Final vote results for roll call 518 on the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015 (RAPID Act), 25 September 2015. Graphic:

By Samantha Page
27 September 2015

(ClimateProgress) – Climate change costs an incredible amount of money. Whether it is deaths during heat waves, reconstruction after a superstorm, or even lost revenues at ski slopes, rising temperatures and increased extreme weather events are costing the economy. In fact, Citibank reported earlier this year that it will cost $44 trillion worldwide by 2060 to mitigate the costs of climate change under the business as usual scenario.

But efforts to include those costs in permitting projects just took another hit, when the House voted to pass the RAPID Act, a bill intended to streamline permitting processes. Tucked into the bill is language that will prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from considered the social cost of carbon during permitting.

The bill, which passed largely down party lines Friday afternoon, specifically prohibits federal agencies from following draft guidance from the White House Council on Environmental Quality for “consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change” in environmental reviews. Further, under the RAPID Act, any permit request that is not addressed by the agency deadline will be automatically approved.

“Everybody agrees that approving critically important economic projects should be simple. This is exactly what my RAPID Act does,” Rep. Tom Marino (PA-10) said when he introduced the bill. “It streamlines, it eliminates duplicative processes, it rewards good environmental stewardship, and it aids our economy.”

Republicans have widely criticized the White House guidelines for the social cost of carbon and questioned their accuracy.

But not everyone agrees it will be good for either the environment or the economy to take climate change out of the equation.

“The Social Cost of Carbon is an absolutely vital tool to ensure we are spending money wisely and preparing for the future; to stick our heads in the sand on this one is to ignore the facts before us,” Lowenthal said. “I’m glad to see that the two climate change-related amendments by myself and Mr. Peters today picked up a small handful of brave and honest Republicans, but it is not enough.” [more]

House Votes To Keep EPA From Considering Costs Of Climate Change



Blog Template by Adam Every . Sponsored by Business Web Hosting Reviews