1AC FlowEdit


Harm 1: Environmental Impact Statements Cost Too Much Money

Harm 2: EISs Take Years to Verify/be Completed

Harm 3: No Time For Delay in Federal Projects


Mandate: Remove Article C From Section 102 of NEPA, Thus Not Requiring EISs Under Federal Law


Advantage 1: No Longer Wasting Tax Payer Money on EIS

Advantage 2: Agencies Will be Able to do Their Job


-Since EISs are submitted to the Council of Environmental Quality for suggestions on how to make projects more environmentally friendly, this advantage to improving the protection of the environment would be lost.

-No numbers on percentage deducted from the tax payer.

-Disadvantage: Loss of Accountability: If it is no longer required for companies and agencies to submit EISs to the CEQ, companies can be as environmentally unfriendly as they want, if it speeds up the project and/or generates more revenue.

-Tax payer money is not "wasted" because it goes towards something that helps the environment.

-EISs are the core of NEPA. It would be like either 1. Eliminating over half of NEPA, or 2. Completely eliminating NEPA