Tell the Obama Administration to stop ignoring the climate impacts of its actions

Subject:*

Your Letter:*
Dear Mr. Greczmiel: I am writing in response to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) publication of revised draft guidance on consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change in the context of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I fully endorse CEQ’s recognition of climate change as a “fundamental environmental issue” covered by NEPA, and that agencies should not rely on “boilerplate text” to avoid consideration of the climate impacts of proposed agency actions and their alternatives. It is crucial that agencies are forbidden from disavowing responsibility over climate impacts on the basis that they would occur even if the project was not approved. I also support the application of the guidance to land and resource management activities, including federal oil, gas, and coal management decisions. The guidance, however, could be clarified and strengthened in several important ways: 1. Expand the scope of greenhouse emissions and climate impacts that agencies should address in their NEPA analyses: The scope of greenhouse gas emissions should include black carbon and the release of carbon stored in carbon sinks like forests and soils. The scope of climate impacts should include upstream, indirect, downstream and cumulative carbon emissions when an agency has control or responsibility over an action without which the climate impacts would occur. 2. Strengthen the use of the social cost of carbon (SCC) as an analytical tool. The SCC is an important analytical tool for assessing the impacts of a proposed action under NEPA that should be applied to all proposed agency actions, not just rulemakings, regardless of whether the agency prepares a formal cost-benefit analysis or not. Furthermore, the guidance should clarify that while the agency should update the SCC estimate as it changes over time, the current value most likely under-represents the true costs that carbon emissions pose to society. Use of the SCC value complies with CEQ’s regulation that agencies evaluate impacts based on theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community when confronted with incomplete and unavailable information. 3. Remove the annual threshold requirement for greenhouse gas emissions. The threshold for carbon emissions, currently set at 25,000 metric tons of CO2-e on an annual basis, is not a helpful or accurate reference point for NEPA analyses of agency actions. There are several problems with this threshold requirement. First, the use of a reference point could become a de facto threshold for agencies to do any meaningful analysis. Second, the threshold does not account for greenhouse gas emissions with different warming potentials. Third, this arbitrary threshold inexplicably includes only direct annual emissions and excludes direct lifetime or indirect emissions. There is no reason a proposed action with a one-time climate impact of greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2-e should be subject to quantitative analysis, but a proposed action with less than 25,000 metric tons of CO2-e per year that lasts for 20 years should be exempt. Fourth, agencies should explain the assumptions and methodology used to calculate emissions estimates included in their NEPA analyses. 4. Clarify and strengthen the guidance with regard to incorporation of climate impacts in discussions of proposed action alternatives. The CEQ guidelines should acknowledge that climate change and agency actions impact each other in both directions. A NEPA analysis should analyze both how climate change will affect a given agency action and its alternatives, and how the action and its alternatives will, in turn, affect climate change. Agencies should utilize credible climate change and market analyses, and discuss the reasonably foreseeable climate change and environmental consequences of each alternative to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative. The guidelines could also provide a clearer and more meaningful link between programmatic and project-specific NEPA analyses by directly referencing limitations on project-specific analyses pending completion of programmatic analyses, and ensure consistent development of alternative and mitigation measures. Finally, CEQ should mandate that Environmental Assessments and Categorical Exclusions also account for climate impacts, and their appropriateness be reviewed in light of them. 5. Incorporate other relevant climate information Other substantive laws, rules, and policies that govern agency actions on climate change should be integrated into NEPA analyses. Specifically, CEQ should mandate that applicable agency emission targets qualify as criteria for determining significance under NEPA and recommend that agencies design alternatives and mitigation measures to comply with those emission targets. CEQ should also direct agencies to incorporate by reference relevant vulnerability assessments for particular geographic regions of the country or specific resources into the description of the affected environment for the proposed action and alternatives. Implementation of these recommendations will strengthen the guidance and help ensure that federal agencies fulfill their NEPA obligations and assist decision makers and the public in understanding the climate impacts of proposed agency actions. Thank you for the opportunity and consideration of my comments. Sincerely,

First Name*

Last Name*

Email*

Zip/Postal Code*