144

Biden Bans New Oil and Gas Drilling Along Most U.S. Coasts (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 3 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Importantly, the law authorizing this doesn't authorize the president to reverse the ban. Trump has used it before too.

So reversing this likely means an unusual ruling from the courts, or getting congress to change things. Both possible, but take a lot more effort than simply issuing an executive order.

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

People should read the first chapter of "The Ministry for the Future". People will start dieing by the millions due to heat waves, it's going to happen even if we stop burning oil now because of how long the feedback loop takes. Drilling more lengthens this trend into a future where billions die.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 20 points 3 days ago

Mind you, if we actually stop burning all fossil fuels, end deforestation, and stop dumping a few trace gases into the atmosphere, the CO2 concentration will drop, resulting in temperatures coming something close to stabilization.

This doesn't mean the overall system is stable; there will still be ice melting (albeit more slowly than if we kept on burning stuff) but it's a vast improvement over the alternative.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago

That entire book should be required reading for everyone over the age of thirty.

And I'm only setting the cut off there because the under thirties have enough shit on their plates.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 2 days ago

He is relying on an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he says gives him the authority for this executive order.

He could have done this the entire time!?!?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 days ago

He could have, but didn't need to; he could simply choose to not issue leases in these places.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago

https://www.vox.com/climate/24098983/biden-oil-production-climate-fossil-fuel-renewables

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 days ago

Yes...that oil increase is largely on private land, which means the President has had limited power to do anything about it

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago

picked up the pace under Biden, who had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands by last October than former President Donald Trump had by the same point in his presidency.

[-] officermike@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

The ban affects the entire Eastern Seaboard, the Pacific Coast along California, Oregon and Washington, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Northern Bering Sea.

So that basically just leaves the Texas and Louisiana Gulf coast, and part of the Alaskan coast?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 days ago

Yes, and state waters (those less than 3 miles from shore) where the federal government isn't the one making the management decisions.

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

And Hawaii?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago

I don't see that in the list, but Hawaii has a very different geology which makes oil much less likely there

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Sure—I thought the previous comment was just trying to identify any US coastlines not on the list, not filtering by reason for exclusion.

[-] officermike@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

I did not exclude Hawaii on the basis of oil prospects, I just forgot about it.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

Hilarious. Biden oversaw record oil and gas drilling throughout his entire presidency, dwarfing that of W, Obama, and Trump.

Now he was to slow things down so Dems can score political points when Repugs immediately open the drilling floodgates. Seriously pathetic Biden, you could have actually done something for the environment during the past 4 years but chose corporate profits over people’s lives instead, every time.

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

This feels kinda like bike shedding to bring up currently with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches all bought and paid for by oligarchs, but isn't that executive branch overreach where the legislative branch should be who is determining this?

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In many ways, the ban is symbolic... On Monday Mr. Trump called Mr. Biden’s move “ridiculous” and said he would revoke the ban. “I’ll unban it immediately,” he said on the Hugh Hewitt radio program.

Couldn't genocide joe have done this like 4 years ago?

And if dude can just do this, can't trump just undo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_posturing

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No, the law here allows the President to designate areas as off-limits, but doesn't provide for the President reversing such a decision. It would take either Congress changing the rules, or the courts to invalidate the rule.

So it's a bit more than posturing.

And he didn't need to four years ago, because he could simply not issue new drilling leases in these places.

Besides, it's not like Biden will ever run for office again. Posturing is worthless to him right now.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I thought there was like a 60 day window where the new president can just say “nah” but anything established longer than that required a process to discourage jerking people around

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That window is provided by the CRA and only applies to agency rule-making, which is not the process that Biden used here.

Also the CRA does not allow the President to say "nah". It allows Congress to say "nah".

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago

There is a window, but it requires a vote by both houses of congress. Offshore drilling bans are popular, so there's a decent chance of peeling off a couple of Republicans and preventing it from passing.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I find it amusing when liberals believe the rule of law applies to fascism, instead of being dictated by fascism.

Laws only matter if they are enforced.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

GeNoCiDe JoE ThAnKs YoU fOR yOuR tRuMp SuPpOrT bEcAuSe BoTh SiDeS

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 2 days ago

Add it to the pile of his accomplishments

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025

144 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19292 readers

2599 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News