Latest news with #environmentalrules
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump orders relaxed rules for rocket launches, appearing to benefit Musk and Bezos
Donald Trump is looking to relax environmental rules for commercial spaceship companies. In an executive order titled 'enabling competition in the commercial space industry' that he signed on Wednesday, he said it's imperative to national security that the private rocket-ship industry increase launches 'substantially' by 2030. That would mean, according to the executive order, that those companies may be able to forgo the environmental reviews that are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa). Private space companies are required to get launch permits from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). And, as part of that process, companies are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Sean Duffy, the US secretary of transportation, which oversees the FAA, called Trump's executive order 'visionary'. The FAA has faced criticism from space companies for taking too long to review launch permits while environmental groups have lambasted the agency for not using Nepa reviews to require more protections at launch sites. These environmental reviews are required because rocket launches and landings can be massively disruptive to local towns and residents, along with the natural surroundings. Exhaust, smoke plumes and sonic booms created at launch can injure and kill endangered species, and detritus from exploded rocket parts returning to Earth can harm fish and marine animals with hazardous material spills, fuel slicks and falling objects. Trump's executive order appears to especially benefit Elon Musk and his company SpaceX. SpaceX has been seeking to increase its rocket-ship launches and landings around the country. The company has been involved in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups for violating the National Environmental Policy Act; they say the FAA did not do a thorough enough environmental assessment of SpaceX's impact to endangered species regarding its rocket launches in Boca Chica, Texas. The lawsuit looked at the first launch of SpaceX's massive Starship rocket in Texas in April 2023. The spaceship, which is designed to one day make it to Mars, pulverized its launchpad on takeoff, sending chunks of concrete flying 6 miles (10km) away. The blast ignited a grassfire that burned nearly 4 acres (1.5 hectares) of state park and, from what is known, destroyed a nest of bobwhite quail eggs and a collection of blue land crabs. 'This reckless order puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas,' said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit. 'Bending the knee to powerful corporations by allowing federal agencies to ignore bedrock environmental laws is incredibly dangerous and puts all of us in harm's way,' Margolis added. 'This is clearly not in the public interest.' The FAA announced in May that it had given SpaceX permission to increase its number of Starship launches in Texas from five per year to 25. SpaceX has also been seeking to increase launches of its smaller Falcon rockets from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California from 50 per year to 95. Trump's executive order would facilitate an expedited review process to get these and other launch permits. Along with SpaceX, the order would benefit commercial space companies like Jeff Bezos's Blue Horizon, which has also been aiming to increase rocket launches. The White House touted the order on Wednesday as being the latest 'deregulatory action' to reform the National Environmental Policy Act and eliminate 'burdensome DEI requirements'.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump orders relaxed rules for rocket launches, appearing to benefit Musk and Bezos
Donald Trump is looking to relax environmental rules for commercial spaceship companies. In an executive order titled 'enabling competition in the commercial space industry' that he signed on Wednesday, he said it's imperative to national security that the private rocket-ship industry increase launches 'substantially' by 2030. That would mean, according to the executive order, that those companies may be able to forgo the environmental reviews that are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa). Private space companies are required to get launch permits from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). And, as part of that process, companies are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Sean Duffy, the US secretary of transportation, which oversees the FAA, called Trump's executive order 'visionary'. The FAA has faced criticism from space companies for taking too long to review launch permits while environmental groups have lambasted the agency for not using Nepa reviews to require more protections at launch sites. These environmental reviews are required because rocket launches and landings can be massively disruptive to local towns and residents, along with the natural surroundings. Exhaust, smoke plumes and sonic booms created at launch can injure and kill endangered species, and detritus from exploded rocket parts returning to Earth can harm fish and marine animals with hazardous material spills, fuel slicks and falling objects. Trump's executive order appears to especially benefit Elon Musk and his company SpaceX. SpaceX has been seeking to increase its rocket-ship launches and landings around the country. The company has been involved in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups for violating the National Environmental Policy Act; they say the FAA did not do a thorough enough environmental assessment of SpaceX's impact to endangered species regarding its rocket launches in Boca Chica, Texas. The lawsuit looked at the first launch of SpaceX's massive Starship rocket in Texas in April 2023. The spaceship, which is designed to one day make it to Mars, pulverized its launchpad on takeoff, sending chunks of concrete flying 6 miles (10km) away. The blast ignited a grassfire that burned nearly 4 acres (1.5 hectares) of state park and, from what is known, destroyed a nest of bobwhite quail eggs and a collection of blue land crabs. 'This reckless order puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas,' said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit. 'Bending the knee to powerful corporations by allowing federal agencies to ignore bedrock environmental laws is incredibly dangerous and puts all of us in harm's way,' Margolis added. 'This is clearly not in the public interest.' The FAA announced in May that it had given SpaceX permission to increase its number of Starship launches in Texas from five per year to 25. SpaceX has also been seeking to increase launches of its smaller Falcon rockets from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California from 50 per year to 95. Trump's executive order would facilitate an expedited review process to get these and other launch permits. Along with SpaceX, the order would benefit commercial space companies like Jeff Bezos's Blue Horizon, which has also been aiming to increase rocket launches. The White House touted the order on Wednesday as being the latest 'deregulatory action' to reform the National Environmental Policy Act and eliminate 'burdensome DEI requirements'.
WIRED
19-07-2025
- Politics
- WIRED
Why It's Taking LA So Long to Rebuild After the Wildfires
Jul 19, 2025 7:00 AM Reforming California's environmental rules is only a small step to rebuilding Los Angeles after the fires in January. Sisters sit together on the front porch of what remains of their home on January 19, 2025, in Altadena, California. Photograph:This story originally appeared on Vox and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the wake of the record-breaking wildfires in Los Angeles in January—some of the most expensive and destructive blazes in history—one of the first things California governor Gavin Newsom did was to sign an executive order suspending environmental rules around rebuilding. The idea was that by waiving permitting regulations and reviews under the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), homeowners and builders could start cleaning up, putting up walls, and getting people back into houses faster. But that raised a key question for housing advocates: Could California do something similar for the whole state? Earlier this month, Newsom took a step in that direction, signing two bills that would exempt most urban housing from environmental reviews and make it easier for cities to increase housing by changing zoning laws. Newsom also signed another executive order that suspends some local permitting laws and building codes for fire-afflicted communities with the aim of further speeding up reconstruction. Housing reforms can't come soon enough for the City of Angels. Blown by hurricane-strength Santa Ana winds over an unusually dry, grassy landscape, the wildfires that tore through LA burned almost 48,000 acres and damaged or destroyed more than 16,000 structures, including more than 9,500 single-family homes, 1,200 duplexes, and 600 apartments in one of the most housing-starved regions of the country. Los Angeles is a critical case study for housing for the whole state, a test of whether the Democratic-controlled government can coordinate its conflicting political bases—unions, environmental groups, housing advocates—with a desperate need for more homes. Revising the state's environmental laws was seen by some observers as a sign that the Golden State was finally seeing the light. But despite the relaxed rules, progress in LA has been sluggish. More than 800 homeowners in areas affected by wildfires applied for rebuilding permits as of July 7, according to the Los Angeles Times. Fewer than 200 have received the green light, however. The City of Los Angeles takes about 55 days on average to approve a wildfire rebuild, and the broader Los Angeles County takes even longer. (Los Angeles County has a dashboard to track permitting approvals in unincorporated areas.) 'LA's process is super slow, so that's not surprising,' said Elisa Paster, a managing partner at Rand Paster Nelson, a firm based in Los Angeles that specializes in land use law. 'Anecdotally, we've heard that a lot of people have decided they don't want to go through the process of rebuilding in LA because it is quite onerous.' Now, half a year after the embers have died down, it's clear that changing the rules isn't enough. Advocates for CEQA say the 55-year-old law is really a scapegoat for bigger, more intractable housing problems. Other factors, like more expensive construction materials and labor shortages, are still driving up housing construction costs, regardless of permitting speeds. And some environmental groups worry that the rush to rebuild everything as it was could recreate the conditions that led to the blazes in the first place, a dangerous prospect in an area where wildfire risks are only growing. How CEQA Reforms Can and Can't Help Communities Harmed by Wildfires CEQA is one of California's tentpole environmental laws, signed by then governor Ronald Reagan in 1970. It requires that state and local governments preemptively look for any potential environmental harms from a construction project, like water pollution, threats to endangered species, and later, greenhouse gas emissions. Developers need to disclose these issues and take steps to avoid them. The law also allows the public to weigh in on new developments. In the years since, CEQA has been blamed as a barrier to new construction. Many critics see it as a cynical tool wielded to prevent new housing construction in wealthy communities, even being invoked to challenge highway closures and new parks on environmental grounds. It's one of the villains of the 'abundance' movement that advocates for cutting red tape to build more homes and clean energy. However, CEQA isn't necessarily the gatekeeper to rebuilding single-family homes after wildfires, according to Matthew Baker, policy director at the Planning and Conservation League, a nonprofit that helped shepherd CEQA in the first place. For one thing, CEQA already has broad exemptions for replacing and rebuilding structures and new construction of 'small' structures like single-family homes. 'Our general take is that the executive orders around revoking environmental review and environmental regulations around the rebuilding [after the fires] did little to nothing beyond what was already in existing law,' Baker said. He added that the vast majority of projects that face CEQA review get the go-ahead, and less than 2 percent of proposals face litigation. An aerial view shows homes burned in the Eaton Fire on February 05, 2025, in Altadena, California. U.S. Photograph:But the mere threat of a lawsuit and the precautions taken to avoid one can become a significant hurdle on its own. 'CEQA can be an expensive and lengthy process, especially for large or complicated projects. This is true even if there is not litigation,' according to a 2024 report from California's Little Hoover Commission, the state's independent oversight agency. 'Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA can take a year or longer and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even, in some cases, more than $1 million.' In addition, CEQA does come into play for people who want to make more extensive changes to their property as they rebuild, like if they want to expand their floorspace more than 10 percent beyond their original floor plan. The law is also triggered by broader wildfire risk-reduction initiatives, namely brush clearance and controlled burns, as well as infrastructure upgrades like putting power lines underground to prevent fire ignitions or installing more pipelines and cisterns for water to help with firefighting. Exempting these projects could help communities build fire resilience faster. For multifamily homes like duplexes and apartment buildings, CEQA can be an obstacle, too, if the developer wants to rebuild with more units. 'We have multifamily buildings in the Palisades that had rent-controlled units, and what we've been hearing from some of these property owners is like, 'Yeah, sure. I had 20 rent-controlled units there before, but I can't afford to just rebuild 20.' Those people want to go back and build 50 units, 20 of which could be rent-controlled, or all of which are rent-controlled.' By bypassing CEQA, higher-density housing has an easier path to completion. Environmental Regulations Aren't the Only Barriers to Rebuilding Rebuilding after fires is always going to be expensive. Your home may have been built and sold in the 1970s, but you'll have to pay 2025 prices for materials and labor when you rebuild. California already faces some of the highest housing costs in the country and a shortage of construction workers. The Trump administration is pushing the price tag higher with tariffs on components like lumber and its campaign to deport people. About 41 percent of workers in California's construction industry are immigrants, and 14 percent are undocumented. But even before they can rebuild, one of the biggest challenges for people who have lost their homes is simply becoming whole after a loss. 'From the clients that I've spoken to, they've had to argue with their insurance company to get full replacement value or reasonable compensation, and that's where they're getting stuck,' said David Hertz, an architect based in Santa Monica. On top of the tedious claims process, insurance companies in California have been dropping some of their customers in high-fire-risk areas, leaving them no option besides the FAIR Plan, the state's high-priced, limited-coverage insurer of last resort. But after the multibillion-dollar losses from the Los Angeles fires, the FAIR Plan had to collect an additional $1 billion from its member companies, a move that will raise property insurance prices. People who can't get property insurance can't get a mortgage from most lenders. There's also the concern of exactly where and how homes are rebuilt. In 2008, California updated its building codes to make structures more resistant to wildfires, but bringing burned-down old homes to new standards in high-fire-risk areas adds to the timeline and the price tag. 'There's this tension between all of us wanting to have people be able to rebuild their homes in their communities, and there's the question of 'Are we just going to build back the same thing in the same unsafe place? Are we going to try to do things better?' Baker said. All the while, wildfires are becoming more destructive. Wildfires are a natural part of Southern California's landscape, but more people are crowding into areas that are primed to burn, and the danger zones are widening. That increases the chances of a wildfire ignition and makes the ensuing blazes more damaging. With average temperatures rising, California is seeing more aggressive swings between severe rainfall and drought. The 2025 Los Angeles fires were preceded in 2024 by one of the wettest winters in the region's history, followed by one of the hottest summers on record, and bookended by one of the driest starts to winter. It created the ideal conditions for ample dry grasses and chaparral that fueled the infernos. 'The question is, how does one really exist within a natural system that's designed to burn?' Hertz said. Reducing wildfire risk on a wider scale requires coordination between neighbors. For example, Hertz said that in many of the communities that burned, there are likely many residents who won't come back. Neighbors could coordinate to buy up and swap vacant land parcels to create a defensible space with fire-resistant trees like oak to serve as fire breaks and water storage to help respond to future blazes. Hertz himself leads a community brigade, trained volunteers who work to reduce wildfire risk in their neighborhoods. He also cautioned that while there's a lot of well-deserved pushback against regulations like CEQA, the reasoning behind it remains sound. Development without any environmental considerations could put more homes in the path of danger and destroy the ecosystems that make California such an attractive place to live. 'I think there's a balance,' Hertz said. 'Nature doesn't have its own voice.' At the same time, without speeding up the pace at which California restores the homes that were lost and builds new ones, the housing crisis will only get worse. The state will become unlivable for many residents. Long after the burn scars fade and new facades are erected, communities will be altered permanently.
