Permitting reform with clean energy on the line

[Farmaholic]

In the nation's capital, our politicians are debating about whether they need to usher in permitting reforms that will make it easier, or might even incentivize, fossil fuel production in order to remain competitive with China. Some senators, like Republican Bill Cassidy of Maryland, believe that we can't possibly make enough green energy to keep up with consumer and corporate demands. He has put forth a bill that will make it easier for companies to install power lines and pipelines without the threat of lawsuits to stop the projects. The opposing argument is that Cassidy's plan could be an environmental disaster, and that incentivizing clean energy through easily obtained permits encourages innovation.

What do you think about Cassidy's proposal? I'm not sure where I stand. On the one hand, I support environmental protections, but on the other hand, energy prices are soaring, and I don't believe it's sustainable for many households.

 

[StrictlyUrban]

I think the way we handle environmental permitting is just about right. It's good to have a mix of laws, so that all sides can advance their ideas responsibly. I see no reason for reform.

 

[JoeT]

I can see it both ways; however, I do believe that environmental lawsuits have gotten out of control. It seems that whenever a coal, oil, or natural gas company is granted a permit, they get sued into oblivion.

 

[Nomad]

I am not with Bill Cassidy. If the United States tries, and offers incentives to the clean energy developers, the country can produce enough green energy. They can create solar farms or wind mills, they can harness geothermal energy, they can produce hydro energy. There are so many options. They are pushing on fossil fuel because they have vested interest