California is weakening environmental law to fight climate change
Earlier this week, California legislators adopted the most radical reforms to state environmental regulations in more than half a century. The measures were mainly intended to stimulate the construction of housing and urban density in the Golden State, which faces the most severe housing shortage in the United States
Although this decision was celebrated by Governor Gavin Newsom when he signed the bills, he exposed tensions between the progressive priorities that motivate democratic legislators. The defenders of the affordability of housing clashed with those who promoted environmental justice, the first stimulating bills and the remaining seconds. More broadly, this decision exposes divisions between those who want more tools to mitigate climate change and environmentalists who prefer to maintain strict limits to what can be built and how.
The reforms target the California Environmental Quality Act, which the governor of the time, Ronald Reagan, signed over 50 years ago. Known as CEQA, legislation obliges public agencies and decision -makers to assess the environmental impact of any project requiring government approval, and to make known any effect and to mitigate them if possible.
Supporters say that the law has prevented or modified dozens of projects that have been prejudicial to the environment or the quality of life of the Californians. But the CEQA has also become the basis of a regular flow of official complaints and prosecution which stack substantial costs and delays on projects which are ultimately having minimal harmful effects – sometimes killing them. In an infamous case, opponents of student housing near the University of California, Berkeley, argued that the associated noise would constitute environmental pollution under the CEQA, which led to a three -year legal battle that the university only won after being paid to the Supreme Court of the State. Examples like this have led the CEQA, which was once a national symbol of environmental protection, to spread as a cause of the shortage of chronic state housing.
After this week’s reforms, most urban housing projects will now be exempt from the CEQA process. The new legislation also jumps out many CEQA zoning changes, as well as certain non-residential projects, including health clinics, childcare centers and advanced manufacturing facilities, such as semiconductors and nanotechnological factories, if they are located in areas already zoned for industrial purposes. (A related bill also freezes most of the construction efficiency and clean energy standards until 2031, angry climate defenders who otherwise support the dense housing.) The Governor Newsom used a budgetary process to advance long -term changes, with strong bipartisan support.
Some activists have welcomed the changes, saying that they will lead to denser housing on vacant or underused urban land, slower growth of rents and shorter journeys, and shorter journeys-with the welcome by-product of the planet’s warming.
“For those who consider climate change as one of the main problems of our time, the filling box is a critical solution,” read an OP-ED supporting the measures. Other environmentalists, however, have castigated changes as well -destructive gifts for the developers. After Newsom signed the legislation, the Sierra Club California published a statement calling for changes in “half -cooked” measures which “will have destructive consequences for environmental justice communities and California species”.
At a time when President Donald Trump’s attacks on climate policy and environmental protections galvanized the opposition of the left, which took place in California recalls that, even among the Democrats, a gap remains on the extent to which regulations can help – or hurt – the planet. It is the type of pickle that liberals across the country can increasingly confront questions ranging from zoning to the reform of reform of renewable energy projects, which can face expensive delays when they encounter procedural obstacles such as CEQA. (Indeed, in California, the CEQA was an obstacle not only to affordable housing, but also to solar farms and a high -speed rail.)
Why the California housing market is intended to go up in flames
“How can we make sure that the regulations we adopt to save the planet do not harm the planet?” Asked Matt Lewis, director of communications for California Yimby, a defense of housing and a supporter of the CEQA reforms. Transport represents most of the California carbon footprint, and Lewis maintains that dense accommodation will be the key to keeping people closer to their jobs. But, he said, people with an attitude “not in my backyard” abused CEQA to slow down these beneficial projects. (The name of its organization is a game on this so-called Nimby arrangement, with Yimby for “yes in my backyard”)))
“One of the main causes of climate pollution is the way we allow or do not build housing in urban areas,” said Lewis, adding that more urban development could reduce pressure to rely on unused land in more sensitive areas. He underlined other legal deandes, such as state and airwater laws, which can achieve environmental protection objectives often cited by supporters of the CEQA process. “The CEQA is not in fact the most powerful law to ensure that manufacturing facilities and other industrial facilities protect the environment,” he said.
In short, Lewis estimates that the disadvantages of new reforms pale compared to their advantages for people and the planet. “Have we repaired him perfectly this time? I am ready to admit, no,” he said, adding that all the gaps concerning environmentalists could be repaired during future legislative sessions.
But many environmentalists argue that the drawbacks of the new legislation are too important.
“We have set foot forward, but we take another step back,” said Miguel Miguel, director of the Sierra Club California, noting his opposition to non -residential exemptions. He said that CEQA often acts as a first line of defense which allows the community’s contribution to development projects. Without that, he argues, community voices will be marginalized. Miguel talks about personal experience: CEQA has helped save the park of mobile houses where it grew up after being replaced by more expensive apartments.
Kim Delfino, lawyer and environment in the environment who followed the legislation, said that the extent of the reforms extended to simple support for the development of urban housing to become “a pot-brief of the desires of industry and developers”. She added that CEQA requires biological surveys that can be the first step to invoke other environmental protections.
“If you never look, you will never know if there are endangered species,” she said. “We decided to adopt a head approach in the sand.”
This impasse between environmentalists and defenders focused on housing like Lewis is now decades and among the reasons why CEQA reforms – or rollbacks, depending on which you are asking for – have taken so much time to come. While the fight took place, skepticism has become rooted.
“Maybe I’m wrong,” said Lewis by California Yimby about his optimism that the latest changes can put on the needle between state housing needs and environmental priorities. But, he added, he prefers to rely on elected legislators that environmentalists, who have long opposed his housing advocacy. “The environmental movement in California has been fundamentally dishonest in housing,” he accused.
The Miguel du Sierra Club, for its part, hopes for greater cooperation between the competing parties, for fear that disagreements will poison future legislative efforts. In the end, all the parties involved share the same general objectives, if with different levels of accent.
“We have to do everything and everything at once,” he said, referring to the climate and environmental policy. “It’s art.”
