recollection purpose in helping to frame this question, recall the NEPA
process visually reprented in the following flowchart:
The process suggests NEPA is mainly procedural
in nature, meaning it does not demand a particular environmental
outcome; rather, NEPA demands that environmental impacts be assessed
through the process identified above. Regardless of its procedural
nature, some suggest NEPA is a significant environmental statute because
it applies to almost everything. However, others suggest NEPA is
insignificant because, although it applies to many activities that may
harm the environment, it does NOT prevent the harm from occurring. In
other words, NEPA does not prohibit environmentally harmful activities;
it simply requires the government to consider the environmental harm of
the activity before allowing it to move forward.
So, I want each of you to put on your "economist" versus "ecologist" hats (carried over from the previous materials), and answer the following questions:
- Do you think NEPA actually makes a difference when it comes to environmental protection?
the answer to this question depend, in part, on who is reviewing the
environmental impact assessment (ecologist vs. economist)?
- Finally, how do you think NEPA "should" be used?
(Please reference between an ecologist and economist perspective when answering these questions.)
Also a Brief response about a paragraph length
Links to help you:
summary video explaining the major aspects of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Click on the title or the following
link to view the video: