Biden’s proposed ban would harm economy, environment
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s new climate plan promises to start his Presidency with a series of “Day One Unprecedented Executive Actions” that include “banning new oil and gas permitting on public land and water.” Biden and the other Democratic candidates should make clear whether they support this ban, which would reverse President Barack Obama’s energy policies and lay waste to America’s growing energy economy.
Biden’s order would completely shut down drilling on public lands — including the 85 percent of Nevada owned by the federal government. No new leases and no permits for new wells on existing leases.This ban would violate the laws Congress has made to govern public lands but it would be very difficult to challenge in court. Even if a judge ordered Biden’s administration to continue issuing permits, it could slow-walk them or throw up other obstacles to make it practically impossible to drill on public lands.
The economic consequences of such a shutdown would be enormous. In 2018, the United States produced over 2 million of barrels of oil a day from public land. That’s over $50 billion of oil — over $400 per American household every year — from the iconic frontiers of the American energy industry such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Permian Basin. State governments, American investors, and energy workers all depend on that revenue. No country in the world has ever abandoned a natural resource of this proven value.
The shutdown would also harm the environment by cutting natural gas production. The U.S. will soon be the world’s biggest gas exporter, and our trade partners are eager to use our clean-burning gas. Gas power plants emit less carbon and much less air pollution than coal power plants.
So American natural gas could help other countries lower their carbon emissions a bit and clean up their air a lot. A ban on public land drilling would squander the economic and environmental benefits of becoming a global gas exporter.
The ban could also hamstring the energy industry on state and private lands because pipelines need federal permits to cross streams and wetlands that are considered “waters of the United States.” A ban on new pipelines would choke the energy industry in every state.
It’s particularly puzzling that Obama’s vice president would advocate such a policy. Obama routinely boasts of the prosperity that the oil and gas boom provided for Americans while he was in office. And Biden and Obama have championed American gas exports to help our allies clean their air and reduce their dependence on Russia. Why would Biden now forfeit all these benefits for the economy, the environment, and national security?
Given the radical consequences of a total ban on federal oil and gas permitting, it’s hard to believe that Biden means what his plan says. But if he does mean it, he should explain why it is in the public interest. And if he doesn’t, it’s fair to wonder what his actual plan is.
James Coleman is an Associate Professor at SMU’s Dedman School of Law and publishes the Energy Law Professor blog.