Continuing: several ways to look at this decision:
3.  If someone pushes the envelope on an ESA consultation to make the case that the species will absolutely be in jeopardy with no reasonable and prudent alternatives, a project cannot be permitted, unless it gets an exemption from the 'god squad' in D.C. Past judgments that "no reasonable and prudent alternatives exist" have been very rare.  But if one uses projections and discretion out to nearly 100 years, and concludes that the Arctic will be iceless and the waters warmer, everything is threatened (except new migrating-in species), then for any project or human activity that contributes, all bets are off.  A solution would be for Congress to take action, and either allow some activity or shut everything down.
4. If reason prevails the net effect on projects could be minimal.  But the decision will be in the hands of FWS and NMFS who manage the ESA.  One hopes they and the courts will be reasonable.  But can we agree on reasonable?