I do believe the green projects have to pass an EIA however I would be inclined to say theirs is not as strict as some others.
I know of sites that have been rejected due to frog habitat.
I also know of landowners who were told they couldn’t have turbines placed on Native pasture. They then broke up the Native and got the turbines. Would have been better in the long run to allow the turbines on Native since that is typically considered to be the “marginal” land than to say not at all. Or at least don’t be idiots and say the land has to be broke for X amount of years prior to building. Like 10-15 years so they can’t just break and build.
So is the issue that EIAs aren’t completed or just that legislation is weak and willing to overlook things to get the projects going.
I’d go with the latter and say green energy needs better enforcement of legislation. Which is what the pause is checking is it not? Sure it’s more focused on taxes and payments, so what, green projects are required to meet absolutely no standards? Environmental or economical? Shocking.
I know of sites that have been rejected due to frog habitat.
I also know of landowners who were told they couldn’t have turbines placed on Native pasture. They then broke up the Native and got the turbines. Would have been better in the long run to allow the turbines on Native since that is typically considered to be the “marginal” land than to say not at all. Or at least don’t be idiots and say the land has to be broke for X amount of years prior to building. Like 10-15 years so they can’t just break and build.
So is the issue that EIAs aren’t completed or just that legislation is weak and willing to overlook things to get the projects going.
I’d go with the latter and say green energy needs better enforcement of legislation. Which is what the pause is checking is it not? Sure it’s more focused on taxes and payments, so what, green projects are required to meet absolutely no standards? Environmental or economical? Shocking.
Comment