A lot of environmental advocates are saying the time is right to pass a bill to protect the environment from the impacts of fossil fuel development, especially the emissions from coal-fired power plants.
But that would mean going beyond a few vague promises and would likely result in more environmental damage.
A lot of these environmental concerns have been raised by environmental groups who have said the US needs to be much more transparent and accountable.
Here are three things they can tell you about the Senate’s environment bill, which is currently being debated.1.
It won’t be perfect.
It’s a bill that will probably be amended a bit, but that’s expected to be mostly cosmetic, with a few minor changes to make it more friendly to some of the more vocal environmental groups.
For example, the bill would require the federal government to give priority to projects that use renewable energy, a move the Trump administration has resisted, and a bill also calling for a review of the EPA’s regulations to make sure they’re more progressive.
But it’s not clear if the EPA will do anything about it.
And the bill doesn’t address whether the EPA should require states to get permits before approving new coal plants.
The bill does give a green light for a lot of renewable energy projects that are being built right now, including the massive $1.8 billion solar farm planned in North Dakota.
But there are a number of other provisions that would require approval of a much broader array of projects, including wind farms, electric vehicles, and energy storage projects.
“A lot is at stake here,” said John Bittles, executive director of the Sierra Club.
“We need to look at these things seriously.”
A couple of the biggest ones are the Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements that utilities have renewable energy by 2025, which the Trump Administration is now opposing.
The EPA has been putting up barriers to coal plants, so there are some real challenges here.
The bill also includes a provision that allows states to delay or cancel new projects until they can prove to the agency that they can meet that 2025 deadline.
“That’s a big part of the bill.
There’s a lot at stake,” Bitts said.2.
It’s likely to be a very narrow bill.
Most of the legislation is expected to pass the Senate, but the Senate is divided along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans opposing it.
That’s not likely to change much.
The most conservative Republicans, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), are likely to vote against the bill, and they can be easily swayed by the prospect of potentially losing their seats if they don’t pass it.
A Senate majority will likely be in play.
But if Democrats win back the Senate in 2020, that could be a big problem for Republicans.
They could lose their seats in the House and have to work with Republicans in the upper chamber to pass anything.3.
It might not pass the House.
In a letter to Sen. Ted Cruz (R of Texas) last week, Sierra Club President Dan Ashe said that the Senate bill “is likely to pass, even though it does not have the necessary support in the lower chamber.”
But, he added, “the House will likely pass it as well.”
And it is not clear how much support there is in the GOP-controlled House.
“I think it’s a real possibility that the bill will pass, but it is highly likely that the House will reject it,” said Dan Schoen, a senior adviser at the Environmental Defense Fund.4.
It would not be able to make up for all the political damage that the Trump era has already caused.
The Senate version of the Senate environment bill has received little attention from the outside world.
But in the past few months, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has been investigating a variety of environmental and economic issues, and this year it’s been busy doing that.
It recently released its final report on the Trump EPA, and the Republican-controlled committee is scheduled to finish its report on climate change later this month.
But this is an important piece of legislation because it has been working in Congress for several years.
And it’s the only one that could actually pass the full Senate.
The legislation would have to be signed into law by the president to go into effect.
The White House has resisted signing it, saying it’s too costly to pass and it’s likely a political liability for Republicans who could lose seats in 2018.
But Senate Republicans have been trying to get a version of it passed in the last year or so, and Sen. Richard Shelby (R, Ala.) said he’s confident it would be passed this year.