President Joe Biden drew mostly praise Wednesday for placing a moratorium on new oil and gas exploration on public lands and supporting an initiative to see at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters protected for nature by 2030.
The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to pause on entering into new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or offshore waters to the extent possible, launch a rigorous review of all existing leasing and permitting practices related to fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030. The order does not restrict energy activities on lands that the United States holds in trust for Tribes. The Secretary of the Interior will continue to consult with Tribes regarding the development and management of renewable and conventional energy resources, in conformance with the U.S. government’s trust responsibilities.
The executive order regarding "30 by 30" also "launches a process for stakeholder engagement from agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, Tribes, States, Territories, local officials, and others to identify strategies that will result in broad participation."
“This is a crucial step to stopping the wildlife extinction crisis, which threatens the future of all life on our planet,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’ve got to preserve the most biologically rich ecosystems to have any hope of bringing nature back from the brink. Human activity got us to this heartbreaking point, and we’re grateful the Biden administration will address this global crisis by working to protect 30% of the nation’s lands and oceans by 2030.”
Species have been hurtling towards extinct in recent years. Back in July the International Union for the Conservation of Nature released an assessment that found that one in four mammal species was threatened with extinction. Overall, the report said 32,441 species could face extinction if current trends aren't reversed.
In December, more than 135 groups urged the president-elect to issue an executive order declaring the loss of species to be a national emergency.
Numbers cited by the Center for Biological Diversity said there are less than 400 North Atlantic right whales left, just 14 red wolves known in the wild in North Carolina, and likely around 10 vaquita porpoises in Mexico. "In the Southeast extinction looms for 28 percent of the region’s fishes, 48 percent of crayfishes and nearly 70 percent of freshwater mussels," the group added.
Biden's order to place a moratorium on energy development on public lands drew praise from the National Parks Conservation Association and other conservation groups.
“President Biden’s pause on selling off our public lands to the oil industry, along with the bold goal to protect our air, lands and waters, are necessary steps to help our parks recover and build them back stronger," said NPCA President and CEO Theresa Pierno. "The Executive Orders get us one important step closer to better protecting our parks and public lands, cutting greenhouse gas pollution,and helping transition to clean energy in a just and equitable manner. These actions will help combat the climate crisis and provide a safer future for local communities and our national parks."
According to NPCA, "more than 26 million acres of federal land was offered to oil and gas corporations since 2016 – a combined area larger than the entire state of Kentucky."
Athan Manuel, the Sierra Club's director of Public Lands Protection, pointed out that in the past year "the Trump Administration leased nearly a million acres for oil and gas and gave the green light for coal mine expansions on public lands in Montana, Utah, Colorado, and North Dakota. We look forward to working with the Biden administration to secure lasting solutions that address the climate impacts of coal, oil and gas leasing and put in place long-overdue protections for communities, taxpayers, and the climate."
But Biden's moves were slammed by Independent Women's Voice, an advocacy group for women.
“If President Biden’s true thought was about creating jobs as was suggested during today’s press conference, his actions sure don’t reflect it,” said Charlotte Whelan, policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice. “Today’s executive order will have devastating effects on both jobs and the fight against climate change. While we all support the goal of reducing emissions to help keep our planet healthy, onerous regulation on essential energy sources—without reliable or affordable alternatives—will raise energy costs and kill jobs for Americans during this difficult economic climate.
“Yes, there are health and environmental impacts to greenhouse gas emissions,” added Whelan. “But the order fails to recognize the economic impacts of taking away reliable energy sources for American families and businesses.”
Comments
Kurt,
You need to cast a wider net when looking for reactions to this policy.
Yes, Kurt, ecbuck is exactly right! You absolutely do need to ask me and the other 81,268,756 voters like me for our reaction to this policy. By the way, we like it a lot! We support your 30 by 30 initiative!
Thanks, Hump.
And, by the way Buck, don't tell Kurt what to do as far as his editorial policy.You just go shead and invest your own money.
Agree 100% and keep rolling back Trump's attacks on the enviroment
Oh, thats right Rick, ideology over accuracy. Who do you think is going to be hurt most with higher costs of transportation and heating their homes? Not investors. It will be the very people for which you claim so much empathy.
Rick, I doubt the impact will get as bad as when Nixon/Agnew pumped and dumped the economy so severely that all construction came to a halt and they had to freeze wages just to buy time to let some of the funny money drain away, as bad as when Neal Bush and his friends orchestrated the S&L scam, as bad as what George H. W. inherited from the combination of both little Neal's S&L appraisal/mortgage scam and the damage done when Ronald Raygun took us so deeply into debt to wink, wink, defeat already defeated Soviets, any worse than when Cheney/Bush spent so much on their "elective" war to try to grab oil and then had to cover their tracks by orchestrating a mortgage scam even bigger than brother Neal's S&L appraisal mortgage scam, or any worse than the absolutely incredible shambles in which the Trump Administration has just left us. But, if it really turns out any worse than that, remind me and I'll send you a fiver to tide you over.
Trading one set of environmental issues for another and plunging head first into technologies who's full impacts haven't been vetted properly yet IMO. It will be interesting to watch people try to figure out how to dispose of all those lithium batteries from all the electric cars, how they will view all the new mining that will be required, if clearing for the very visible high voltage power lines will meet the same resistance as the underground XL pipeline, how the environmentalists will feel about solar farms etc.
At the end of the day I hope it's a net positive but when no one seems to have an interest in even talking about the negatives I have my doubts.
Oh my goodness, wild places, I can assure you that the vetting of those technologies and their impacts is ultimately not going to be evaded. The fights over the impact of windpower on birds and other things and the debates over turbine efficiency and cost relative to conservation values all continue to raise heat. I have long history in the debates over those enabling technologies. The republican's insatiable drive to always and under all conditions place lowest cost per watt (profit) over conservation in decisionmaking is certainly not helping illuminate those engineering processes.
At least for anyone with a respectable level of intelligence, the biggest problem with high voltage power lines is not their visibility, but rather the fact that they are evidence of centralized power distribution. One of the most critical goals of any advanced energy system will be to decentralize power distribution. We can talk about all kinds of power generation, from wind to solar to various forms of fuels to even nuclear; but, for reasons ranging from efficency to safety to conservation, the key is decentralized generation provided close to its intended use and tailored for the site, regardless of who gets the absolute maximum amount of mailbox money off the profits.
The discussions, investigations, and just flat arguments about lithium and boron (No, Rick, I mean the metal, not the length of my comments.) are also gaining momentum. With regard to lithium and boron mining, I confess to an obsessive affection for buckwheat in all its forms and uses and the exceptionally rare Tiehm's buckwheat is no exception. It just oozes wildness. When it was found to be growing on top of Nevada's largest source of these metals, Australian mining company Ioneer assembled scientists-for-hire to demonstrate how a substitute "replica" habitat could be created for the species elsewhere (an alternative buckwheat Disneyland). But, when news came back that, if it could, it would take longer than Ioneer's bloodthirsty investors might want, suddenly there was wanton vandalism and destruction of much of the buckwheat that stands in the way of that mine. That scandal ultimately isn't going away, at least not quietly.
With regard to the disposal and recycling of lithium batteries, I have experience there and those are not insurmountable problems, if safety is prioritized over profit. And, that brings up the closest thing to a "zinger" in your comment. I have also experienced a big lithium fire. I don't believe there are insurmountable problems in safely using lithium batteries either; but, the hotdogs pursuing the most energy that can possibly be packed into a battery need to balance their enthusiam wtih a bit of caution. That discussion is also ongoing and, ultimately, lithium batteries may only be a phase we're going through. There are and will be other options.