 |
|
|
|||||
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways, and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisionsuntil now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewers perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permittingthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. Taking a big-picture look NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy, and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular childrens book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requestsfor a glass of milk, a napkin, and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls, and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the courts ruling, federal agencies days of uncertainty are over. Biggest NEPA case in decades On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court (minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself) decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect upstream effects of constructing the rail linesuch as spurring new oil drillingand the indirect downstream effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far-flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ some degree of forecasting to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evaluate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. A resounding declaration Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a legislative acorn that has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development. He bemoaned the delay upon delay NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered on the Kafkaesque. In his view, NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents. He called for a course correction . . . to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agencys NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry . . . (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness. Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have urisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a no harm, no foul rule, under which even if an [environmental impact statement] falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agencys ultimate approval of a project. The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the boards decision that it could not reliably predict the rail lines effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the boards required review. A split court Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaughs course correction applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider, and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agencys regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agencys required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential. That is a far cry from how the legal structure around the National Environmental Policy Act has worked for decades. For lawyers, industry, advocacy groups, and the courts, environmental review after the Eagle County decision is not just a new ball gameits a new sport. J.B. Ruhl is a professor of law and director of the Program on Law and Innovation and co-director of the Energy, Environment and Land Use Program at Vanderbilt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Major announcements around the VisionPro headset are expected next week and may even confirm tantalizing rumors that a lighter model of the high-end XR device is coming next year. Whatever Apple reveals at WWDC, we can expect another round of analyst predictions that this time, mass adoption of head-mounted displays is finally happening. As Apple, Meta, and other major players continue to struggle with taking the technology mainstream, its worth addressing the virtual elephant in the room: Theres reason to suspect that XR headsets barrier to success isnt just about cost, headset weight, lack of content, eye strain, or other frequently cited issues. Neuroscience suggests that the sensory experience of XR can’t compensate for the value of sharing a physical environment with our screensespecially when it comes to how we form knowledge and memory. Experiments with XR for Full-Time Computing About 10 years ago, I started spending long sessions in VR (48 hours daily over several weeks) to see how it might affect my sense of time and attention. I began with the HTC Vive, which was comfortable and fun. Later, I tested the Apple VisionPro with a full virtual workstation of monitors and displays. I was curious whether XR could improve focus and research. It felt like a very different thing to use VR all day, versus a brief demo in a museum or Apple showroom. Early on, I had to stand and move constantly throughout the day. It was exhausting, though it made for a great workout (SUPERHOT was one of my favorites). But this kind of motion-based interaction didnt translate well to daily work tasks. Tossing data around in 3D like in Minority Report might make for compelling cinema, but it’s far less practical over time. When the VisionPro arrived, I was excited to use it while seated. A friend set me up with a massive virtual workspace, and I genuinely appreciated the focus it provided when I was digging into something newsay, reading a dense Wikipedia article. Still, when I set up my home office last year, I chose two large physical monitors at eye level and a sit/stand desk. As enjoyable as VR was, the process of setup and adjusting the space took more time and energy than docking a laptop. And even though I was initially thrilled to be in a virtual workspace, I found myself feeling more distant from the real world. I wanted to go outside more, and didnt feel like looking at any screen at all by days end. I also noticed the difference in eye strain from screens so close to my face. I prefer to work near a window where I can shift my gaze into the distance. That rhythm of looking away and refocusing helps me process thoughtsespecially after encountering something new. The Trouble With Losing Touch I asked my colleague Dr. David Sisson, a neurophysiologist, why XR adoption hasnt matched media hype. He reminded me that audio and visual inputsthe primary senses XR taps intoarent the full picture. Then theres the matter of touch in XR. Without touch, theres no intimacy. Youre not really interacting with whats going on, David told me. You can hit a balland hear the crack in VRbut youre not feeling anything other than a little jerk in the controller that makes you feel like theres some inertia happening. In short, headsets deprive us of the tactile and physical context that supports memory formation. Contrast that with playing a console game: you’re anchored in a physical space, hands on colorful controllers, with the screen at a distance. If you’re like me, you vividly remember not just the game, but the exact couch you sat on and the friends or family who played with you. The Neuroscience of Virtual Experience This sense of placeness goes beyond just touch. As David explained, [C]hemical senses are not a part of [the VR experience] . . . Theres a well-considered idea, a linkage between olfaction, smell between memorythat youre living that out of the [VR] picture entirely. Attempts at incorporating virtual smells into XR exist, but it’s unclear whether theyre effectiveor even desirable. Recent research supports what French literature has long told us: smell powerfully evokes memory. Studies show scent not only enhances recall but may also support learning across other sensory areas. While XR devices like VisionPro do re-create home and office setups and allow for vast screen real estate, they lack a true sense of location. Evolution shaped our brains to operate differently depending on whether we’re traveling or at home. Researchers call this the encoding specificity principleour memories link closely with the environment where they were first formed. With a headset on, our minds dont fully orient to a place, and so we never quite settle in. Apple offers a vast virtual workspace you can take on the go, but that benefit comes at the cost of the sensory richness and physical grounding of a real-world setup. Neuroscience, not just practicality, suggests that working in a physical spacewith monitors, windows, textures, smells, and distanceoffers deeper engagement and memory retention. Putting the Pro in VisionPro To be clear, XR headsets excel in specific contexts like rehabilitation or short bursts of fully embodied interaction, where body motion tracking is vital. Some content creators might find immense value in a distraction-free, multiscreen virtual studio. But thats not a mass-market audience. XR evangelists may continue promoting VisionPro as the breakout device, but weand Apple, for that mattershould remember that Pro isnt just branding. It reflects the narrow set of advanced use cases that justify immersion. For most of us, computing still works best in a physical world that engages all five senses. And thats not something XR can replicateat least, not yet.
Category:
E-Commerce
Emily Bender is a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Washington where she is also Faculty Director of the Computational Linguistics Master of Science program, affiliate faculty in the School of Computer Science and Engineering, and affiliate faculty in the Information School. Alex Hanna is Director of Research at the Distributed AI Research Institute and a lecturer in the School of Information at the University of California Berkeley. She has been featured in articles for the Washington Post, Financial Times, The Atlantic, and Time. Whats the big idea? The AI Con is an exploration of the hype around artificial intelligence, whose interests it serves, and the harm being done under this umbrella. Society has options when it comes to pushing back against AI hype, so there is still hope that we can collectively resist and prevent tech companies from mortgaging humanitys future. Below, co-authors Emily Bender and Alex Hanna share five key insights from their new book, The AI Con: How to Fight Big Techs Hype and Create the Future We Want. Listen to the audio versionread by Emily and Alexin the Next Big Idea App. 1. The tech thats driving the current wave of AI hype is built on a parlor trick Chatbots like ChatGPT are impressive technology, but maybe not in the way you think. They cannot perform the range of functions they purportedly fulfill, but rather, they are designed to impress us. The key to their parlor trick lies in how people utilize language. You might think its a simple matter of decoding what the words say, but the process is both far more complex and far more social. We interpret language by relying on everything we know (or guess) about the person who said the words, and whatever common ground we share with them. Then we make inferences about what they must have been trying to convey. We do this instinctively and reflexively. So, when we encounter synthetic text of the kind that comes out of ChatGPT and its ilk, we interpret it by imagining a mind behind the text, even though there is no mind there. In other words, the linguistic and social skills we wrap around AI outputs are what make it so easy for the purveyors of chatbots to fool us into perceiving chatbots as reasoning entities. 2. AI is not going to take your job, but it will make your job a lot worse Much of the purpose of AI technology serves to remove humans from the equation at work. The story of the Writers Guild of America strike is instructive here. In 2023, the Writers Guild of America East and West (or the WGA), the labor union representing Hollywood writers, went on strike for several reasons, including a demand to raise the pay rate that writers receive from streaming services. They also wanted to ensure that they wouldnt be reduced to babysitters for chatbots tasked to write scripts based on harebrained ideas from movie and television producers. John Lopez, a member of the WGAs AI working group, noted that writers could be paid the rewrite rate for dealing with AI-generated content, which is much less than the pay rate for an original script. Weve seen the threat of image and text generators drastically reduce the number of job opportunities for graphic designers, video game artists, and journalists. This is not because these tools can adequately perform the tasks of these professionals, but they perform well enough for careers to be cut short and for workers to be rehired at a fraction of what they had been paid before, just so that they can fix the sloppy outputs of AI. They perform well enough for careers to be cut short and for workers to be rehired at a fraction of what they had been paid before. Furthermore, systems that get called AI are often a thin veneer that hides the tried-and-true corporate strategy of outsourcing labor to people in the Majority World, also called the Global South. Many of these workers moderate online content, test chatbots for toxic outputs, and even remotely drive vehicles that are advertised as being fully automated. Luckily, workers have been able to push back, both by concerned labor action, industrial sabotage (especially through creative tools for artists, like Nightshade and Glaze, which prevent their work from being used for training image generation models), and political education. 3. The purpose of the AI con is to disconnect people from social services Because we use language in just about every sphere of activity, and because the synthetic text extruding from machines can be trained to mimic language, it can seem like we are about to have technology that can provide medical diagnoses, personalized tutoring, wise decision making in the allocation of government services, legal representation, and moreall for just the cost of electricity (plus whatever the companies making the chatbots want to charge). But in all these cases, its not the words that matter, but the actual thought that goes into them and the relationships they help us build and maintain. AI systems are only good for those who want to redirect funding away from social services and justify austerity measures. Meanwhile, those in power will be sure to get services from actual people, while foisting the shoddy facsimiles off on everyone else. The head of Health AI at Google, Greg Corrado, said he wouldnt want Googles Med-PaLM system to be part of his familys health care journey. That didnt stop him from bragging about how it supposedly passed a medical licensing exam. It didnt. But more to the point, designing systems to pass multiple-choice exams about medical situations is not an effective way to build useful medical technology. In these domains, AI hype takes the form of specious claims of technological solutions to social problems, based, at best, on spurious and unfounded evaluations of the systems being sold. 4. AI is not going to kill us all, but climate change might There was a time in Silicon Valley and Washington D.C. when an idiosyncratic, yet serious, question was posed to people working on technology or tech policy: What is your p(doom)? p(doom) refers to probability of doom, or the likelihood that AI would somehow kill all of humanity. This doomerism is predicated on the development of artificial general intelligence (or AGI). AGI is poorly defined, but the basic idea is a system which can do a variety of tasks as well as or better than humans. Unfortunately, doomerism has serious purchase with some technologists and policymakers, and is predicated on a body of unseemly ideologies, including effective altruism, longtermism, and rationalism. These ideologies take the moral philosophy of utilitarianism to the extreme, suggesting that we need to discount harm in the present to save the billions of trillions of humans who will live in some undefined future. These ideologies are eugenicist in their origins and implications. Doomerism has serious purchase with some technologists and policymakers. eanwhile, we are likely to fail to meet the Paris Agreements goal to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and AI is making this problem worse. The data centers that host these tools are generating vast amounts of excess carbon, semiconductors used for their parts are leeching forever chemicals into the ground, and backup generators are projected to cause more respiratory illnesses in the poorest parts of the U.S. and elsewhere. Not only are robots not going to take over the world, but their production is going to make the climate crisis much worse. 5. None of this is inevitable The people selling AI systems and the hype around them would like us to voluntarily give up our agency in these matters. They tell us that AI, or even AGI, is inevitable, or at least that systems like ChatGPT are here to stay. But none of this is inevitable. We do have agency, both collectively and individually. Collectively, we can push for regulations that prevent AI tech from being used on us and for labor contracts that keep us in control of our work. On an individual level, we can refuse to use AI systems. We can be critical consumers of automation, being sure we understand whats being automated, how it was evaluated, and why its being automated. We can also be critical consumers of journalism about technology, looking for and supporting work that holds power to account. And finally, we can and should engage in ridicule as praxis, meaning having fun pointing out all the ways in which synthetic media extruding machines are janky and tacky. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||