[SUBMITTED] LEEDing from Behind

[Altmer Dominion]

This could be called the NEPA issue.

Draft #1
[Name] LEEDing from Behind.

[Description] A new administrative building for the Environmental Ministry is under fire from watchdog groups. An investigation found—among other things—that valuable wetland was drained for the foundation, unsustainable materials were used during construction, and energy-inefficient methods were chosen for the mechanical systems.

[option] "@@NAME@@’s government needs to do better," tuts @@RANDOMNAME@@, an activist protesting outside the Ministry building. "All government agencies must be required to undergo an impact assessment before any proposed action—building or otherwise. Not only do they need to report critical habitat affected, embodied energy costs for materials, et cetera, agencies must be required to follow the most environmentally friendly option they find. If even one thing is found out of place, a project shouldn’t be allowed to go through. Certain methods may cost a pretty @@CURRENCY@@ for the most sustainable option, but the conservation benefits will be worth it in the end."
[effect] a mix-up on the Endangered Species List has indefinitely delayed multiple government projects

[option] "There shouldn't be a mandate," begs @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Treasury Minister. "Go through with the permitting process, but have the findings only be a suggestion. There’s no way that @@NAME@@ can afford the highest level of environmental certifications on every building! While it would be best for there not to be any outright requirements, the overall process should be transparent to the public: at the very least, we may still get some project managers guilt-tripped into doing the right thing."
[effect] bureaucrats grumble that the volume of paper used to complete a single Environmental Assessment report defeats the purpose

[option] "There’s no reason to go through with this,” suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Housing and @@DEMONYM@@ Services. “In fact, I say we teach these hippies a lesson. Here’s a list of some of the fragile habitats surrounding @@CAPITOL@@. I’ve also got three work orders filed for United Federation granite—I hear they recently opened up one of their National Parks for mining. Just say the word, and those eco-freaks will be living their worst-case scenario. Maybe then they’ll get the message."
[effect] one of the last-known habitats of the endangered yellow-bellied @@ANIMAL@@ has been bulldozed for @@CAPITOL@@’s new Natural History Museum.

[The Official United Nations]

There is a 'that that' in the first paragraph, which could be shortened to 'that.'

The issue does draw on a similar problem to others, however it does seem to have an interesting take on building regulations. Having regulation as a 'suggestion' seems conventional in these matters, so it's a valid consideration. There is some humorous potential in that, as you touch on: it won't impede much, however a few conscientious people might just respond. You could build on that.

Instead of listing disparate problems with the building, it might be useful to 'frame' these through an overall summary of the problem. Otherwise too many issues seem to come up. At least a note saying that the planning was environmentally inefficient in a resounding way.

The third, spiteful answer is slightly unique and interesting. The contrarian response to environmentalism gives this issue some character of its own. However, the speaker could further clarify what kind of measures they expect in the 'endangered' areas. That seems slightly amorphous right now, rather than a determined stance. You might also want to play up the protest around this government building, to give an apt setting for this embittered response.

[Australian rePublic]

Also the building burns more electricity per sq metre than 90% of other buildings in the cojntry

[Altmer Dominion]

There is a 'that that' in the first paragraph, which could be shortened to 'that.'

Thank you for catching that. Fixed.

The issue does draw on a similar problem to others, however it does seem to have an interesting take on building regulations. Having regulation as a 'suggestion' seems conventional in these matters, so it's a valid consideration. There is some humorous potential in that, as you touch on: it won't impede much, however a few conscientious people might just respond. You could build on that.

Actually, I felt obligated to include that option, since 'regulation as suggestion' is the current—and controversial—policy outlined by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). All Federal Projects are required to consider the extent of any environmental disturbance (or, alternatively, submit a Finding of No Significant Impact to convince the government that the area's safe.) Additionally, before the project begins, it has to show to the public that the most environmentally friendly solution was considered—but they have no obligation to follow it. In summary, the 'guilt-trip method' is actually current U.S. Law. The two other options are the best-case and worst-case scenarios.

U.S. Environmental Policy 101.

Instead of listing disparate problems with the building, it might be useful to 'frame' these through an overall summary of the problem. Otherwise too many issues seem to come up. At least a note saying that the planning was environmentally inefficient in a resounding way.

The third, spiteful answer is slightly unique and interesting. The contrarian response to environmentalism gives this issue some character of its own. However, the speaker could further clarify what kind of measures they expect in the 'endangered' areas. That seems slightly amorphous right now, rather than a determined stance. You might also want to play up the protest around this government building, to give an apt setting for this embittered response.

I'll play around with these suggestions. Thank you for bringing them to my attention!

[Altmer Dominion]

Returning to this issue, after making some changes based on previous feedback.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I like it. I like the amusing juxtaposition in the building that is eco-unfriendly being the Environment Ministry one.

The issue has good shape, and decent effect lines.

[Altmer Dominion]

Thank you for the encouragement!

Looking for title suggestions, though. The current placeholder is sort of punny, but I'm really not a fan of the word 'Natural'.

[Altmer Dominion]

Changed the title, but I think I made the pun worse.

[Chan Island]

That is a very punny name indeed now.... just be sure to put in the new name in your main body too, because you have kept the old title there

[Altmer Dominion]

That is a very punny name indeed now.... just be sure to put in the new name in your main body too, because you have kept the old title there

Oops. Fixed now.

Any other thoughts before submission?

[Altmer Dominion]

Last call.

[Sacara]

Title makes me cringe, but good issue nonetheless.

[Altmer Dominion]

Submitted, pun and all.

[Jutsa]

gl! That pun will almost certainly get it picked.