enforcement of federal law requires federal agencies to review projects prior to construction given the threat of irreparable harm that major infrastructure facilities pose—harm that could not be sufficiently remedied through post-construction legal action . In addition to exploring the CATS project, the brief discusses the origins of NEPA and outlines the issue of permitting.

Origins of NEPA

In 1969, Congress passed NEPA in response to growing public concern about the social and environmental damage caused by federally funded economic development projects, including infrastructure facilities.5 NEPA requires federal agencies—and, where the federal government delegates NEPA responsibilities, state agencies—to study the potential environmental and related social and economic impacts of a proposed

infrastructure project, both positive and negative, as well as individual and cumulative. The law also requires these agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed project before making a decision about whether or how to proceed.6

Negative impacts can include anything from habitat loss and water pollution to the destruction of historic buildings and the disproportionate condemnation of homes and businesses in low-income communities or communities of color. Only a small percentage of infrastructure projects—those likely to produce significant impacts—must undergo a full review.7 In these cases, the lead federal agency must weigh and balance the benefits and drawbacks based on

sound analysis. After public review of and comment on the draft EIS, the agency responsible for deciding on the project publishes a final EIS that responds to the public’s comments .

Importantly, in the absence of environmental review, many negative impacts would become apparent only after the project sponsor completes construction , dramatically increasing the cost of remediation and resulting in certain irreversible harms. Moreover, eliminating review would close a vital pathway through which local residents are able to make their voices heard during the project planning and development process.

By comparison, requiring environmental review prior to construction ensures that government officials and the public know the potential harms associated with a proposed project, allowing for informed decision-making as well as the chance to develop effective design and operational mitigations. In short, NEPA and other protective federal statutes improve governance and make infrastructure projects better .8

NEPA as a framework for coordination across federal agencies

The NEPA process requires project sponsors to undertake a detailed study and solicit public input but does not mandate specific outcomes or mitigations. It is triggered when there is a proposal for federal action. Broadly speaking, such federal actions include projects and programs that federal agencies conduct, regulate, approve, or finance in whole or in part, as

well as agency rule-making, plans, policies, procedures, and proposed legislation.9 Specifically, NEPA applies to “actions where the Administration exercises sufficient control to condition the permit or project approval.”10

Each federal agency has NEPA procedures consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations.11 For the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 23 C.F.R. 771.107(b) defines “action” for NEPA purposes as, among other things, “a highway or transit project proposed for FHWA or FTA funding. It also includes activities such as joint and multiple use permits, changes in access control, etc., which may or may not involve a commitment of Federal funds.”12 For the light rail extension, CATS requested grant funding from the FTA through the New Starts program, triggering a NEPA review.13

Equally as important, NEPA serves as a framework that helps federal agencies coordinate review and

enforcement of numerous federal environmental , civil rights, and historic preservation statutes. In other

words, many federal laws apply to infrastructure projects, and NEPA helps bring order to the review and enforcement process. CEQ regulations require that federal agencies comply with other legal requirements concurrently with the NEPA process and that documentation—such as studies, surveys, and analyses that those other laws require—are integrated into the NEPA process. In fact, a draft EIS must list all federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements that must be obtained to implement the proposal.14 The value of this coordinating function cannot be overstated.

The environmental review process creates a factual record upon which federal agencies with jurisdiction can determine if a project sponsor is complying with federal law. For instance, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin related to public accommodations, voting, and federal programs, among other purposes.15 Title VI of the landmark bill states, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”16 Over the years, the Supreme Court has held that projects and policies that appear neutral on their face may produce unconstitutional discriminatory effects.17 DOT states in its Title VI circular that “practices that result in discriminatory effects or disparate impacts violate DOT’s Title VI regulations.”18

Discriminatory effects can take many different forms. This makes the Title VI mandate crosscutting, as any negative impact has the potential to disproportionately affect a federally protected class of persons . To determine if a proposed infrastructure project would produce disparate impacts , the government sponsor—usually state or local—must compare the location and severity of impacts against demographic and socio-economic data for the project corridor. For example, if a rail line resulted in the condemnation of many homes, businesses, and social or religious institutions of people of color, the project may violate federal civil rights laws .19

The public comment process during an EIS is necessary to prevent disparate environmental injustice in minority and low-income communities.Johnson 97 – Stephen M. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Law at Mercer University School of Law in Macon, Ga. He received his B.S. and J.D. from Villanova University and received an LL.M. in

Environmental Law from George Washington University School of Law. (“NEPA and SEPA's in the Quest for Environmental Justice,” 1-1-1997, https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2027&context=llr)

In many cases minority and low-income communities are disparately impacted by government actions because the communities do not have a voice in the decision-making process , and the communities lack the influence or political power of special interest groups that may support the government action .

Broad and flexible public participation provisions , like those in NEPA , empower communities and provide them with a voice in the decision-making process .

Broad and flexible public participation provisions also improve the government's decision-making process by enabling it to solicit information vital to that process.36 Without such provisions, the federal government may reach decisions that disparately impact minority and low-income communities

because the government fails to obtain input from the impacted communities . Arguably, the communities are

the most important group of experts. Local individuals, who will be most directly affected by a government action, can provide unique information about the impacts of the proposed action that the government may be unable to obtain elsewhere. 37 This additional information enables the government to identify additional alternatives to the proposed action. As a

result, it is more likely that the government can reach a decision that achieves its goal without disparately impacting minority or low-income communities. 38

When an agency prepares an EIS, NEPA provides opportunities for broad and flexible public participation. Before the

agency begins to prepare an EIS, it must provide notice to the public that it plans to prepare an EIS , 9 and it must solicit input from the public regarding the scope of issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS .4 At a minimum, the agency must invite "affected Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with the action on environmental grounds)" to participate in the scoping process.1 An agency may, but is generally not required to, hold public hearings to determine the scope of issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS.42 After the scoping process is completed, the agency prepares a draft EIS and makes it available for public comment.43

The agency may, but is generally not required to, hold public hearings on the draft EIS.44 The agency then prepares and circulates a final EIS.45 The agency must respond to all of the comments that it receives on the draft EIS when it prepares the final EIS.4" In addition, when the agency makes a decision regarding an action requiring an EIS, the agency must prepare a "concise" record of decision (ROD).47 Among other things, the ROD details "whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not., 48 The EIS process enables citizens to get involved in the decisionmaking process at an early stage and provides citizens with several opportunities to provide input prior to the ultimate decision. To the extent that communities are aware that an agency is conducting an EIS, the process provides communities with broad opportunities for public participation.

CEQ's public involvement regulations under NEPA are an important component of the NEPA public participation process . These regulations include several provisions that can be used to advance environmental justice by requiring federal agencies to take affirmative steps to involve communities in the NEPA decision-making process. Specifically, the regulations require agencies to provide public notice of "NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of environmental documents [such as EAs or draft or final EISs] so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or affected."49

When a proposed action will have local impacts, the regulations suggest that an agency could use several types of notice to reach interested parties, including notice through local media, publication in newsletters that may be expected to reach interested persons, notice to community organizations, notice to state or area-wide clearinghouses, direct mailing to owners or occupants of

nearby or affected property, or posting of notice on- and off-site in the area where the action is located.0 CEQ has also prepared draft guidance to implement Executive Order No. 12,898 that suggests that agencies should develop a

strategy for effective public involvement of minority or low-income populations in the NEPA review

of actions impacting those populations .51 The guidance suggests that agencies could establish outreach through religious organizations, minority business associations, environmental justice organizations, legal aid providers, homeowner and neighborhood watch groups, rural cooperatives, business and trade organizations, community and social service organizations, universities and colleges, labor organizations, civil rights organizations, local schools and libraries, senior citizens' groups, American Indian communities, and public health

agencies and clinics.52 These notification methods are much more likely to reach potentially impacted communities than traditional Federal Register notice or notice in the legal section of a local newspaper ."

It enables mitigation or alternative measure adoption, which averts environmental injustice---NEPA can delay disparate actions as well.Johnson 97 – Stephen M. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Law at Mercer University School of Law in Macon, Ga. He received his B.S. and J.D. from Villanova University and received an LL.M. in Environmental Law from George Washington University School of Law. (“NEPA and SEPA's in the Quest for Environmental Justice,” 1-1-1997, https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2027&context=llr)

In addition to providing citizens with an opportunity to participate in the government's environmental decision-making process, the NEPA review process provides several other benefits to communities that may be disparately impacted by government actions. First, regardless of whether an agency prepares an EIS or an EA, CEQ

regulations require that the agency make available to the public the NEPA documents , any public comments that the agency received on the documents, and any comments that the agency received from other agencies on the documents.62 NEPA does not require agencies to implement the least environmentally harmful

alternative identified in an EIS or EA.63 However, the EIS or EA may identify mitigation measures or alternatives that

are less environmentally harmful than the government's proposed action .64 If the community receives NEPA

documents, agency or public comments, or other information before the agency has completed its NEPA review, the community may be alerted that the government has failed to recognize the significance of certain facts in its review . For

example, the government may have failed to recognize the cumulative impact of the proposed action and other related actions or the unusual susceptibility of the community to particular health risks . The

community can then use the NEPA public participation procedures to provide the government with additional information prior to the

government's final decision. On the other hand, if the government decides to take an action that disparately impacts the community, and subsequently the community learns that less harmful alternatives were identified in the EIS or EA or that the EPA or another agency raised concerns about the impacts of the proposed action, the community may be able to use that information in political fora or other fora to prevent the

government from going forward with the proposed action .

The NEPA environmental review process is also an educational tool for the government and for

communities that may be disparately impacted by government action . On the one hand, the government has the opportunity to explain to the public, in understandable terms, the proposed action and potential alternatives, their impacts, and the reasons why it might decide to take a particular action.

The process allows the government to demonstrate that it is responding to public concerns by choosing an alternative that has a less adverse impact on the community or by incorporating mitigating features into the proposed plan.65 On the other hand, the community has the opportunity to convey to the

government the level of public opposition to , concern over , or support for a proposed action before

the government commits itself to that action .66 As experts, the community also educates the government on the proposed actions' real impacts on the community.67 Finally, the NEPA environmental review process provides a focal point around which communities can organize to oppose a project that disparately impacts the community.68

Delay

NEPA can also advance environmental justice by delaying government actions that may disparately impact minority or low-income communities . The NEPA environmental review process is time-consuming, 69 and citizens can delay it through litigation if the government does not fully comply . For

instance, if the government attempts to take an action that disparately impacts a minority or low-income community without preparing an EIS or an EA, and NEPA requires the government to prepare one of those documents, representatives of the community can sue the government to force compliance .0

Similarly, if the government prepares an inadequate EA or EIS, representatives of the community can file suit to challenge the document.71

Since NEPA can delay the federal government from taking actions that may disparately impact communities, the law can provide communities with valuable time to organize and to provide information to the government concerning a proposed action's potentially adverse impacts. The delay may also provide communities additional time to explore alternative ways to prevent the proposed action .

1ar – case

1ar – nepa adv – i/l – public comment k2 democracyThe public comment process is intrinsic to democracy---it connects citizens to regulation.Morrell 13 – Erica Morrell is a PhD candidate in public policy and sociology at the University of Michigan. Her current research examines the comparative politics of local food policy domains in Detroit and Cleveland. Erica is an editor of the Michigan Journal of Sustainability, a co-editor of this volume, and the author of one article in this volume that draws off findings from a prior research project. She received a Bachelor of Arts from Boston University in 2007. ("Public Comment Periods and Federal Environmental Impact Statements: Potentials and Pitfalls from the American Experience," Fall 2013, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mjs/12333712.0001.008?view=text;rgn=main)//tdi

The National Environmental Policy Act , adopted into law in 1970 and arguably the most comprehensive environmental

legislation in the United States to this day, requires federal agencies to consider and generate detailed assessments of the potential environmental , economic and socio-cultural impacts of proposed government actions through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to making any decisions about whether to move forward with such activities. What makes this mandated EIS process different from

some other decision-making efforts is the requirement that all interested parties, including state agencies, tribes, and other affected

groups and members of the public, be invited to provide input throughout parts of the EIS process largely as part of required ‘ public comment periods’ —sanctioned times during which the public has at least forty-five days between the release of a draft and final EIS to review and remark on proposed federal actions and alternatives. Officials and the public often (in theory) support engagement in these comment periods as a means to create comprehensive and inclusive decisions that best mitigate harm to the environment, economy, and society and thus lead to more sustainable federal activity overall.

Today, public comment periods are one of the most frequent and widespread forms of direct citizen

engagement decision-makers employ . They foster participation in federal regulation on issues from innovative breakthroughs in biotechnology and energy extraction to the more mundane construction of new roads and pipelines and are commonly led by the Department of Interior , the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture. In 2011 alone, 442 EISs were filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

—each involving its own public comment period. On any given day, there are thirty to sixty open public comment periods across the U.S. as part of an EIS process (Environmental Protection Agency 2012a).

1ar – at: t

1ar – at: t – legal personhood – w/mxt schaefer: The use of a DNE proxy to establish nature’s legal personhood and right to exist and

defend itself would be novel . The underlying information, methods, technology, standards and frameworks, however, are not;–this work is the subject of objective, verifiable peer-reviewed publications, and studies and projects that adhere to rigorous standards and controls.[107] The “novelty” is limited to the context in which this work now could be applied.[108]

1ar – at: t – legal personhood – c/iCounter-interpretation: Establish legal personhood means to elevate nature’s right to exist, persist, maintain, sustain and regenerate.Öncü 17 – Ismet Öncü is a student at Tilberg University. ("Environmental Law," 7-9-2017, https://blog.uvt.nl/environmentallaw/?paged=2)

Towards the end of its judgment, the Court stressed that ‘[b]esides our constitutional and legal duties, it is our moral duty to protect the environment and ecology’, and ‘to hand over the same Mother Earth to the next generation’. It stated further that ‘rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air, glaciers, [and] human life are unified and are [an] indivisible whole’; and that rivers and lakes have an

‘intrinsic right not to be polluted’, and rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air, glaciers and springs ‘have a right to

exist , persist , maintain , sustain and regenerate their own vital ecology system’ . In holding that these

entities are legal persons the Court directed that their rights ‘ shall be equivalent to the rights of human beings and the injury/harm caused to these bodies shall be treated as harm/injury to the human beings’. At an earlier point in the judgment, the Court had also commented that ‘[t]rees and wild animals have natural fundamental rights to survive in their natural own habitat and healthy environment ’ – however, the rights of wild animals were not reasserted in the decision’s concluding paragraphs and, as noted above, the Court did not go so far as to recognize the legal personality of any of Uttarakhand’s native fauna.

That’s what the aff does.Schaefer 18 – Stacy Jane Schaefer earned her J.D. from the George Washington National Law Center in 1994, and served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Joel F. Dubina, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. She spent the first decade of her career representing corporations as a litigation attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Arnold & Porter. Ms. Schaefer now serves as the Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works alongside scientists from government and nongovernmental organizations to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands. ("The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy," 4-18-2018, George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/)//tdi

This Article’s proposal of the DNE proxy offers a mechanism to produce a nameable and distinct legal

entity with “functional structure” comparable to a corporation . Nature’s DNE proxy in each case is established by virtue of the location and the effects of the underlying injury ; use of science-based classification systems and “operational” ecosystem definitions enable us to name, delineate and

describe a DNE proxy and the injury it faces or has sustained . Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can then demonstrate, on a single map, a polygon of a DNE proxy with different layers of information collected from a variety of sources, including remote sensing imagery, cartographic data, as well as data collected from previous research and surveys, on site assessments, drones, and photographs.[62]

A natural ecosystem is an organization that includes living organisms in a geographic area as well as the physical environment –all functioning together as a unit . [63] Use of the DNE proxy therefore

provides a site-specific “umbrella” to cover the physical environment , interconnected biodiversity,

natural habitats and natural processes such as water filtration, air purification and soil retention. As such,

the DNE proxy inherently represents nature’s interest in existing , persisting , and maintaining and

regenerating its vital cycles in a threatened or injured geographic area . It is an entity in nature that–through science-based human delineation–becomes nature’s legal person proxy that fits within the Court’s standing doctrine framework.

AT - Regs

AT - UqYour link assumes a non-streamlined NEPA---guidance documents solve efficiency concerns.McArdle 11 – John McArdle is an E&E Reporter. ("REGULATIONS: New NEPA guidance offers enviros, Dems political cover in red-tape wars," 12-15-2011, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059957681)//tdi

But when the White House Council on Environmental Quality last week issued new draft guidance seeking to expedite the environmental assessments that agencies are required to carry out under the National Environmental Protection Act ( NEPA ), the proposal did not draw any such outrage.

In fact, it was generally applauded by national environmental organizations.

"The guidance takes a sensible approach to promoting efficient and timely environmental reviews under NEPA," said David Moulton, senior director for legislative affairs for the Wilderness Society.

The support for streamlining environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS) might seem out of place among groups wary of any efforts that could undermine the long-fought-for environmental protections that have been built into how federal agencies conduct their business.

But the move carries a major upside for environmentalists and their Democratic backers: political cover, to show they too are working to ease red tape but without going to the extremes some Republicans are .

"This also might be a way [for the White House] to deflect some of the pressure on [Capitol Hill Democrats] on regulatory reform," said Amit Narang, who serves as regulatory policy advocate for the public interest group Public Citizen, which had been leading a lobbying effort against the most sweeping of the GOP proposals.

In just the past two weeks, a trio of regulatory overhaul measures were passed by the House and several federal red-tape reduction proposals were offered in the Senate .

The most far-reaching bill by far is the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," or "REINS Act," which awaits action in the

Senate after being passed by the House. That bill would require congressional approval of any new rule that has an economic impact of $100 million.

Earlier this month, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) unveiled a bipartisan jobs proposal that included the "Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act." Immediately after that bill was introduced, a coalition of environmental, labor and public interest groups panned it because they believe it will increase regulatory uncertainty and endanger the public by decreasing the information that businesses have to report to federal agencies.

"There's been so many calls on the right to weaken or waive NEPA one way or another, whether it's changing the statute itself or overhauling regulations," one NEPA expert who works in the D.C. environmental community said this week. "The rhetoric on that side is about streamlining and cutting red tape, but it's really all an insidious attack against NEPA."

Nicholas Yost, a former general counsel for CEQ who led the drafting of NEPA regulations during the Carter administration, said that

stressing the importance of efficiency in the implementation of NEPA is important at any time -- but that the current political battles on Capitol Hill may well have made it even more appropriate today.

"I'm somebody who cares deeply about environmental protection and I think NEPA has done an extraordinary amount to advance environmental protection in the U.S. by forcing agencies to look before they leap environmentally and forcing them to look at other ways of doing things," Yost said. But "at times in the past the process has been more cumbersome than need be, and in the sense that they are able to scrape some of the barnacles off the NEPA ship so that it can glide more swiftly through the ocean, that's a good thing."

The new NEPA draft guidance, which is just one part of a larger effort by CEQ to " modernize and

reinvigorate " the 40-year-old act , also allows the White House to show it is addressing concerns over burdensome regulations. The Obama administration released the draft guidance on the same day the House voted on the REINS Act.

No regulatory burden - the vast majority of agencies surveyed say efficiency problems stem from factors outside of NEPA. CRS 11 [(name redacted, Analyst in Environmental Policy) “The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation”, Congressional Research Service, January 10, 2011] TDI

In the past 20 years, numerous surveys and reports, conducted by both public agencies and private organizations, have studied the effectiveness of the NEPA process. They sought to determine issues such as how the NEPA process is implemented at individual agencies, whether the NEPA process delays project implementation, and, if so, how those delays

may be addressed and NEPA more effectively implemented. In 2004, a survey of staff from the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service sought to determine the degree to which the NEPA process slowed decision making and delayed projects.89 The survey identified the following primary reasons for project delays: • Decision maker changes in the project. • Court challenges to a project. • Poor documentation that needed to be redone. Changes in or additions to project alternatives. • Compliance requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Depending on the agency

responding, factors “outside the NEPA process” were identified as the cause of delay between 68% and 84% of the time. In 1997, CEQ published a study to determine NEPA’s effectiveness and methods to improve its

implementation.90 Study participants included individuals and organizations that were knowledgeable about NEPA and could be characterized

as both supporters and critics of NEPA. Generally, participants felt that NEPA’s enduring legacy was that it provided a framework for collaboration between federal agencies and those who will bear the environmental, social, and economic impacts of agency decisions. However, they also felt that NEPA often takes too long and costs too much, agencies make decisions before hearing from the public, documents are too long and technical for many people to use, and training for agency officials is inadequate at times. Participants felt that critical elements of efficient NEPA implementation included the extent to which an agency integrates NEPA’s goals into its internal planning processes at an early stage and provides information to the public. The study found that the extent to which the public is involved in the decision-making process also influences the potential for litigation. The study also found that some states, citizen groups, and businesses believe that certain EAs are prepared to avoid public involvement (i.e., because public meetings are not always required for EAs). The preparation of an EA, rather than an EIS, is reportedly the most common source of conflict and litigation under NEPA.91 The study further found that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and citizens viewed the NEPA process as a one-way communication process, skeptical that their input was effectively incorporated into agency decision making and hypothesizing that their involvement was often solicited after decisions regarding actions and alternatives have already been made. Citizens also reported being frustrated when they were treated as adversaries rather than welcome participants in the NEPA process. Citizens reported that they often felt overwhelmed by the resources available to project proponents and agencies. As a consequence, litigation may be seen as the only means to affect environmental decisions significantly.92 In 2002, a comprehensive study of the NEPA process was conducted by CEQ’s NEPA Task Force. CEQ formed the task force to review NEPA implementation practices and procedures and to determine opportunities to improve and modernize the process. The task force interviewed federal agencies; reviewed public comments, literature, and case studies; and spoke with individuals and representatives from state and local governments, tribes, and interest groups. In 2003, the task force released a report of its findings and recommendations.93 In compiling its research, the task force received more than 739 stakeholder comments. Those comments reflected current issues and challenges to NEPA implementation. With regard to delays in and the effectiveness of the NEPA process, a large percentage of comments were directed at factors related to NEPA analysis and documentation requirements and to the role and effects of litigation. According to CEQ, many respondents expressed a belief that the general requirement to provide adequate analysis had been taken to an extreme; that documents had become too timeconsuming and costly to produce; and that the resultant “analysis paralysis” forestalled appropriate management of public lands and ultimately left the public distrustful and disengaged. The stakeholders felt this was brought on by vague requirements that were open to considerable interpretation and, therefore, an easy target for litigation. Because the requirements were vague, those commenters further felt that agencies were not sure how much analysis would be considered adequate by the courts, resulting in

pressure to produce more. In contrast, other respondents felt the “analysis paralysis” scenario was a misnomer. These respondents believed that agencies often predetermine the outcome of the planning process,

that they often fail to consider other reasonable alternatives, and that the analysis agencies provide is often inadequate to support the management plan they propose . These commenters felt that the environmental effects of proposed actions are often inadequately considered, particularly the cumulative effects; that agencies rely on inadequate or outdated data; and that agency research is not held to the same rigorous standards as research in other fields, particularly in terms of scientific reference and peer review. Moreover, they felt that agencies are sometimes intent on following a predetermined course of action

and ignore concerns submitted by the public. With regard to the role of litigation, a number of respondents felt that litigation only results when agencies do not comply with NEPA requirements. Some felt that it is only through litigation that concerned parties can get agencies to recognize their concerns and give serious attention to the environmental effects of their proposed actions. One issue discussed in the task force report was challenges faced by agencies with regard to budget, training, and staffing constraints. This issue is discussed in more depth in a report, cited by the task force, that was prepared by the Natural Resources Council (an environmental conservation organization). That report surveyed 12 federal agencies to determine how they implemented the NEPA process.94 Included in the report was a finding that, due to budget and staff constraints, most agencies’ NEPA offices lack an ongoing national tracking system to monitor the numbers and types of NEPA documents that their agency is preparing or has completed. Also, the report found that agencies were unable to document their NEPA workload, calculate average preparation times or costs, show trends in these factors over time, or respond objectively to assertions that excessive time or money is being spent on complying with NEPA’s requirements. The absence of such information, the report asserted, leaves agencies in a weak position to respond factually to or critically evaluate administrative or legislative proposals to “streamline” the NEPA process (see discussion, below).

AT - Regulation goodRegulation is on balance good for the economy; their theory is idealistic and wrong about good governance, ours is ethical, key to environmental protections, and epistemologically sound. Lipsky 16 – Michael Lipsky is a Former Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Former Foundation Official, Ford Foundation. ("Why Regulation is Necessary and Proper for a Well-Functioning Democracy and Market Economy," 4-12-2016, https://scholars.org/brief/why-regulation-necessary-and-proper-well-functioning-democracy-and-market-economy)//tdi

When they work well, democratic governments make laws to protect people from harmful things that they cannot prevent on their own. This is the basic role of good government, yet the American public hears a constant drumbeat of anti-regulatory messages from conservative politicians and think tanks and influential business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to these groups ,

regulations are almost always bad for the country, because they interfere with “free” market activity and inhibit investment and job growth.

But the arguments against sensible regulations are not valid empirically or in principle . Much evidence

shows that the benefits of regulations vastly outweigh the costs. Furthermore, anti-regulatory claims rest

on faulty ideas about the economy and democratic governance .

Wrong Empirically

For many years, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has systematically studied the costs of regulation. Looking at more than 100 major regulations over the ten-year period ending in 2010 , it found that benefits were three to ten times greater than costs . For every regulatory agency considered, benefits exceeded

costs. As the Office reported to Congress in June 2014, the economic benefits of federal regulations totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the previous decade, while the costs were a mere fraction of that total.

Many other studies have also shown that regulations have little impact on employment – or else a slight positive effect on balance. Businesses find ways to deal with new regulations. When automobile companies were required to reduce air pollution, for example, they started using catalytic converters. Car prices rose slightly, perhaps leading to some job layoffs, but employment grew overall as more workers were hired to make, sell, and install the converters.

Wrong about How the Economy Really Works

In Econ 101, students learn that, in theory, a pure market consisting of large numbers of independent buyers and sellers will produce goods and services in optimal amounts at the lowest possible prices. In this ideal pure market world, rules restricting buyers or sellers can only distort the

optimal distribution of goods and services. However, this abstract academic lesson tells us little about the real world,

because pure market conditions almost never exist in actual commerce . Real-world markets differ from theoretical models in markets in several ways – and good regulations can help those imperfect markets work better:

Real-world customers often lack complete information about products they might buy , or have difficulty understanding technical terms describing goods like cars, pharmaceutical drugs, and mortgages.

Consumer protection regulations help by requiring companies to spell out the features and risks of their products.

In the real world, markets are often dominated by one or a small number of sellers, who can limit production and force customers to pay artificially high prices. Anti-monopoly regulations can insure greater competition and fairer prices .

Unregulated markets do not take social costs into account. Unimpeded by public rules, anything-goes markets give us air and water pollution, employment discrimination, exposure to pornography by children, and other harmful results that most people in society abhor. Democratic governments can put in place rules that force sellers to avoid or limit such unacceptable consequences of market activities (called “negative externalities”).

In addition to the departures from “pure free market” theory that almost all experts understand, the new field of behavioral economics has

discovered clear evidence that peoples’ preferences are strongly influenced by how choices are presented to them. For example, experiments show that people’s plans about retirement programs vary depending on whether they have to “opt in” or

are automatically enrolled and have to “opt out.” Corporations spend billions to influence consumer preferences and set up choices to maximize profits, so it hardly seems out of line for governments to use product information rules to ensure optimal consumer information and beneficial options for citizens.

Wrong about Good Governance

Throughout American history, governments have subsidized businesses and established conditions for markets to function. But periodically, as Americans experienced unacceptable harms from market practices, they have insisted that public authorities override protests from profit-seekers and step in to secure the public interest. Examples of such public-interest regulations include laws to outlaw child labor , building code regulations

to ensure stable construction and prevent catastrophic fires , food and pharmaceutical regulations ,

environmental protections , and laws to prevent irresponsible mortgage lending . Those who claim that all such regulations are unwarranted are implying that governments should only maximize private profits, not protect the environment and ensure public health and security. This makes little sense.

Claims that regulation is bad for business are wrong – because the interests of more companies are well served by regulations in the public interest. To sell their products, businesses depend on public confidence that products will not harm people. Businesses also benefit when all of them have to meet the same standards, so some firms cannot undercut others. Even when some businesses are in fact disadvantaged by proposed regulations—such as coal-fired power plants required to limit pollution— others will benefit , such as firms

promoting wind and solar power .

Not all regulations are effective or achieve their purposes. Some are too restrictive, while others are weak or improperly

implemented. But that does not mean that all regulation is harmful . Although society benefits from well-functioning

markets, critics are wrong to claim that all government regulations are bad for business. To produce optimal results for firms and citizens, America needs a balance between markets free from unnecessary

impediments and public rules to prevent businesses from inflicting grievous harms on people and the environment .

AT - EconomyEconomic downturns don’t cause conflict---stats proveChristopher Clary 15, Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT, Postdoctoral Fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, “Economic Stress and International Cooperation: Evidence from International Rivalries,” April 22, 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2597712

Do economic downturn s generate pressure for diversionary conflict? Or might downturns encourage austerity and

economizing behavior in foreign policy? This paper provides new evidence that economic stress is associated with conciliatory policies between strategic rivals. For states that view each other as military threats, the biggest step possible toward

bilateral cooperation is to terminate the rivalry by taking political steps to manage the competition. Drawing on data from 109 distinct rival

dyads since 1950, 67 of which terminated, the evidence suggests rivalries were approximately twice

as likely to terminate during economic downturns than they were during periods of economic normalcy. This is true

controlling for all of the main alternative explanations for peaceful relations between foes (democratic

status, nuclear weapons possession, capability imbalance, common enemies, and international systemic changes), as well as many other

possible confounding variables . This research questions existing theories claiming that economic downturns

are associated with diversionary war , and instead argues that in certain circumstances peace may result from

economic troubles.

1ar – at: impact – energy Energy will not spark a great power war---cost of war deters major conflict Emily Meierding 5/19/16, PhD., Assistant Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, 5/19/16, “Oil wars: Why nations aren’t battling over resources,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/19/oil-wars-why-nations-arent-battling-over-petroleum-resources/

When China’s Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig sailed into waters off the Paracel Islands in May 2014, it provoked an international crisis. Hanoi insisted that the rig was operating illegally in Vietnamese territory. Both countries sent naval and fishing vessels to enforce their claims. Commentators predicted that the two states might come to blows.

The confrontation died down, but a critical question remains: Do countries fight over oil resources?

The question isn’t just pertinent to the South China Sea. The Arctic, Caspian, East China Sea and eastern Mediterranean have all been identified as potential “hot spots” for international oil conflicts. Numerous conflicts, including Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Japan’s invasion of the Dutch East Indies in World War II, Germany’s attacks against the Russian Caucasus in the same war, the Iran-Iraq War, the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, and even the Falklands War, have been described as international “oil wars.”

However, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the risk of international oil wars is slim . Although oil is an

exceptionally valuable strategic and economic resource, fighting for it does not pay. The belief that countries fight for oil rests on a flawed foundational assumption: Countries reap the same benefits from foreign oil resources as from domestic oil resources. In reality,

profiting from oil wars is hard.

Countries face at least four sets of obstacles that discourage them from fighting for oil: invasion costs, occupation costs, international costs and investment costs. Invasion costs are the damage that wars inflict on oil fields and infrastructure. Occupation costs arise from local resistance to foreign occupation, which can target oil industry infrastructure and personnel. International costs are imposed by the international community, which can respond to oil grabs with economic sanctions and military interventions. Investment costs are the challenges of attracting foreign capital and technical expertise to occupied oil fields.

Collectively, these four sets of costs dramatically reduce the payoffs of fighting for oil and the appeal of oil wars. When the many other costs of war, including manpower and materiel, are taken into account, fighting for oil becomes even less attractive. From a purely rational standpoint, countries shouldn’t launch oil wars.

But, countries don’t always act rationally. To test the oil war hypothesis, we have to take another look at historical so-called oil wars.

Closer examination shows that oil has not been the fundamental cause of any international wars. The Falklands War in 1982 was triggered by national pride and Argentine officials’ fear that their window of opportunity for retaking the islands was closing. Rather than fight over oil, Britain and Argentina tried to use it as a catalyst for cooperation. In the 1970s and 1990s, they tried to jointly develop the Falklands’ oil resources.

The Iran-Iraq War, from 1980 to 1988, was also not an oil war. Iraq initially aimed only to gain control over the Shatt al-Arab waterway and 130 square miles of contested territory. In the early stages of the war, Iraq repeatedly offered to withdraw from Iran, if Tehran would accept those demands. However, Iranian officials accused the Iraqis of fighting for oil in order to discredit them internationally.

The Chaco War, from 1932 to 1935, was also launched for other reasons. Bolivia and Paraguay knew that oil discoveries in the Chaco region were unlikely. They fought because of national pride and to avoid further territorial dismemberment, after major losses in the 19th century. The oil explanation didn’t appear until the war bogged down, when leaders tried to transfer responsibility for the devastating conflict onto international oil companies.

On three occasions, countries have launched major military campaigns targeting oil resources. However, these were fundamentally wars for survival, not for oil. In World War II, Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies and Germany attacked the Russian Caucasus because leaders realized that, without more oil, their regimes would collapse. Japan would have to withdraw from China, which was “tantamount to telling us to commit suicide,” as Japanese Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori put it. Hitler was even more succinct: “Unless we get the Baku oil,” he stated, “the war is lost.”

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a war for survival. Contrary to popular beliefs, Saddam Hussein was not attempting to greedily grab more oil resources. Instead, he was afraid that the United States was trying to overthrow his regime. The United States had supported the Kurds’

rebellion in the 1970s, perpetrated the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, and by 1990, seemed to be squeezing Iraq economically. According to Hussein, the United States was driving down oil prices by directing Kuwait to exceed its OPEC production quota.

Hussein believed that seizing Kuwait offered the only means of eluding the United States’ hostile designs. By controlling his neighbor, Hussein could raise oil prices, escape his economic crisis and regain domestic support. He knew that the maneuver was a long shot. Regime records show that Hussein expected the United States would try to force him out of Kuwait. Still, it was either that or regime collapse. As Hussein’s deputy, Tariq Aziz, said after the war, “You will either be hit inside your house and destroyed, economically and militarily. Or you go outside and attack…”

Japanese, German and Iraqi leaders believed that they were fighting wars for survival. Participants in other so-called oil wars were fighting for additional reasons, like national pride. None of the conflicts were driven by oil ambitions.

This is good news for contemporary i nternational r elations. Oil competition in areas like the South China Sea is not a serious threat to international security. Countries may engage in minor oil spats , like China and Vietnam’s

rig confrontation, to reinforce their resource claims. However, these incidents will not escalate into international wars.

There is also little risk of oil imperialism. Countries like China will not satisfy their oil needs by seizing

foreign oil fields . Historically, leaders have only initiated oil grabs when they believed that their survival depended on it. This condition is exceedingly rare, even in wartime. And, it’s unrelated to the price of oil. The United States considered grabbing Middle Eastern oil in 1975, after the first energy crisis drove up prices. However, the Ford administration refrained, because the costs of aggression were too high.

Lastly, oil won’t inspire great power wars . The United States and China may eventually come to blows. Some of their military

campaigns may target oil resources, if controlling them seems necessary for regime survival. However, oil will not be the

fundamental cause of a Sino-American conflict. It’s not worth fighting for.

1ar – at: da – court clog

1ar – uq Courts are overburdened – they are in the midst of a judicial catastrophe because of short staffing and there is no end in sight. Bayles 3/19 [(Cara, Features reporter at Law360) “Crisis to Catastrophe: As Judicial Ranks Stagnates, ‘Desperation’ Hits the Bench” Law 360, March 19, 2019] TDIThe chief judge of California’s Eastern District puts the same disclaimer at the top of all his rulings. Only arguments “necessary to reach the decision in this order” will be addressed, he warns, blaming a “shortage of district judges and staff.” “Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” his rulings say. “The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact the offices of U.S. Senators [Dianne] Feinstein and [Kamala] Harris to address this court’s inability to accommodate the parties and this action.” Federal judges tend to avoid politics, especially in official missives. If California’s senators object, they didn’t tell Law360; neither responded to comment requests. But Judge O’Neill said he’s desperate. Judges in the Eastern District carry the sixth-heaviest workload in the nation. The next available civil trial date

there is in 2021, he said. Last week, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended Congress add 73 permanent judgeships to 27 courts across the country. The request would nearly double the six-person bench of California’s Eastern District by creating five additional judgeships. Those additions are necessary, Judge O’Neill said. He works a 14-hour day that begins at 4 a.m. He’s served on the Eastern District’s bench for 20 years, and when he retires next year, he won’t maintain a caseload, because he's too exhausted. By February 2020, both he and

his colleague, U.S. District Judge Morrison England, will have retired. Last June, every judge in the Eastern District signed a letter to lawmakers warning without replacements, the workload there would escalate from “crisis”

to “catastrophe.” “The huge stress that is being put on district judges has a consequence beyond major,” Judge O’Neill told Law360. The 87,000-square-mile Eastern District, which spans more than half the landmass of California, hasn’t seen its bench grow since 1978, when it got three additional judgeships from the Omnibus Judgeship Act. That bill, creating 113 permanent judges, passed during the Carter administration. Judge O’Neill, now 66, had not yet graduated from law school. The last time Congress passed a large-scale judgeship bill was in 1990, when 69 permanent district court positions were created. Since then, judgeships have

inched up by 4 percent, while filings have increased by at least 38 percent. In overburdened districts across the country,

cases languish, judges are burned out and attorneys are starting to avoid federal court altogether . But

it’s unlikely much will come of this latest recommendation. The same partisanship that’s blocked judicial nominees has effectively halted new judgeships as well, according to Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center. “It’s not just that they haven’t passed one in a while,” he said. “They’ve stopped passing them.” The ‘Sting’ of Disparities Last year, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares was feeling hopeful. New Jersey, where he serves as chief judge, has the fourth-heaviest caseload in the country, but he had the ear of then-White House counsel Don McGahn. Rather than pushing for a sprawling judgeship bill, McGahn seemed receptive to a plan to add three judges to New Jersey’s bench, Judge Linares told Law360. But between the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and the government shutdown, the plan was put on hold. It “died on the vine” when McGahn stepped down in October, Judge Linares said. “The politics have gotten in the way,” the judge said. “It’s affecting our litigants, and it’s affecting the orderly dispensation of justice.” This year, the Judicial Conference recommended New Jersey get four additional judges, marking an uptick from 2017, when it requested three. Every two years, the conference analyzes the docket in all 94 federal districts for complexity. The result is then divided by the number of judgeships allotted to the district, yielding “weighted caseloads.” In New Jersey, the weighted caseload is 903, more than double the benchmark of 430 weighted cases the conference considers a manageable docket. But not every district shoulders such a heavy load. Because the judicial roster reflects decades-old population and litigation trends, absurd disparities have arisen. Hawaii and Delaware each have four judgeships, but when weighted for the case complexity, a Delaware judge has more than four times the workload of one in Hawaii. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has five more judgeships than New Jersey, where there were more than three times as many new complaints filed in 2018. “The fact we have less judges and more weighted cases than some of our brethren does sting a little more than it should,” Judge Linares said. “But that’s not their fault.” The reasons for the workload crises in some courts are as varied as the terrain and people who make up the districts. A proliferation of patent, multidistrict litigation and pharmaceutical cases are to blame for the uptick in New Jersey, Judge Linares said. In Arizona, immigration proceedings and the caseload from Indian nations contribute heavily to the docket. Delaware’s business-friendly tax scheme has drawn half the country’s publicly traded companies to incorporate there, bringing with them a bevy of lawsuits. And with more than 20 million residents, Florida is the third-most populous state in the country after California and Texas. It’s grown by about 30 percent since 1990. That’s why lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida have doubled since 1992, according to Chief U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore. “Florida’s a growing state,” he said. “There’s only so many cases you can push through the pipe with the amount of hours in the day.” ‘We Try to Avoid Federal Court’ Intellectual property litigator Dana Herberholz of Parsons Behle & Latimer always sits down with his clients and warns them about the backlog in the District of Idaho, where two judges cover 83,000 square miles. They deal with 561 weighted cases at a time, and the Judicial Conference recommends adding a third judge

to their ranks. “They truly are understaffed and overworked. They’re doing the best they can but it is very congested,” he said. “It’s not uncommon to wait six months or more for an order from the court.” Civil

litigants are hardest hit by backlog . The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 sets deadlines for federal prosecutions, meaning criminal cases often bump civil trial and hearing dates. Richard Watters, a personal injury attorney, said an Eastern District of California

case he filed in 2016 still doesn’t have a trial date. “Quite often, we try to avoid federal court because it takes so long,” he said. “And I prefer federal courts and their procedures.”

1ar – at: linkYou should be suspect of the truth value of their link argument---it’s borderline denialism.*also applies to regs da

Wilkinson 18 – Todd Wilkinson is an American author and journalist. ("The Magna Carta Of American Environmental Laws Is Under Siege," 2-18-2018, https://mountainjournal.org/killing-the-most-important-environmental-law-iamerica)//tdi

Notably, some of the fiercest attackers of NEPA have been lawmakers who receive contributions from

the fossil fuel industry , including companies that have waged deliberate attempts to silence scientists.

They characterize the law as being excessively onerous , riddled with red tape requirements , too costly

and too burdensome to agencies having to comply .

Here is s common pattern: an agency, coming under political pressure, will issue a decision that does not address issues consistent with the precautionary principle. Then a group will sue, a judge will agree that a decision was made arbitrarily and capriciously and so the agency must go back to the drawing board .

Routinely, members of Congress hostile to NEPA attack the law, judges and environmentalists. They claim

there has been a pandemic of lawsuits when the facts actually suggest otherwise and facts show that often industry brings lawsuits too .

Seldom do lawmakers acknowledge that NEPA safeguards the quality of life of their constituents and yet when disaster strikes they blame government ineptitude. Two factors hobbling NEPA compliance in recent years have been lack of adequate staffing to conduct reviews and cutbacks to scientific research.

1ar – no disease impactInfectious diseases don’t cause extinction Owen Cotton-Barratt 17, et al, PhD in Pure Mathematics, Oxford, Lecturer in Mathematics at Oxford, Research Associate at the Future of Humanity Institute, 2/3/2017, Existential Risk: Diplomacy and Governance, https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Existential-Risks-2017-01-23.pdf

For most of human history, natural pandemics have posed the greatest risk of mass global fatalities.37 However, there are some reasons to

believe that natural pandemics are very unlikely to cause human extinction . Analysis of the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list database has shown that of the 833 recorded plant and animal species extinctions known to have occurred since 1500, less than 4% (31 species) were ascribed to infectious disease .38

None of the mammals and amphibians on this list were globally dispersed, and other factors aside from infectious disease also contributed to their extinction. It therefore seems that our own species, which is very numerous , globally dispersed , and capable of a rational response to problems , is very unlikely to be killed off by a natural pandemic.

One underlying explanation for this is that highly lethal pathogens can kill their hosts before they have a chance to spread, so there is a selective pressure for pathogens not to be highly lethal . Therefore, pathogens are likely to co-

evolve with their hosts rather than kill all possible hosts.39

dne neg

T

1nc – TTo grant is to bestow a privilegeLakewood v. Pierce County 2001 [3 P.3d 1 (2001) 106 Wash.App. 63 CITY OF LAKEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Respondent. No. 25010-1-II. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. Decided May 4, 2001. Accessed via Leagle.com]

RCW 35A.47.040 provides that Lakewood has the authority to "grant nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets" (emphasis added). To "grant" means to "allow," "to permit as a right [or] privilege," or to "give, bestow, confer," as in to "grant a loan to an applicant." WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 989 (3d ed.1969). In contrast, to "require" means to "claim by right and authority: insist upon," to "demand," or "to impose a compulsion or command upon [someone] to do something." WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1929 (3d ed.1969).

Granting legal personhood means recognizing legal rightsO’Donnell and Talbot-Jones 18 [(Erin, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School, water law and policy specialist, focusing on water markets, environmental flows, and water governance; and Julia, Lecturer in School of Government, Australian National University) “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India” Ecology and Society 23(1):7] TDI

These problems require the development of innovative institutional arrangements that incentivize a change in the behavior of organizations and individuals (Head and Alford 2013). One such recent development has been the granting of legal personhood to nature. This involves recognizing nature—either as a whole, or a specific part, such as a river—as a legal person. In law, this means that nature has a basic set of legal rights that grants it certain rights, duties, and responsibilities (Naffine 2003). Although referred to as a legal “person,” these legal rights are not the same as human rights, which include civil and political rights. Instead legal rights comprise three elements: legal standing (the right to sue and be sued in court), the right to enter and enforce legal contracts, and the right to own property (Naffine 2009, O’Donnell and Talbot-Jones 2017).

regs da

1nc – da NEPA is an archaic heap of regulations that overburden the economy and cut off energy access.Stein 6-19 – Kenny Stein is the Director of Policy and Federal Affairs for the American Energy Alliance. ("The National Environmental Policy Act Belongs in a Museum," 6-19-2019, RealClearEnergy, https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/06/19/the_national_environmental_policy_act_belongs_in_a_museum_110451.html)//tdi

NEPA is a bureaucratic force of nature that predates even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its effect is seen when legislative calls to revitalize America’s infrastructure are treated as a joke , and with little wonder. It’s well known that even if a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill were passed , prospective projects would be held up for years due to NEPA and a host of other regulatory beasts . If America wants to get serious about energy infrastructure, political leaders first must get serious about retiring or significantly reforming NEPA.

“Instead of rebuilding our country, Washington has spent decades building a dense thicket of rules, regulations and red tape,” President Trump said in his remarks on regulatory relief. He went on, “No longer can we allow these rules and regulations to tie down our economy, chain up our

prosperity, and sap our great American spirit.” And he’s right. NEPA is often referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental law. It’s a prime target for deregulation.

NEPA was originally intended as a way to inform federal agencies of environmental concerns and analyze the potential environmental impacts of prospective infrastructure or development projects . But

like many regulatory policies, NEPA soon ballooned into a massive bureaucratic mess. What used to be a 12-month review process for larger projects, now takes six years, on average. Ten-page reports transformed into

thousand-page long tomes. The exploratory costs exploded to the point where NEPA compliance has an

annual price tag of one billion dollars in direct federal expenditures .

And it’s not just highways and bridges that are being held up. The costs associated with regulatory overreach are impacting American energy . Natural gas pipelines are facing delays being built despite the advantages they provide in terms of efficiency, safety, and their ability to deliver energy to those who need it at exactly the moment when they need it.

Last year, a cold snap in New England exposed the shortage of pipeline capacity, when a tanker of Russian gas arrived in Boston Harbor to provide life-saving energy to a freezing state . All over the country, developers have been trying to build natural gas pipelines, oftentimes winning federal approval only to be denied permits years later from states citing nonsensical regulations .

NEPA has tied up hundreds of energy and transit projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars that would improve the lives of average Americans.

Despite the temporary media attention around infrastructure with the discussion in Congress of a bipartisan, trillion-dollar infrastructure bill in

the future, the reality is that regulations like NEPA will always undercut any progress. Energy and transit projects must be a priority to be planned and built within years, not decades. If the president wants to really build gleaming roads and bridges, he must start by addressing the historic relic that is NEPA.

Regulation kills the economy---decreases hiring, increases barriers to entry, and prompts flight.Millsap 15 – Adam Millsap is an Assistant Director, L. Charles Hilton Jr. Center for the Study of Economic Prosperity and Individual Opportunity, Florida State University. ("How the Unseen Effect of Regulation Harms Economic Growth," 10-1-2015, Mercatus Center, https://www.mercatus.org/expert_commentary/how-unseen-effect-regulation-harms-economic-growth)//tdi

The 2015 Economic Freedom of the World report was recently released and out of the 157 countries ranked the United States fell from the 12th slot in 2014 to 16th . This includes an especially low rank of 49th in the category “Business regulations,” which is probably not surprising to any U.S. business owner .

According to the Mercatus Center’s RegData database, federal restrictions on business activities increased 28 percent from 1997 to 2012. While

these regulations may be well intentioned, excessive rules and restrictions can have pernicious effects on the

economy .

A new study that uses RegData shows that federal regulations decrease new hiring . In addition to this direct, negative effect on

economic activity, there is an unseen effect — the businesses that are never started because potential entrepreneurs are discouraged by all the red tape in their path .

Along with the decline in new hiring, the aforementioned study shows that more regulated industries experience fewer new entrants into the market each year . This unseen effect negatively affects economic growth in the long run and the short run.

An agency rule, restriction or regulation may not seem like a big deal on its own, but the cumulative effect can be death by a thousand cuts. For instance, the combination of new $5-per-hour parking meters and a local rule requiring establishments to verify that at least 80 percent of their business comes from the local area contributed to the recent closure of a 100-year-old fruit store in Palm Beach, Fla.

If you talk to any local business owners you know, you may get a list of similar complaints about the costs — in money, time, effort and lost opportunities — that their local government places on them. How many hopeful entrepreneurs, discouraged by the plethora of local regulations obstructing their path, decide that starting a business just isn’t worth the hassle?

Economists have long maintained that profit and loss are important signals, which relay information about the most efficient use of scarce

resources. Like losses, firm failures also serve a useful function. A recent study in the Journal of Regional Science finds evidence that both firm openings and closings positively affect subsequent entrepreneurship and employment growth in metropolitan areas. The researchers contend that firm closings — when combined with new openings —

transmit valuable information to future entrepreneurs about the local economic environment such as the level of demand, availability of financing, and quality of the labor force.

The more information prospective entrepreneurs have, the less likely they are to err, which increases their chance of success. This conclusion is probably not surprising to anyone who has ever learned what not to do by watching someone else make a mistake.

Regulations at both the federal and local level can prevent the information transmitted by firm openings and closings from ever materializing. This is because many regulations act as a barrier to entry that prevents entrepreneurs from ever serving a single customer. We can never know how many potential entrepreneurs

have tried to start a business, only to run into some regulatory hurdle that made it impractical to continue. This type of “failure” is unseen and as such it doesn’t provide the same level of information to other entrepreneurs that traditional failures do.

Federal regulations get most of the attention, but each local government has its own set of building codes, permit procedures,

tax remittance laws, zoning regulations, architectural review boards, etc., which every entrepreneur must comply with. For

example, local Landmark Commissions and Historical Preservation Boards routinely block the demolition of vacant, privately owned buildings that haven’t been used in years. This delays business plans and costs money.

Cities and states that are struggling with population decline and business flight should take a serious look at their regulatory environment and get rid of unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations .

Local governments that streamline their regulations will create a friendlier environment for aspiring entrepreneurs, and this can generate economic growth in both the short and long run .

Economic decline causes war.Sandaram 19 [Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor, was United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, and received the Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought, and Vladimir Popov is a Research Director at the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute in Berlin, “Economic Crisis Can Trigger World War,” Feb 12, 2019, http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/02/economic-crisis-can-trigger-world-war/]

Economic recovery efforts since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis have mainly depended on unconventional monetary policies. As fears rise

of yet another international financial crisis, there are growing concerns about the increased possibility of large-scale military conflict. More worryingly, in the current political landscape, prolonged economic crisis , combined with rising

economic inequality, chauvinistic ethno-populism as well as aggressive jingoist rhetoric, including threats, could easily spin out of control and ‘morph’ into military conflict, and worse, world war . Crisis responses limited The 2008-2009 global financial crisis almost ‘bankrupted’ governments and caused systemic collapse. Policymakers managed to pull the world economy from the brink, but soon switched from counter-cyclical fiscal efforts to unconventional monetary measures, primarily ‘quantitative easing’ and very low, if not negative real interest rates.

But while these monetary interventions averted realization of the worst fears at the time by turning the US economy around, they did little to address underlying economic weaknesses, largely due to the ascendance of finance in recent decades at the expense of the real economy. Since then, despite promising to do so, policymakers have not seriously pursued, let alone achieved, such needed reforms. Instead, ostensible structural reformers have taken advantage of the crisis to pursue largely irrelevant efforts to further ‘casualize’ labour

markets. This lack of structural reform has meant that the unprecedented liquidity central banks injected into economies has not been well allocated to stimulate resurgence of the real economy. From bust to bubble Instead, easy credit raised asset prices to levels even higher than those prevailing before 2008. US house prices are now 8% more than at the peak of the property bubble in 2006, while its price-to-earnings ratio in late 2018 was even higher than in 2008 and in 1929, when the Wall Street Crash precipitated

the Great Depression. As monetary tightening checks asset price bubbles, another economic crisis — possibly more

severe than the last, as the economy has become less responsive to such blunt monetary interventions — is considered likely. A decade of such unconventional monetary policies, with very low interest rates, has greatly depleted their ability to revive the economy. The implications

beyond the economy of such developments and policy responses are already being seen. Prolonged economic distress has

worsened public antipathy towards the culturally alien — not only abroad, but also within. Thus, another round of economic stress is deemed likely to foment unrest , conflict , even war as it is blamed on the foreign.

So does energy insecurity.Neil King, global economics editor for the WSJ, Peak Oil: A Survey of Security Concerns, Center for a New American

Security, ‘8, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Working%20Paper_PeakOil_King_Sept2008.pdf

Many commentators in the United States and abroad have begun to wrestle with the question of whether soaring oil prices and market volatility could spark an outright oil war between major powers —possibly ignited not by China or Russia, but by the

U nited S tates. In a particularly pointed speech on the topic in May, James Russell of the Naval Postgraduate School in California

addressed what he called the increasing militarization of international energy security. “Energy security is now

deemed so central to ‘national security’ that threats to the former are liable to be reflexively interpreted as threats to the latter,” he told a

gathering at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Houston’s Rice University.6 The possibility that a large-scale war could

break out over access to dwindling energy resources, he wrote, “is one of the most alarming prospects facing

the current world system.”7 Mr. Russell figures among a growing pool of analysts who worry in particular about the

psychological readiness of the U nited S tates to deal rationally with a sustained oil shock . Particularly troubling is

the increasing perception within Congress that the financial side of the oil markets no longer functions rationally. It has either been taken over by speculators or is

being manipulated, on the supply side, by producers who are holding back on pumping more oil in order to drive up the price. A breakdown in trust for the oil markets , these analysts fear, could spur calls for government action—even military intervention . “The perceptive

chasm in the United States between new [oil] market realities and their impact on the global distribution of power will one day close,” Mr. Russell said. “And when it does, look out.”8 The World at Peak: Taking the Dim View For years, skeptics scoffed at predictions that the United States would hit its own domestic oil production peak by sometime in the late 1960s. With its oil fields pumping full out, the U.S. in 1969 was providing an astonishing 25 percent of the world’s oil supply—a role no other country has ever come close to matching. U.S. production then peaked in December 1970, and has fallen steadily ever since, a shift that has dramatically altered America’s own sense of vulnerability and reordered its military priorities. During World War II, when its allies found their own oil supplies cut off by the war, the United States stepped in and made up the difference. Today it is able to meet less than a third of its own needs. A similar peak in worldwide production would have far more sweeping consequences. It would, for one, spell the end of the world’s unparalleled economic boom over the last century. It would also dramatically reorder the wobbly balance of power between nations as energy-challenged industrialized countries turn their sights on the oil-rich nations of the Middle East and Africa. In a peak oil future, the small, flattened, globalized world that has awed recent commentators would become decidedly round and very vast again. Oceans

will reemerge as a hindrance to trade, instead of the conduit they have been for so long. An energy-born jolt to the world economy would leave no corner of the globe untouched. Unable to pay their own fuel bills, the tiny Marshall Islands this summer faced the possibility of going entirely without power. That is

a reality that could sweep across many of the smallest and poorest countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, reversing many of the tentative gains in those regions and stirring deep social unrest . Large patches

of the world rely almost entirely on diesel-powered generators for what skimpy electricity they now have. Those generators are the first to run empty as prices soar. A British parliamentary report released in June on “The Impact of Peak Oil on International Development” concluded that “the deepening energy crisis has the potential to make poverty a permanent state for a growing number of people, undoing the development efforts of a generation.”9 We are seeing some of the

consequences already in Pakistan – a country of huge strategic importance, with its own stash of nuclear weapons – that is now in

the grips of a severe energy crisis . By crippling the country’s economy, battering the stock market, and spurring mass protests,

Pakistan’s power shortages could end up giving the country’s Islamic parties the leverage they have long

needed to take power . It’s not hard to imagine similar scenarios playing out in dozens of other developing countries. Deepening economic unrest will

put an enormous strain on the United Nations and other international aid agencies. Anyone who has ever visited a major UN relief hub knows that their fleets of Land Rovers, jumbo jets and prop planes have a military size thirst for fuel. Aid agency budgets will come under unprecedented pressure just as the need for international aid skyrockets and donor countries themselves feel pressed for cash. A peaking of oil supplies could also hasten the impact of global climate change by dramatically driving up the use of coal for power generation in much of the world. A weakened world economy would also put in jeopardy the massively expensive projects, such as carbon capture and storage, that many experts look to for a reduction in industrial emissions. So on top of the strains caused by scarce fossil fuels,

the world may also have to grapple with the destabilizing effects of more rapid desertification, dwindling fisheries, and strained food supplies. An oil-constricted world will also stir perilous frictions between haves and have-nots . The vast majority of all the world’s known

oil reserves is now in the hands of national oil companies, largely in countries with corrupt and autocratic governments. Many of these governments—Iran and Venezuela top the list—are now seen as antagonists of the U nited S tates. Tightened oil supplies will substantially

boost these countries’ political leverage , but that enhanced power will carry its own peril. Playing the oil card when nations are scrambling

for every barrel will be a far more serious matter that at any time in the past. The European continent could also undergo a profound shift as its needs—and sources of energy—diverge all the more from those of the United States. A conservation-oriented Europe (oil demand is on the decline in almost every EU country) will look all the more askance at what it sees as the gluttonous habits of the United States. At the same time, Europe’s governments may have little choice but to shy from any political confrontations with its principal energy supplier, Russia. An energy-restricted future will greatly enhance Russia’s clout within settings like the UN Security Council but also in its dealings with both Europe and China. Abundant oil and gas have fueled Russia’s return to power over the last decade, giving it renewed standing within the UN and increasing sway over European capitals. The peak oil threat is already sending shivers through the big developing countries of

China and India, whose propulsive growth (and own internal stability) requires massive doses of energy. For Beijing, running low on fuel spells economic chaos and internal strife , which in turn spawns images of insurrection and a breaking up of the continent sized country.

Slumping oil supplies will automatically pit the two largest energy consumers—the U nited S tates and China—against one

another in competition over supplies in South America, West Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. China is already taking this competition very seriously . It doesn’t require much of a leap to imagine a Cold War-style scramble between Washington and Beijing—not for like-

minded allies this time but simply for reliable and tested suppliers of oil. One region that offers promise and peril in almost equal measure is the Artic, which many in the oil industry consider the last big basin of untapped hydrocarbon riches. But the Artic remains an ungoverned ocean whose legal status couldn’t be less clear, especially so long as the United States continues to remain outside the international Law of the Sea Treaty. As the ices there recede, the risk increases that a scramble for assets in the Artic could turn nasty .

2nr – link NEPA is arbitrary and unnecessarily burdens infrastructure projects---other federal and state regulations fill in and solve the case.Katz 18 – Diane Katz, who has analyzed and written on public policy issues for more than two decades, is a research fellow in regulatory policy. ("Time to Repeal the Obsolete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," 3-14-2018, Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/time-repeal-the-obsolete-national-environmental-policy-act-nepa)//tdi

Among the most problematic of these regulations is the NEPA, which requires federal agencies to assess the potential environmental effects of public works projects and other major government actions . Four decades of experience have exposed the NEPA’s uncorrectable flaws, including arbitrary standards ,

politicized enforcement , and protracted litigation .

The average time to complete a NEPA impact assessment of a transportation project—just one of several

permitting hurdles—has expanded from 2.2 years in the 1970s to 4.4 years in the 1980s , to 5.1 years between 1995 and 2001, to 6.6 years in 2011.3 Every day of delay increases project costs and postpones the

benefits of modern —and safer— infrastructure for little or no environmental benefit .

Moreover, the NEPA is rendered pointless by the vast number of “categorical exclusions” (CEs) that agencies routinely grant to waive an environmental review. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) alone lists more than 50

types of such exclusions,4 and a survey by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that waivers constitute between 90 percent and 99 percent of the NEPA decisions involving state transportation programs.5 Even the Obama Administration granted waivers to more than 95 percent of the 192,707 projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.6

Any regulation for which 90 percent or more of compliance is waived is a pointless regulation . Congress has tinkered with marginal reforms in several statutes, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

has issued more than 35 sets of guidelines on NEPA implementation—all of which have made the review process unpredictable and inordinately politicized.

President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan features 15 pages of recommendations to streamline permitting.7 The very fact that so many provisions warrant reform illustrates that there is more wrong than right with the NEPA , and thus its repeal is warranted.

There is no shortage of federal and state regulations to protect water and air quality , wetlands and endangered species, and to control run-off, hazardous waste, construction debris, demolition dust, and every other byproduct of infrastructure modernization. As documented in this Backgrounder, repealing the NEPA would not make a whit of difference to the environment or public health—except to reduce regulatory delays and permitting costs, and expedite the repair of teeth-rattling roads, deteriorating bridges, and timeworn rails and runways.

Environmental advocacy groups use NEPA to advance policy agendas that block economic and energy development.Rutzick 18 – Mark C. Rutzick is an experienced federal litigator who has handled more than 300 federal district court cases in 25 districts throughout the country since 1975, and has argued more than 40 appeals in seven federal appellate circuits. He has been principal attorney of record in more than 100 officially reported decisions in federal and state courts. As a career staff attorney and career Senior Executive Service attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1978 to 1986, and in private law practice since 1986, Mark has primarily litigated cases involving judicial review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act. ("A Long and Winding Road: How the National Environmental Policy Act Has Become the Most Expensive and Least Effective Environmental Law in the History of the United States, and How to Fix It," 10-16-2018, Regulatory Transparency Project, https://regproject.org/paper/national-environmental-policy-act/)//tdi

The legal enforceability of the CEQ regulations, together with the many pro-enforcement biases of NEPA law, created an unparalleled opportunity for environmental advocates to use NEPA litigation to block proposals that require a federal permit or approval, or use federal funds. The environmental advocacy world includes among its diverse interests some individuals and organizations opposed to almost every variety of

development project in existence – oil and gas drilling and pipeline construction ; power plants ;

highway, rail and airport construction ; mining, logging and grazing on federal land; commercial and recreational fishing ; harbor improvements ; private activities regulated by other federal environmental laws (e.g. Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act); even U.S. military exercises. They have not hesitated to use NEPA lawsuits to advance a broad range of public policy objectives in all these areas .

No comprehensive data exist for the cumulative number of NEPA cases filed in federal court in the 40 years since the CEQ regulations were

published. Based on available partial data, a conservative estimate is that environmental advocates have filed at

least 4,000 federal lawsuits alleging violations of NEPA and the CEQ regulations. 48

Only partial data are available on the outcome of these 4,000 cases. CEQ compiled litigation outcomes from 2001 through 2011,49 during which 1,313 NEPA cases were filed against the government.50 CEQ found that in this period 442 of the lawsuits resulted in adverse decisions against the government, and another 222 lawsuits ended with settlements involving further government NEPA action of some kind – a total of 664 cases where the plaintiffs achieved total or partial victory. This represents an overall success rate for plaintiffs of 51 percent.51 If this figure

accurately portrays outcomes of the 40-year litigation total (which is unknown), as many as 2,000 government projects may

have been delayed or halted due to NEPA litigation .

EISs increase compliance burdens and organizational costs.Rutzick 18 – Mark C. Rutzick is an experienced federal litigator who has handled more than 300 federal district court cases in 25 districts throughout the country since 1975, and has argued more than 40 appeals in seven federal appellate circuits. He has been principal attorney of record in more than 100 officially reported decisions in federal and state courts. As a career staff attorney and career Senior Executive Service attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1978 to 1986, and in private law practice since 1986, Mark has primarily litigated cases involving judicial review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act. ("A Long and Winding Road: How the National Environmental Policy Act Has Become the Most Expensive and Least Effective Environmental

Law in the History of the United States, and How to Fix It," 10-16-2018, Regulatory Transparency Project, https://regproject.org/paper/national-environmental-policy-act/)//tdi

NEPA judicial decisions have over the years required EISs (and EAs) to address a steadily increasing number of environmental issues, and to provide increased depth of analysis on each issue.52 After only a few years of

NEPA litigation, the courts’ strict enforcement of NEPA and the CEQ regulations had already begun to trigger criticism of the excessive cost and delay of NEPA compliance. In 1995, CEQ, which serves as NEPA’s leading defender

within the federal enclave, acknowledged that “frequently NEPA takes too long and costs too much .”53 The continuing judicial expansion of federal agency NEPA duties has been accompanied by steady increases in the burden and cost of federal agency NEPA compliance .54

Longer duration of time to complete NEPA documents. CEQ anticipated in 1981 that federal agencies should be able to complete most EISs in

12 months or less.55 Yet due largely to intervening judicial decisions, the average government-wide preparation time for an EIS between 1998 and 2006 (from publishing notice of intent to prepare an EIS to publishing a final

EIS) had grown to 3.4 years.56 In that nine year period, EIS completion time increased by an average of 37 days per year, meaning that EIS preparation time ballooned from 2.9 years in 1998 to 3.8 years in 2006.57 From

2007 through 2010, average EIS preparation time grew another 107 days (27 per year), raising average EIS preparation time in 2010 to 4.2 years.58 By 2016, the average government-wide completion time had grown to 5.1 years .59 All these estimates understate the total length of the NEPA process: they disregard all time an agency expends before publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, and also ignore the time the agency needs after publication of the final EIS to prepare and release the record of decision required by the CEQ regulations.60 Thus, it is not surprising that, for example, in 2010 the Interior Department

reported that NEPA compliance prior to initiating new Alaska oil and gas development would take 10

years .61

Although EAs annually outnumber EISs by a factor of more than 100, very little is known about the time agencies take to prepare EAs. CEQ believed in 1981 that “[f]or cases in which only an environmental assessment will be prepared, the NEPA process should take no more than 3 months, and in many cases substantially less ….”62 That expectation does not appear to have borne out. The Department of Energy (DOE), for example, which discloses its NEPA compliance more fully than any other federal agency, reported that between 2013 and

2016, the average time to prepare an EA ranged from 13 to 24 months .63

2nr – i/l – regs kill the economyThey’re wrong about regulation---spending doesn’t increase employment, it facilitates the shift to automationCrews 18 – Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. is VP for policy & director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute & a Cato Institute alum. ("What Is The Effect Of Federal Regulation On Jobs?," 8-19-2018, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/08/19/what-is-the-effect-of-federal-regulation-on-jobs/)//tdi

The debate is highly controversial, and accounting for the job losses induced by regulation is imprecise (or more generally, not done).

In the policy arena, the sensible idea that over-regulation dampens entrepreneurship must contend with the ever-present counter (and counter-intuitive) claim that regulation creates jobs or is neutral.

Mainstream and left-wing media are especially emphatic (and selective) about this; see these Google search results for "regulation's effect on jobs." For the segment of the left that prefers for government to run entire segments of the economy and life (such as health care), to acknowledge regulation harms wealth creation and in turn employment is a non-starter.

Indeed, while entrepreneurs will affirm that governments dis-incentivize employment , and despite (for example)

U.S. President Donald Trump’s many references to “job-killing regulations,” it is all but official policy among governmental agencies and mainstream academics that regulations have little overall employment effect . It is claimed that regulations that displace employment in one area likely grow it in another .

As one much-cited study, “Jobs versus the Environment,” intones, “increased environmental spending generally does not cause a significant change in industry-level employment.” Rather, environmental spending renders a “ net

gain of 1.5 jobs per $1 million in additional environmental spending .”

The book Does Regulation Kill Jobs is similarly deferential about regulating: “Leading legal scholars, economists, political scientists, and policy

analysts show that individual regulations can at times induce employment shifts across firms, sectors, and regions—but regulation overall is neither a prime job killer nor a key job creator.”

Mainstream media salutes. A Washington Post story assured readers: “Economists who have studied the matter say that there is little evidence that regulations cause massive job loss in the economy, and that rolling them back would not lead to a boom in job creation.” Regulations may even have generally beneficial employment effects, the Post story says: “Firms sometimes hire workers to help them comply with new rules. In some cases, more heavily regulated businesses such as coal shrink, giving an opportunity for cleaner industries such as natural gas to grow.”

In 2017, The Atlantic looked at environmental rules, asked “Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs?” and assured readers “the idea that regulations stunt job growth more broadly is not supported by research.” Somewhat better, Cass Sunstein, the former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack Obama, regarded whether regulation can kill jobs an “empirical question,” and called for separate treatment of job impacts in the regulatory analysis phase. In that mode, Executive Order 13563 issued by Obama had called for assessing adverse effects on employment, but without great vigor.

OK, some parameters are in order: Policymakers should keep in mind that, from the entrepreneur’s standpoint, jobs are not an end in themselves but an input; one that increases the cost of final goods or services compared to doing the same with fewer employees. This is especially apparent in an age of automation. As Bill Frezza argued, “In any rationally managed business the payroll is a burden, not a benefit. Entrepreneurs and hiring managers only add staff if they think additional employees will produce more value than they consume. The challenge gets compounded when companies are forced to devote ever more of their employees’ time to activities that deliver no benefit beyond keeping the expanding army of federal bureaucrats and regulators at bay.”

Adding needless regulation matters, and is not something to brush aside as neutral. In today’s wealthier

societies, the sometimes lifetime liability that an employee represents compared to at-will relationships ( or

increasingly automation ) is a significant consideration, one that likely influences some countries' comparatively lower

rates of entrepreneurship. If all jobs are already a cost, regulation-induced “jobs” are more so, despite what academics

say, since they are not services the producer required or that consumers demanded .

But interventionists get away with it because the amount spent on a regulation-induced job is observable, mirroring the situation Frederic Bastiat referred to in What Is Seen and What is Not Seen. In reference to the broken window regarded as magically creating employment for the glazier, “To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment.” Instead, “Society has lost the value” of the unnecessary “jobs,” (in the Bastiat phrasing).

All that said, from a social policy standpoint, we most emphatically want more jobs, and we genuinely do make more of them feasible and desirable when economic liberalization and entrepreneurship agendas are advanced.

Regulatory proponents sometimes acknowledge that regulation can cause employment problems when there is recession, such that it might be harder for workers to relocate and/or find other employment , but they default to slack demand as an explanation and to the “remedy” of more government spending. Unemployment’s possible linkage to the accumulated body of regulation rarely registers, except in politically driven instances like President Obama in 2011 directing the Environmental Protection Agency to back off ozone regulations during the election cycle.

In another reality check with respect to labor regulation, Seattle, Washington recently faced some blowback over minimum wage passions as jobs declined. The city got a taste of what economist Clifford Thies argues: If a price control merely moves price a little from its equilibrium

level, there will be offsets. So, sure, moderate minimum wage laws will appear to raise wages for low-wage workers; but there will be hidden effects in terms of reduced slack in scheduling that neutralize the effect. However if the minimum wages moves price significantly from equilibrium, the market will not be

able to neutralize it and reduced employment among the most vulnerable low-wage workers results .

Similar teachable situations exist with respect to other regulations like rent control , consumer goods and services

regulation, and price gouging prohibitions, all of which can generate shortages . Unfortunately, expansions of

labor-related regulations were steady until recent retrenchments like the Trump’s Department of Labor revoking Obama-era rules like “Administrator’s Interpretations” constraining independent contracting and franchising/joint employment).

Entrepreneur and investor John Chisholm writes of regulations’ deterrent effects at key stages of entrepreneurship and job-creation. These stages include:

Getting started (worker status regulations and occupational licensing);

Innovation (resources being dedicated to R&D vs. being diverted to compliance);

and business expansion.

After an inflexible rulemaking is imposed, Chisholm explains, “ Regulations stay fixed while advances in knowledge , technology and cooperation enable more dimensions of human needs to be satisfied that the regulation precludes.” This is an example of the harm of “quality” regulation that proponents appear to downplay (Such claims for beneficial regulation are prominent in surveys like the World Bank's well-known Doing Business annual report).

Next, according to Chisholm, confusion sets in because “regulations are not clear, flat boundaries between what is allowed and disallowed but irregular and complex surfaces” (p. 322). Time and money barriers-to-entry mean only the well-heeled can cope.

Rent seeking, prominent in the mixed economy, resurfaces here. Regulation may increase the number of administrators engaged in activity unrelated to consumer demand for the product or service in question, or raise the number of employees actually required to develop the end

product. The end result, as Richard Williams explains, is that “From an economic perspective…the total number of jobs can be a misleading measure of the costs and benefits of regulation . Bad policies can increase total jobs, and good policies can decrease total jobs.”

To the extent that regulation may boost employment in certain sectors via compulsory redirection of resources, special interests (“green jobs”)

climb aboard. At the least, when regulations do “create jobs” or “cause” hiring, policymakers should account for this as a cost of regulation . Not a benefit.

Unfortunately, political manipulation and scaremongering will likely intensify as automation expands. One can predict that AI, robotics and automation will be exploited by politicians to implement social and economic regulation and programs such as the Universal Basic Income, even if these innovations are not overly disruptive.

Downplaying the effects of regulation on employment and the inclination to employ becomes a more serious issue over time, as society becomes more complex.

delineated natural ecosystems adv

1nc – at: impact – biodNo environment impact – tipping points are wrong and we don’t need biodiversity to surviveBrook ’15 (Barry Brook – PhD in Population Viability Analysis and Conservation Biology @ Macquarie University, Australian Laureate Professor and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania, former Director of Climate Science at the Environment Institute, “The Limits of Planetary Boundaries 2.0,” 16 January 2015, https://bravenewclimate.com/2015/01/16/the-limits-of-planetary-boundaries-2-0/)

Steffen et al (2015) revise the “planetary boundaries framework” initially proposed in 2009 as the “safe limits” for human alteration of Earth processes(Rockstrom et al 2009). Limiting human harm to environments is a major challenge and we applaud all efforts to increase the public

utility of global-change science. Yet the planetary boundaries (PB) framework – in its original form and as revised by Steffen et al – obscures rather than clarifies the environmental and sustainability challenges faced by humanity this century.

Steffen et al concede that “not all Earth system processes included in the PB have singular thresholds at the

global/continental/ocean basin level.” Such processes include biosphere integrity (see Brook et al 2013),

biogeochemical flows , freshwater use , and land-system change . “Nevertheless,” they continue, “it is important that

boundaries be established for these processes.” Why? Where a global threshold is unknown or lacking, there is no

scientifically robust way of specifying such a boundary – determining a limit along a continuum of

environmental change becomes a matter of guesswork or speculation (see e.g. Bass 2009;Nordhaus et al 2012).

For instance, the land-system boundary for temperate forest is set at 50% of forest cover remaining. There is no robust justification for why this boundary should not be 40%, or 70%, or some other level.

While the stated objective of the PB framework is to “guide human societies” away from a state of the Earth system that is “less

hospitable to the development of human societies”, it offers little scientific evidence to support the connection between the global state of specific Earth system processes and human well-being . Instead, the Holocene environment (the most recent 10,000 years) is assumed to be ideal . Yet most species evolved before

the Holocene and the contemporary ecosystems that sustain humanity are agroecosystems , urban ecosystems and other human-altered ecosystems that in themselves represent some of the most important global and local environmental changes that characterize the Anthropocene . Contrary to the authors’ claim that the Holocene is the “only state of the planet that we know for certain can support contemporary human societies,” the human-altered ecosystems of the Anthropocene represent the only state of the planet that we know for certain can support contemporary civilization .

Human alteration of environments produces multiple effects, some advantageous to societies, such as enhanced food production, and some detrimental, like environmental pollution with toxic chemicals, excess nutrients and carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and the loss of wildlife and their habitats. The key to better environmental outcomes is not in ending human alteration of environments but in anticipating and mitigating their negative consequences. These decisions and trade-offs should be guided by robust evidence, with global-change science investigating the connections and tradeoffs between the state of the environment and human well-being in the context of the local setting, rather than by framing and reframing environmental challenges in terms of untestable assumptions about the virtues of past environments.

Even without specifying exact global boundaries, global metrics can be highly misleading for policy . For example, with nitrogen, where the majority of human emissions come from synthetic fertilizers, the

real-world challenge is to apply just the right amount of nitrogen to optimize crop yields while minimizing nitrogen losses that harm aquatic ecosystems. Reducing fertilizer application in Africa might seem beneficial globally, yet the result in this region would be even poorer crop yields without any notable reduction in nitrogen pollution; Africa’s fertilizer use is already suboptimal for crop yields. What can look like a good or a bad thing globally can prove exactly the opposite when viewed regionally and locally. What use is a global indicator for a local issue? As in real estate, location is everything.

nepa adv

1nc – at: impact – democracyDPT wrong – their stats are the result of contractual economies not democratic norms Mousseau, Poli Sci Prof @ University of Central Florida, 16

(Michael, Grasping the scientific evidence: The contractualist peace supersedes the democratic peace, Conflict Management and Peace Science 1–18)

A weighty controversy has enveloped the study of international conflict: whether the democratic peace, the observed dearth of militarized conflict between democratic nations, may be spurious and accounted for by institutionalized market

‘‘contractualist’’ economy . I have offered theory and evidence that economic norms, specifically contractualist economy, appear to account for both the

explanans (democracy) and the explanandum (peace) in the democratic peace research program (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a, 2013; see also Mousseau et al., 2013a,

b). Five studies have responded with several arguments for why we should continue to believe that democracy causes peace (Dafoe, 2011; Dafoe and Russett, 2013; Dafoe et al., 2013; Ray, 2013; Russett, 2010). Resolution of this controversy is

fundamental to the study and practice of international relations. The observation of democratic peace is ‘‘the closest thing we have to an empirical law’’ in the study of global politics (Levy, 1988: 662), and carries the profound implication that the

spread of democracy will end war . New economic norms theory , on the other hand, yields the contrary

implication that universal democracy will not end war . Instead, it is market-oriented development that

creates a culture of contracting , and this culture legitimates democracy within nations and causes peace among them. The

policy implications could hardly be more divergent: to end war (and support democracy), the contractualist

democracies should promote the economies of nations at risk (Krieger and Meierrieks, 2015; Meierrieks, 2012; Mousseau,

2000, 2009, 2012a, 2013; Nieman, 2015). In the literature are five factual claims for why we should continue to believe that democracy causes peace: (1) an assertion that in three of the five studies that overturned the democratic peace (Mousseau, 2013; Mousseau et al., 2013a, b), the insignificance of democracy controlling for contractualist economy is due to the treatment of missing data for contractualist economy (Dafoe et al., 2013, henceforth DOR); (2) a claim of error in the measure for conflict (DOR) that appears in one of the five studies that overturned the democratic peace (Mousseau, 2013); (3) an alleged misinterpretation of an interaction term that appears in one of the five studies (Mousseau, 2009) that overturned the democratic peace, along with in inference of democratic causality from an interaction of democracy with contractualist economy (Dafoe and Russett, 2013; DOR); (4) a claim of reverse causality, of democracy causing contractualist economy (Ray, 2013); and (5) a report of multiple regressions with most said to show democratic significance after controlling for contractualist economy (DOR). This study investigates all five of these factual claims. I begin by addressing the issue of missing data by constructing two entirely new measures for contractualist economy. I then take up possible measurement error in the dependent variable by reporting tests using both my own (Mousseau, 2013) and DOR’s measures for conflict. Next, I disaggregate the data to investigate a causal interaction of democracy with contractualist economy. I then examine the evidence for reverse causality, and scrutinize the competing test models to pinpoint the exact factors that can account for differences in test outcomes. The results are consistent across

all tests: there is no credible evidence supporting democracy as a cause of peace. Using DOR’s base model, the impact of democracy is zero regardless of how contractualist economy or interstate conflict is measured . There is no

misinterpreted interaction term in any study that has overturned the democratic peace, and the disaggregation of the data yields no support for

a causal interaction of democracy with contractualist economy. Ray’s (2013) evidence for reverse causality from democracy to contractualist economy is shown to be based on an erroneous research design . And of DOR’s 120 separate regressions that consider contractualist economy,

116 contain controversial measurement and specification practices; the remaining four are analyses of all (fatal and non-fatal) disputes, where the correlation of democracy with peace is limited to mixedeconomic dyads, those where one state has a contractualist economy and the other does not, a subset that includes only

27% of dyads from 1951 to 2001, including only 50% of democratic dyads. It is further shown that this marginal peace is a statistical artifact since it does not exist among neighbors where everyone has an equal opportunity to fight .

1nc – review failsNEPA review fails---enforcement is political and riddled with delays.Katz 18 – Diane Katz, who has analyzed and written on public policy issues for more than two decades, is a research fellow in regulatory policy. ("Time to Repeal the Obsolete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," 3-14-2018, Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/time-repeal-the-obsolete-national-environmental-policy-act-nepa)//tdi

Agencies control the result of a NEPA analysis by shaping its “scope,” that is, delineating the purpose of and need for a project. This “scoping” will define the assessment parameters as well as the project alternatives that must be considered.23 But researchers have documented that bureaucrats tend to ignore information that does not comport with the prevailing view of the agency’s mission.24 Consequently, the agencies effectively control the outcome of the NEPA review through deliberate scoping.

The result of this process is unavoidably political in nature , and not scientific.

NEPA procedures vary from agency to agency, which means that permit applicants are potentially faced with multiple sets of NEPA rules. For example, a NEPA review for a road project will differ depending on which of seven agencies within the Department of Transportation is involved.

As noted, a CE exempts a project from detailed analysis under the NEPA. However, there is significant variation in the documentation necessary to obtain the exemption depending on the agency and the environmental issues of primary importance in any particular region. And, just because a project obtains an exemption from one agency, there is no guarantee that other agencies will likewise grant one.

The very heart of the NEPA—the EIS—is based on a conceptual view of the environment as static and predictable. Agencies construct a baseline

measure of environmental conditions and model the anticipated impact of a project. This approach disregards the resilience and dynamism of ecosystems .25

In reality, perfect information about the environment does not exist , nor can scientists accurately forecast how complex environmental systems will respond to ever-changing conditions over time . Therefore, the impact analyses are largely comprised of assumptions with weak predictive value. As noted by CEQ researchers in a study of

NEPA effectiveness: “(W)e often cannot predict with precision how components of an ecosystem will react to disturbance and stress over time.”26

Public meetings and hearings are held throughout the review process, and every procedural step is open to legal challenge.

Consequently, environmental purists have considerable opportunities to delay projects or to extort

mitigation commitments .

Activists for years have used judicial review to challenge (and delay) development. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported thatthe mere filing of a lawsuit and the project delays that result are often as important to plaintiffs as whether they ultimately prevail in court.27

Consequently, agencies seek to prepare litigation-proof analyses in hopes of staking a defensible position (and

avoiding public embarrassment). Exhaustive demands for data and other information raise project costs and

create years of delay . Companies trying to secure a federal permit are hardly in a position to complain.

1nc – at: public commentNEPA reviews can be opted out via categorical exclusion and even when EAs and EISs are issued, they take far too long to release.Pearl 18 – Hunter Pearl is a policy associate. ("Delays, Lawsuits, and Immigration Controls? The Many Abuses of NEPA," 8-14-2018, IER, https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/delays-lawsuits-and-immigration-controls-the-many-abuses-of-nepa/)//tdi

When a project can be easily shown to have no significant effect on human environment , it may skip

further NEPA actions by receiving a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). The vast majority of projects receive this, although it can be challenged in a NEPA lawsuit. When a CATEX is not issued, an agency must undergo an estimation of the project’s environmental impact through an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA includes a written description of the need for a proposal, alternatives, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. If the impacts of the project are judged to be significant, an agency must then complete an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). After a public commenting period of at least 45 days, an EIS is drafted that: rigorously details how the project

will affect the environment; addresses comments from the public; and lists all possible alternatives that could lessen its environmental impact, explaining why these alternatives were not taken. This is followed by a minimum 30-day waiting period and then a Record of Decision, describing the agency’s decision, the alternatives the agency considered, and the agency’s plans for mitigation and monitoring, if necessary.

According to the Government Accountability Office, EISs of “even large complex energy projects” were expected to take about 12 months in 1981. Today, the initial EA alone takes an average of 13 months ; the EIS averages 4.6 years . In Two Years Not Ten Years: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals, Common Good reports that while early EISs were simple 10-page disclosures of major impacts, today they seek to be litigation-proof through dense analyses that often run a thousand pages or more. Environmental reviews for raising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge, one of the four bridges connecting New Jersey and Staten Island, generated about 20,000 pages and cost over $2 million. This includes $600,000 for a historical survey of surrounding buildings that are unaffected by the change and extensive traffic impact studies, even

though raising an existing bridge will not affect traffic. The permitting process took five years to be completed – and

that’s with it being fast-tracked . For the dredging of Georgia’s Savannah Harbor, the EIS alone took 14

years .