{"id":383407,"date":"2025-06-16T16:25:18","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T14:25:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=383407"},"modified":"2025-06-16T16:25:19","modified_gmt":"2025-06-16T14:25:19","slug":"nepa-reform-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=383407","title":{"rendered":"NEPA reform time"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Duggan Flanakin<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Billie Joe McAllister Day, the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly issued an 8-0 decision (Justice Gorsuch abstaining) that substantially limits the scope of the 55-year-old National Environmental Policy Act, the nation\u2019s foundational environmental law. The decision dealt a huge blow to rent-seeking attorneys, shakedown artists, \u201canti-progress\u201d obstructionists, anarchists and socialists, and others now horrified that the federal permitting system has had its wheels greased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, enemies of construction projects \u2013 highways, pipelines, railways \u2013 and any other activity using federal funds deemed to have a \u201csignificant environmental impact\u201d have slowed or stopped them outright, adding huge costs for document preparation and defense, additional monitoring, activity restrictions, and mitigation and for never-ending public review. Moreover, state and even local NEPA laws and regulations extend their reach far beyond federal projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court ruling addressed the proposed construction of a railroad to connect oilfields in Utah\u2019s Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network that takes crude to Gulf Coast refineries. Despite approval from the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the Board had failed to follow a NEPA requirement to consider the environmental impacts of oil drilling and production and oil refining and distribution in its decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that courts are not meant to \u201cmicromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.\u201d Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Mario Loyola echoed the sentiments of many long-time critics of the courts\u2019 interpretations of NEPA by stating that the ruling could dramatically increase the speed of new infrastructure permitting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Loyola said that the Supreme Court has signaled that lower courts must show substantial deference to an agency\u2019s determination of which environmental matters to incorporate into their NEPA response, which alternatives to study, and how much detail to study. The Court further added that agencies have no obligation to study the environmental effects of projects that are removed in time and space from the project at hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al.<\/em> could significantly reduce the target litigation areas for NEPA reviews. And that, says Legal Insurrection\u2019s Leslie Eastman, will weaken<\/a> the ability of \u201cfederal judges acting as philosopher kings\u201d to halt projects based on \u201cthe flimsiest environmental pretexts.\u201d It comes, she added, \u201cat a time when the American economy is gasping for infrastructure upgrades \u2013 bridges, pipelines, rail, transmission lines.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It took 55 years for NEPA to grow beyond recognition into an economy killer. But it was not supposed to be that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly six decades ago, Sen. Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson (D, WA) convinced<\/a> President Richard Nixon to sign<\/a> the National Environmental Policy Act. There was almost no public demand for \u2013 or opposition to \u2013authorizing federal agencies to\u201ccreate and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony<\/em>\u201d (emphasis added) and to \u201cassure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, esthetically, and culturally pleasing surroundings.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Little did he know that the act he championed would come back to bite him in the backside. Jackson had built quite a reputation as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee in fostering the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and the creation of North Cascades and Redwood National Parks and a host of national seashores.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After minimal congressional debate that added teeth demanded by Sen. Ed Muskie (D, ME), Nixon opted to make signing the bill his \u201cfirst official act in this new decade.\u201d Months later, Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D, WI) ushered in the first Earth Day, and in December 1970, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and charged it with NEPA oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first evidence that NEPA would have a greater impact than Nixon had believed came with the initial NEPA compliance seminar (which I attended as a DOI employee). Shortly afterward, activists recognized that NEPA provided a powerful tool to halt, delay, or modify projects they considered harmful \u2013 for some, that meant ANY project that moved dirt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not long after, Sen. Jackson learned that his baby was being used to halt nuclear power plant construction, delay the Alaska pipeline, and impede other projects he favored. Once a green hero, Jackson ended up denouncing \u201cenvironmental extremists\u201d for failing to recognize the need to balance environmental protection with economic growth \u2013 effectively, to ignore the fact that humans are part of the natural environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 1993, the U.S. Office of Science and Technology was questioning<\/a> NEPA\u2019s value, as NEPA compliance was already costing the U.S. taxpayer about $1 billion a year. OST admitted that NEPA\u2019s success stories were commingled with its \u201cboondoggles,\u201d but concluded the act was cost-effective \u2013 at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014, the Government Accountability Office stated<\/a> that less than 1% were environmental impact statements \u2013 those likely to be high-profile, complex, and expensive. Based on Department of Energy data, the median EIS contractor cost (2003-2012) was $1.4 million, while a 2003 CEQ task force reported a typical EIS cost from $250,000 to $2 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, a 2018 Regulatory Transparency Project report<\/a> let the hammer down on NEPA\u2019s impact on the U.S. economy. Its lengthy title tells the whole story \u2013 A Long and Winding Road: How the National Environmental Policy Act Has Become the Most Expensive and Least Effective Environmental Law in the History of the United States, and How to Fix It.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author Mark Rutzick noted that \u201ca half century of NEPA implementation has transformed this seemingly innocuous agency reporting duty into the most costly, burdensome, and ineffective environmental law in the history of the United States.\u201d NEPA compliance across every government agency ate up nearly $1 billion in direct federal expenditures annually and required the full-time work of hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEPA, Rutzick added, also requires states, localities, and private citizens who seek federal funds or permits to incur untold massive expenditures to satisfy federal agency NEPA demands. \u201cAll this has occurred under an effective cloak of agency silence, with no meaningful oversight or, apparently, even awareness by the Executive Branch or Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trouble, said Rutnick, began with President Carter\u2019s 1977 executive order commanding the CEQ to issue regulations prescribing NEPA reporting duties for all federal agencies. The 1978 CEQ regulations were unnecessarily overbroad and unduly complex such that they enabled environmental advocates to file up to 4,000 lawsuits seeking to delay or kill federal projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through these lawsuits, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals produced a massive set of judicial decisions that vastly enlarged \u201calready unreasonable\u201d NEPA reporting duties. Worst of all, judges who reject agency NEPA reports used court injunctions to delay thousands of federal projects indefinitely \u2013 often spawning additional rounds of NEPA review, comment, and delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEPA compliance was imposing five year delays or longer and halting thousands of smaller actions for up to two years for projects not even requiring an EIS. Even President Obama\u2019s $900 billion stimulus law could not be implemented until federal agencies completed 192,707 NEPA reviews, including 841 EISs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit added four new factors to NEPA\u2019s standard of judicial review that collectively require a much higher level of compliance than any other federal statute<\/em>, overturning half a century of Supreme Court instructions to judges to limit their considerations to \u201crelevant factors\u201d to determine only whether there had been a \u201cclear error of judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agency decisions must be \u201cfully informed and well-considered,\u201d NEPA requirements must be \u201cstrictly interpreted to the fullest extent possible,\u201d and compliance can only be achieved if procedures are \u201cfaithfully followed; grudging, pro forma<\/em> compliance will not do.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All those phrases BEG for endless litigation, as does another Ninth Circuit wrinkle forcing an agency to prepare an EIS if a plaintiff merely presents \u201csubstantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit long held that any violation of NEPA or CEQ regulations meant an automatic injunction. The court also declared that \u201cenvironmental litigation\u201d is a specialty requiring \u201cdistinctive knowledge\u201d to entitle Equal Access to Justice Act fee awards over three times the statutory limit for legal fees (up to $650 per hour).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ninth Circuit also created a \u201cNEPA exception\u201d to a federal requirement that a party cannot obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order without posting a bond to cover potential economic harm to the defendant. They led the way for even the Supreme Court to steadily reduce the evidence necessary to prove environmental injury sufficient to gain legal standing to sue \u201calmost to the point of triviality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As this month\u2019s Supreme Court decision is itself limited in scope, Congress and the White House have much more to do to rein in judicial lawfare that has stymied federal projects and made plaintiff attorneys filthy rich while severely weakening the U.S. economy \u2013 and incentivizing manufacturers to move offshore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Trump\u2019s response to date has included expedited permitting and review for projects falling under national energy emergency purview. But to fully restore NEPA\u2019s original intent \u2013 that people can exist (and thrive) in productive harmony with the natural world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Billie Joe McAllister Day, the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly issued an 8-0 decision (Justice Gorsuch abstaining) that substantially limits the scope of the 55-year-old National Environmental Policy Act, the nation\u2019s foundational environmental law. The decision dealt a huge blow to rent-seeking attorneys, shakedown artists, \u201canti-progress\u201d obstructionists, anarchists and socialists, and others now horrified that the federal permitting system has had its wheels greased.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":383409,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691835850,691823546,691819926],"class_list":{"0":"post-383407","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-economy-killer","9":"tag-national-environmental-policy-act-nepa","10":"tag-u-s-supreme-court","12":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0Screenshot-2025-06-16-162423.png?fit=1246%2C822&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1BJZ","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":360607,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=360607","url_meta":{"origin":383407,"position":0},"title":"US Supremes Hear Climate Lawfare Case to Stop Oil\u00a0Railway","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court recently heard a\u00a0major case,\u00a0Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado,\u00a0that will affect the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The case concerns the\u00a0permitting of a proposed Utah railway that would ship oil\u00a0from the Uinta Basin, potentially\u00a0quadrupling its oil production.\u00a0The 88-mile\u00a0Uinta Basin Railway would\u00a0connect\u00a0the oil\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0supreme-court-storm-AS-1280-1080x675-1.jpg?fit=1080%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0supreme-court-storm-AS-1280-1080x675-1.jpg?fit=1080%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0supreme-court-storm-AS-1280-1080x675-1.jpg?fit=1080%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0supreme-court-storm-AS-1280-1080x675-1.jpg?fit=1080%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0supreme-court-storm-AS-1280-1080x675-1.jpg?fit=1080%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":381181,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381181","url_meta":{"origin":383407,"position":1},"title":"SCOTUS Slaps Down Green Overreach: 8-0 Ruling Frees Infrastructure from NEPA Shackles","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/06\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In a rare but resounding act of judicial sanity, the Supreme Court of the United States has delivered an 8-0 ruling that reins in one of the most abused weapons in the bureaucratic arsenal: environmental obstructionism. The case,\u00a0Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, stemmed from a challenge to a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Chicken Littles\"","block_context":{"text":"Chicken Littles","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=chicken-littles"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0ChatGPT-Image-2.-Juni-2025-17_56_17.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0ChatGPT-Image-2.-Juni-2025-17_56_17.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0ChatGPT-Image-2.-Juni-2025-17_56_17.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/0ChatGPT-Image-2.-Juni-2025-17_56_17.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":263469,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=263469","url_meta":{"origin":383407,"position":2},"title":"Supreme Court\u2019s WOTUS ruling will shake things up across the board","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Last month\u2019s landmark Supreme Court ruling in\u00a0Sackett v. EPA\u00a0not only narrowed the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) authority to regulate wetlands, but it will also have reverberations far beyond the Clean Water Act (CWA).","rel":"","context":"In \"CWA\"","block_context":{"text":"CWA","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cwa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency-sign-1200x500-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C500&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency-sign-1200x500-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C500&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency-sign-1200x500-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C500&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency-sign-1200x500-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C500&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency-sign-1200x500-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C500&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282939,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=282939","url_meta":{"origin":383407,"position":3},"title":"Biden NEPA rule faces stiff legal challenges","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court will not let the CEQ rule stand as written. From\u00a0CFACT By\u00a0Bonner Cohen, Ph. D. A rule proposed this summer by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) meant to roll back Trump-era reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is headed for its day in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird\"","block_context":{"text":"Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=iowa-attorney-general-brenna-bird"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Scales-of-Justice-Environment-961826918_blog.jpg?fit=1200%2C790&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Scales-of-Justice-Environment-961826918_blog.jpg?fit=1200%2C790&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Scales-of-Justice-Environment-961826918_blog.jpg?fit=1200%2C790&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Scales-of-Justice-Environment-961826918_blog.jpg?fit=1200%2C790&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Scales-of-Justice-Environment-961826918_blog.jpg?fit=1200%2C790&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206528,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206528","url_meta":{"origin":383407,"position":4},"title":"All Eyes on SCOTUS: Supreme Court to Issue Climate Endangerment Finding Ruling \u2013 To Decide if EPA, or Congress, has authority to regulate CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Depot The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335704,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335704","url_meta":{"origin":383407,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court to decide whether climate studies will be required for Infrastructure projects","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The U.S. Supreme Court June 24 agreed to take up a case that may ultimately determine whether critical infrastructure projects \u2013 from transportation to transmission of energy \u2013 will require climate impact analyses before that can go forward. Plans by a public-private partnership to construct an 88-mile-long rail line in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Impacts\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Impacts","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-impacts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Construction-cranes-hard-hat.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Construction-cranes-hard-hat.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Construction-cranes-hard-hat.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Construction-cranes-hard-hat.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Construction-cranes-hard-hat.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=383407"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383407\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":383411,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383407\/revisions\/383411"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/383409"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=383407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=383407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=383407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}