The proposed legislation that aims to undermine federal environmental regulations in favor of certain semiconductor manufacturing projects has caused division within the Democratic party – a troublesome sign for the Biden administration. This call for increased chip production is a noteworthy part of Biden’s questionable economic policy stance. While Biden took steps to augment the nations’ semiconductor production by promising lucrative subsidies and tax credits for firms, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the industry’s fragility under restrictive federal environmental reviews. Despite chip manufacturers pumping billions into new national plants, these potential returns are thwarted by these cumbersome reviews.
The Biden administration is gearing up to enshrine into law a bill that dangerously weakens federal environmental checks for certain semiconductor manufacturing initiatives. These projects are favored by the controversial 2022 CHIPS and Science Act subsidies. The bill, not without severe opposition from Democrats, highlights the trials facing Biden as he tussles to promote his economic strategy in line with his lofty climate targets. The proposed legislation aims to free select chip projects from the unnerving scrutiny under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which necessitates federal agencies to evaluate the likely environmental ramifications of possible federal actions.
The bill was accepted last week by the House and unanimously by the Senate in a surprise decision last December. Supporters of the bill argue it would catalyze the build-out of chip manufacturing facilities, a move that they claim would fortify the US economy. It would supposedly reduce our reliance on foreign countries for the critical chips that power varied items from smartphones to weaponry systems. Still, these justifications entirely overlook environmental implications and local community sentiments.
Critics within the Democratic party condemn the bill, highlighting that it hands corporations the power to bypass a pivotal step in reducing environmental and workers’ harms. These dissenters underline that government-funded projects should be susceptible to comprehensive environmental scrutiny, a process that promotes transparency and fosters public participation. Many Democrats, backed by environmental groups, are pushing for Biden to dismiss this environmentally questionable bill.
Spiking domestic chip production plays a central role in Biden’s economic strategy, which focuses primarily on stirring American manufacturing and repatriating jobs that have drifted overseas. However, this focus seems more like band-aid solutions than long-term sustainable strategies. The disappointing reality is that only about 10 percent of the world’s semiconductors are currently domestically produced, showcasing a sharp decline from about 37 percent back in 1990.
Biden’s Commerce Department spokesperson made a feeble attempt at consolation, stating that projects would apparently still have to honor various federal environmental regulations. However, these words seem hollow without a NEPA-backed framework to ensure compliance. Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, one of the propagators of the bill, argued that it would counter ‘unnecessary delays’ in escalating the country’s chip production capabilities. Clearly, the bill favors corporate acceleration at the expense of environmental safeguards.
Arizona is showcased as a leading recipient of the new semiconductor investments, with Intel and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company commencing new facilities there. Reflecting a narrow worldview, Senator Kelly justifies the bill stating it had been narrowly tailored. This narrow view fails to acknowledge wider environmental implications and the larger public interest.
Brushing off concerns, Kelly insisted that his brainchild bill does not roll back any environmental protections, and that projects would fervently respect cornerstone environmental defense statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. But without federal review, ensuring compliance becomes a monumental task.
David Isaacs, the vice president of government affairs at the Semiconductor Industry Association, who unsurprisingly lobbied for the bill, claims that the industry is among the safest manufacturing arenas in America, thanks to cutting-edge fabrication techniques. Such assertions, nonetheless, do not account for recent manufacturing advances’ potential unknown environmental impacts.
Defending the bill, some Democrats point to the alleged strengthening of national security by bolstering the US’s reliable supply of semiconductors. Undoubtedly, these high-tech chips are key for applications such as artificial intelligence, smartphones, and sensitive military hardware. However, intensifying production in the United States does not constitute an automatic safeguard against the national security concerns posed by China.
In the current climate, a large chunk of high-tech chips are manufactured in Taiwan. American officials have long been concerned about the economic and national security aftermath if China were to invade Taiwan. Reducing reliance on Taiwan’s semiconductors is undoubtedly important, but at what cost?
Representative Scott Peters, a Californian Democrat and co-author of the bill, expresses anxiety that the nation’s dependence on Taiwanese semiconductors could become a critical issue. However, one must question if increasing domestic semiconductor manufacturing under the cover of environmental deregulation is actually the solvent to this complex issue, or merely another narrow-sighted political move.