What is the cost of carbon?
January 14, 2024 7:24 PM Subscribe
Biden Administration Unleashes Powerful Regulatory Tool Aimed at Climate The Biden administration’s crackdown on methane leaks from oil wells is based in part on a new powerful policy tool that could strengthen its legal authority to cut greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy — including from cars, power plants, factories and oil refineries. ... [W]ithin the language of the methane rule, E.P.A. economists have tucked a controversial calculation that would give the government legal authority to aggressively limit climate-warming pollution from nearly every smokestack and tailpipe across the country.
The number, known as the “social cost of carbon,” has been used since the Obama administration to calculate the harm to the economy caused by one ton of carbon dioxide pollution. ... During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.
The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton. ...
The new number will be put into action right away: the E.P.A. plans this spring to release final regulations to curb carbon dioxide from cars, trucks and power plants. Plug the new number into the agency’s proposal to tighten tailpipe emissions by ramping up sales of electric vehicles or into its proposal to eliminate pollution from power plants, and the economic benefits of each rule could increase to more than $1 trillion, much greater than the estimated cost to the affected industries. It would be similar for new rules to cut pollution from steel and cement plants, factories and oil refineries, which Mr. Biden is planning if he wins reelection to a second term. ...
E.P.A. officials said they are prepared for any legal challenge. They spent more than two years working on a 182-page analysis, documenting the scientific and economic methods that they used to consider the damages to livelihoods, property values and commodity costs from climate change. ...
Mr. Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, could try to shrink the cost of carbon metric if he wins the White House, as he did when he cut the Obama-era number. But Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff of the E.P.A. in the Trump administration, said that given the research and analysis underpinning the new number, it could be difficult for a new administration to easily reduce it.
“There is a heavy degree of legal security,” given the number’s inclusion in the new methane regulation, said Ms. Gunasekara, who is now a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization that is writing the blueprint for the next Republican administration’s energy and climate agenda.
The number, known as the “social cost of carbon,” has been used since the Obama administration to calculate the harm to the economy caused by one ton of carbon dioxide pollution. ... During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.
The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton. ...
The new number will be put into action right away: the E.P.A. plans this spring to release final regulations to curb carbon dioxide from cars, trucks and power plants. Plug the new number into the agency’s proposal to tighten tailpipe emissions by ramping up sales of electric vehicles or into its proposal to eliminate pollution from power plants, and the economic benefits of each rule could increase to more than $1 trillion, much greater than the estimated cost to the affected industries. It would be similar for new rules to cut pollution from steel and cement plants, factories and oil refineries, which Mr. Biden is planning if he wins reelection to a second term. ...
E.P.A. officials said they are prepared for any legal challenge. They spent more than two years working on a 182-page analysis, documenting the scientific and economic methods that they used to consider the damages to livelihoods, property values and commodity costs from climate change. ...
Mr. Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, could try to shrink the cost of carbon metric if he wins the White House, as he did when he cut the Obama-era number. But Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff of the E.P.A. in the Trump administration, said that given the research and analysis underpinning the new number, it could be difficult for a new administration to easily reduce it.
“There is a heavy degree of legal security,” given the number’s inclusion in the new methane regulation, said Ms. Gunasekara, who is now a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization that is writing the blueprint for the next Republican administration’s energy and climate agenda.
If the original signers of the declaration of independence didn't regulate methane, it can't be regulated. /s
posted by dougfelt at 9:19 PM on January 14 [3 favorites]
posted by dougfelt at 9:19 PM on January 14 [3 favorites]
If the social cost of carbon can be measured (or even assessed/estimated), surely that should be the basis of a carbon tax, rather than (or as well as) a handy way to measure how fucked everything is.
posted by pompomtom at 10:42 PM on January 14 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 10:42 PM on January 14 [1 favorite]
>by Congress
that's the rub. My general impression of the Executive is that its job is to execute the enacted will of Congress, and is bound by that when outside its band of explicit Constitution-defined powers.
Theoretically, we should be able to get a nice, effective 21st-Century Climate bill through Congress.
Theoretically.
posted by torokunai at 10:51 PM on January 14
that's the rub. My general impression of the Executive is that its job is to execute the enacted will of Congress, and is bound by that when outside its band of explicit Constitution-defined powers.
Theoretically, we should be able to get a nice, effective 21st-Century Climate bill through Congress.
Theoretically.
posted by torokunai at 10:51 PM on January 14
But surely Congress already gave the EPA the power to regulate this kind of thing when it was created under Richard Nixon.
But certain political actors have taken to trying to reinterpret the law (in very dubious ways) to protect some of their large donors and industry friends from regulation.
posted by teece303 at 11:14 PM on January 14 [4 favorites]
But certain political actors have taken to trying to reinterpret the law (in very dubious ways) to protect some of their large donors and industry friends from regulation.
posted by teece303 at 11:14 PM on January 14 [4 favorites]
I didn't want to paste the whole article in, but it does address the question of the EPA's legal authority to set the social cost of carbon in more detail than in the excerpt quoted above.
TLDR: It will undoubtedly face legal challenges, but the basic principles behind it have already been affirmed in court, and this particular regulation has been enacted in a way that can't be casually undone. It's not absolutely bulletproof for all time, but then, no federal regulation is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:30 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]
TLDR: It will undoubtedly face legal challenges, but the basic principles behind it have already been affirmed in court, and this particular regulation has been enacted in a way that can't be casually undone. It's not absolutely bulletproof for all time, but then, no federal regulation is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:30 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]
...just to unwind the insanity of the moment: too much carbon (reductively) is going to kill us all. The government enacts legislation to help reduce (reductively) the amount of carbon, so that we don't kill ourselves. Result: complaints.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:24 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 2:24 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]
The complaints aren't about the intent of the action, but that a thoroughly inadequate response is being trotted out as a major achievement. Especially when even basic responses, like not approving drilling on public land haven't happened.
I understand that the administration is worried about handing Trump a victory by letting gas prices go up. But it seems a bit much to expect people to be enthusiastic for half measures.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:13 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
I understand that the administration is worried about handing Trump a victory by letting gas prices go up. But it seems a bit much to expect people to be enthusiastic for half measures.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:13 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
“There is a heavy degree of legal security,” given the number’s inclusion in the new methane regulation, said Ms. Gunasekara, who is now a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation
Translation: We'll have to buy a couple more RVs for SCOTUS when we gut the EPA.
posted by credulous at 7:54 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
Translation: We'll have to buy a couple more RVs for SCOTUS when we gut the EPA.
posted by credulous at 7:54 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
it seems a bit much to expect people to be enthusiastic for half measures.
From my perspective, practically anything is a major achievement in this country in this time, given the uncomprehending and incomprehensible refusal of a perverse but powerful minority to thwart any and every action that would help us help ourselves or the world to which we belong.
I am extremely enthusiastic about half measures, since the past several years have taught me that the alternative is no measures, or worse, anti-measures. And also because choosing enthusiasm makes a big difference in getting more half measures, or quarter measures, instead of no measures or anti-measures.
Relatedly, Saturday's FPP about Rebecca Solnit's Slow Change Can Be Radical Change. I am as aware as anyone that we don't have TIME for slow change and half measures, but I still embrace all the positive change we can get, because it's not like I'm stating a preference for half measures over full measures; it's something is better than literally nothing at all, which is the alternative aggressively pushed by the powerful perverse minority.
posted by kristi at 9:19 AM on January 15 [10 favorites]
From my perspective, practically anything is a major achievement in this country in this time, given the uncomprehending and incomprehensible refusal of a perverse but powerful minority to thwart any and every action that would help us help ourselves or the world to which we belong.
I am extremely enthusiastic about half measures, since the past several years have taught me that the alternative is no measures, or worse, anti-measures. And also because choosing enthusiasm makes a big difference in getting more half measures, or quarter measures, instead of no measures or anti-measures.
Relatedly, Saturday's FPP about Rebecca Solnit's Slow Change Can Be Radical Change. I am as aware as anyone that we don't have TIME for slow change and half measures, but I still embrace all the positive change we can get, because it's not like I'm stating a preference for half measures over full measures; it's something is better than literally nothing at all, which is the alternative aggressively pushed by the powerful perverse minority.
posted by kristi at 9:19 AM on January 15 [10 favorites]
I think we can recognize the importance of even insufficient moves in the right direction, and the importance of putting pressure on politicians to follow up on them, without needing to pretend they are more than they are, or engage in performative shows of support for politicians engaged in them. We aren't Republicans, obsessed with making sure our team wins and getting a dopamine hit from our politics, after all. We should be able to criticize political figures, even harshly, while still recognizing that we will likely need to support them at the ballot box, or put pressure on them to maintain policies that fall short of what is actually required.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:29 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:29 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I also meant to say:
This is really heartening news, Artifice_Eternity, and I especially appreciate you addressing the question of a court override.
I would also like to say that I feel like this is one of Biden's great strengths: deeply knowing the ins and outs of governance and regulations, and having everyone in his administration do all they can to strengthen whatever actions the administration takes, to be prepared for the onslaught of the perverse minority. They know what they're up against, and they take the time and thought to figure out all the points of attack and try to shore those up in advance.
Thank you so much for posting this, Artifice_Eternity. I really appreciate both the news and your helpful summary.
posted by kristi at 9:31 AM on January 15 [3 favorites]
This is really heartening news, Artifice_Eternity, and I especially appreciate you addressing the question of a court override.
I would also like to say that I feel like this is one of Biden's great strengths: deeply knowing the ins and outs of governance and regulations, and having everyone in his administration do all they can to strengthen whatever actions the administration takes, to be prepared for the onslaught of the perverse minority. They know what they're up against, and they take the time and thought to figure out all the points of attack and try to shore those up in advance.
Thank you so much for posting this, Artifice_Eternity. I really appreciate both the news and your helpful summary.
posted by kristi at 9:31 AM on January 15 [3 favorites]
I don't really get dopamine hits from politics, but I am kind of obsessed with making sure my team wins, actually.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I have gone from being a reluctant Biden supporter to an actual Biden fan, and I am a firm believer in talking up the better team, both because negativity saps voter turnout, and because achievements deserve to be acknowledged. And because it makes me genuinely happy that there are people in this era of despair and destruction who see clearly what's good and do something to make things better for other people.
Of course we can still criticize, and should always talk about how things could be better. But when someone does something good, I think it makes a difference whether the conversation (especially the national conversation, not just in our corner of the internet) is focused on the shortcomings or focused on the achievement. I think it makes a huge difference, in fact, and since the national conversation about pretty much anything these days focuses on the shortcomings rather than the achievement, I think it's important to add my one little voice to proclaiming that actually, this could be a huge deal with enormous impact - dramatically cutting methane, with a side order of $1 trillion in economic benefits? - I want to share my enthusiasm for this powerful, important half-measure. It matters.
And now, I will bow out of this thread, because I have to go enthusiastically start a bunch of other things I'll never finish.
posted by kristi at 9:44 AM on January 15 [4 favorites]
I know I'm in the minority here, but I have gone from being a reluctant Biden supporter to an actual Biden fan, and I am a firm believer in talking up the better team, both because negativity saps voter turnout, and because achievements deserve to be acknowledged. And because it makes me genuinely happy that there are people in this era of despair and destruction who see clearly what's good and do something to make things better for other people.
Of course we can still criticize, and should always talk about how things could be better. But when someone does something good, I think it makes a difference whether the conversation (especially the national conversation, not just in our corner of the internet) is focused on the shortcomings or focused on the achievement. I think it makes a huge difference, in fact, and since the national conversation about pretty much anything these days focuses on the shortcomings rather than the achievement, I think it's important to add my one little voice to proclaiming that actually, this could be a huge deal with enormous impact - dramatically cutting methane, with a side order of $1 trillion in economic benefits? - I want to share my enthusiasm for this powerful, important half-measure. It matters.
And now, I will bow out of this thread, because I have to go enthusiastically start a bunch of other things I'll never finish.
posted by kristi at 9:44 AM on January 15 [4 favorites]
I don't have a team. This isn't a sporting event. I want power to stay out of the hands of fascists, and for the welfare of the vulnerable to be protected. Right now the Democrats are the best organization for seeing those ends accomplished. Once that isn't the case I will be done with them. A lot of Republicans treat their party as a team to root for, rather than a means of accomplishing policy goals. They will support anything if a guy with the right letter next to his name tells them the other team will hate it.
I do think the framing of the narrative at a national level is something worth considering for people with the reach to have some influence on it. But I don't think it helps to try to police conversations among people in general. There is an entire world beyond the frame of electoral politics, and it is okay to have conversations about the situation beyond how it fits into the current US two party system, or how the subject benefits one candidate.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:02 AM on January 15 [2 favorites]
I do think the framing of the narrative at a national level is something worth considering for people with the reach to have some influence on it. But I don't think it helps to try to police conversations among people in general. There is an entire world beyond the frame of electoral politics, and it is okay to have conversations about the situation beyond how it fits into the current US two party system, or how the subject benefits one candidate.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 10:02 AM on January 15 [2 favorites]
It is so something that after all these years the oil industry has not found someway to use that methane and make money off of it, instead of just burning it off.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:29 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:29 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]
If you look at those pictures of the Earth at night, the planet lights up with city lights. But there is something that causes even brighter lights--that causes North Dakota to be one the brightest spots in the US--all due to methane flaring.
The harm to the atmosphere and climate due to this wasteful flaring is unfathomable. This is long overdue.
posted by eye of newt at 1:24 AM on January 16
The harm to the atmosphere and climate due to this wasteful flaring is unfathomable. This is long overdue.
posted by eye of newt at 1:24 AM on January 16
I think we can recognize the importance of even insufficient moves in the right direction, and the importance of putting pressure on politicians to follow up on them, without needing to pretend they are more than they are, or engage in performative shows of support for politicians engaged in them
Who's to say what is "sufficient" and "insufficient"? None of us can predict the future of complex systems like the planetary environment or human society.
I for one am not here to pretend anything is more than it is. Nor am I here to engage in any performative shows of support.
I think this is actually a BFD, and I fully, nonperformatively support Biden for doing it... along with the myriad other groundbreaking and envelope-pushing environmental initiatives he's undertaken over the past 3 years. He's the best president on climate issues we've ever had, by a huge margin.
Climate doomers, glass-half-emptyists, etc. are free to disagree. And this being MeFi, they undoubtedly will, vocally and at length! Knock yourselves out, I guess. LOL.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:37 AM on January 16
Who's to say what is "sufficient" and "insufficient"? None of us can predict the future of complex systems like the planetary environment or human society.
I for one am not here to pretend anything is more than it is. Nor am I here to engage in any performative shows of support.
I think this is actually a BFD, and I fully, nonperformatively support Biden for doing it... along with the myriad other groundbreaking and envelope-pushing environmental initiatives he's undertaken over the past 3 years. He's the best president on climate issues we've ever had, by a huge margin.
Climate doomers, glass-half-emptyists, etc. are free to disagree. And this being MeFi, they undoubtedly will, vocally and at length! Knock yourselves out, I guess. LOL.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:37 AM on January 16
Thank you so much for posting this, Artifice_Eternity. I really appreciate both the news and your helpful summary.
You're welcome! I appreciate your comments. I follow environmental and energy policy fairly closely in the course of my job, and in recent years I've been struck by how so many generally intelligent people, who consider themselves up-to-date on current events, seem unaware of the scope and impact of major positive developments in this area, and instead are trapped in obsessive loops of negativity.
To a large extent, I blame the mainstream media. Outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post typically report at least briefly about the kind of developments I'm talking about, but consistently fail to connect the dots for people on how dramatically our response to the climate crisis has ramped up in the last few years.
But I also blame social media, which gives the most virality to negative news, and rewards doomerist oneupmanship. I even, to some extent, blame environmental NGOs who exaggerate the impacts of every negative development, and do little to trumpet positive changes.
I've taken to posting here about a lot of the significant changes I'm seeing that aren't getting sufficient attention. Stay tuned. And please vote for Biden in November. As I've said before, historians are going to look back at his administration as the inflection point where the U.S. started making a truly serious effort to combat climate change. But it's vitally important than this work continue.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:49 AM on January 16 [1 favorite]
You're welcome! I appreciate your comments. I follow environmental and energy policy fairly closely in the course of my job, and in recent years I've been struck by how so many generally intelligent people, who consider themselves up-to-date on current events, seem unaware of the scope and impact of major positive developments in this area, and instead are trapped in obsessive loops of negativity.
To a large extent, I blame the mainstream media. Outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post typically report at least briefly about the kind of developments I'm talking about, but consistently fail to connect the dots for people on how dramatically our response to the climate crisis has ramped up in the last few years.
But I also blame social media, which gives the most virality to negative news, and rewards doomerist oneupmanship. I even, to some extent, blame environmental NGOs who exaggerate the impacts of every negative development, and do little to trumpet positive changes.
I've taken to posting here about a lot of the significant changes I'm seeing that aren't getting sufficient attention. Stay tuned. And please vote for Biden in November. As I've said before, historians are going to look back at his administration as the inflection point where the U.S. started making a truly serious effort to combat climate change. But it's vitally important than this work continue.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:49 AM on January 16 [1 favorite]
It is so something that after all these years the oil industry has not found someway to use that methane and make money off of it, instead of just burning it off.
Indeed. The new federal methane regulations may finally incentivize them to do so.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:50 AM on January 16
Indeed. The new federal methane regulations may finally incentivize them to do so.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:50 AM on January 16
At least superficially, it appears Biden chanted "drill drill drill" right through Dec 2023, which held fuel prices low during his term, but while cooking this on the back burnner, and also he scheduled few lease sales for the next five years, none in 2024.
Any Republican president who takes office in 2025 might've no new oil leases or developments openning, thus face whatever recession those upcoming higher prices bring, especially if said Republican tries reducing green energy. It kneecaps said Republican starting fights with countries like China who ship us embedded emissions too.
If otoh Biden wins then he'll still face recession, but Biden would spend in more sensible ways, like by adding even more green energy, adding public transit, and spend whatever money the carbon pricing brings. It'll rock if January 2025 sees Biden announcing a large public transit spend to help head off upcoming recession. Also, Biden's team could start selling new oil leases in late 2024, several months before a Republican.
Ain't the best climate policy overall, but it's better than nothing. It's politically savvy to cut back hard 1-2 years before the opposition possibly takes office. We've typically had Republicans benefit from Democrats wiser spending, but maybe strategically cutting fossil fuel access could reverse this. We'll see how this plays out..
posted by jeffburdges at 9:58 AM on January 16 [1 favorite]
Any Republican president who takes office in 2025 might've no new oil leases or developments openning, thus face whatever recession those upcoming higher prices bring, especially if said Republican tries reducing green energy. It kneecaps said Republican starting fights with countries like China who ship us embedded emissions too.
If otoh Biden wins then he'll still face recession, but Biden would spend in more sensible ways, like by adding even more green energy, adding public transit, and spend whatever money the carbon pricing brings. It'll rock if January 2025 sees Biden announcing a large public transit spend to help head off upcoming recession. Also, Biden's team could start selling new oil leases in late 2024, several months before a Republican.
Ain't the best climate policy overall, but it's better than nothing. It's politically savvy to cut back hard 1-2 years before the opposition possibly takes office. We've typically had Republicans benefit from Democrats wiser spending, but maybe strategically cutting fossil fuel access could reverse this. We'll see how this plays out..
posted by jeffburdges at 9:58 AM on January 16 [1 favorite]
If the social cost of carbon can be measured (or even assessed/estimated), surely that should be the basis of a carbon tax, rather than (or as well as) a handy way to measure how fucked everything is.
If such a thing could be gotten thru Congress, sure. But to be clear, even without an official carbon tax, this metric is about more than measuring how fucked everything is. It can be used as a basis for regulations that will limit permitted carbon emissions from all sorts of activities.
Republicans are furiously fighting this in court, of course. But the basic legality of setting a social cost of carbon has already been affirmed. And the Biden administration dotted all their Is and crossed all their Ts in the way they set it... meaning that they followed the somewhat byzantine process for drafting federal regulations very carefully.
This makes it harder to undo. Even if T**** were to win in November, his administration would not be able to toss this rulemaking out unless they could put together a pretty compelling explanation of why Biden's EPA got it wrong.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:02 AM on January 16
If such a thing could be gotten thru Congress, sure. But to be clear, even without an official carbon tax, this metric is about more than measuring how fucked everything is. It can be used as a basis for regulations that will limit permitted carbon emissions from all sorts of activities.
Republicans are furiously fighting this in court, of course. But the basic legality of setting a social cost of carbon has already been affirmed. And the Biden administration dotted all their Is and crossed all their Ts in the way they set it... meaning that they followed the somewhat byzantine process for drafting federal regulations very carefully.
This makes it harder to undo. Even if T**** were to win in November, his administration would not be able to toss this rulemaking out unless they could put together a pretty compelling explanation of why Biden's EPA got it wrong.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:02 AM on January 16
At least superficially, it appears Biden chanted "drill drill drill" right through Dec 2023, which held fuel prices low during his term, but while cooking this on the back burnner, and also he scheduled few lease sales for the next five years, none in 2024.
Yes, I'd say that's a superficial take. How have people forgotten that immediately after taking office, Biden suspended all oil and gas lease sales on federal lands and waters?
Eventually, the administration was forced by court orders to resume lease sales. Perversely, this has been spun by certain bad-faith commenters as Biden being pro-drilling.
The truth is that whether or not the government continues to sell oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters has only a limited impact, because there are tons of leases that were sold years ago -- many of which haven't even been used yet -- and a vast amount of drilling occurs on private land.
But let's at least be accurate about Biden's record.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:11 AM on January 16 [2 favorites]
Yes, I'd say that's a superficial take. How have people forgotten that immediately after taking office, Biden suspended all oil and gas lease sales on federal lands and waters?
Eventually, the administration was forced by court orders to resume lease sales. Perversely, this has been spun by certain bad-faith commenters as Biden being pro-drilling.
The truth is that whether or not the government continues to sell oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters has only a limited impact, because there are tons of leases that were sold years ago -- many of which haven't even been used yet -- and a vast amount of drilling occurs on private land.
But let's at least be accurate about Biden's record.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:11 AM on January 16 [2 favorites]
Meh. Trump had given out an insane number of leases, so alone the initial cancellations say little. It's often leases in the golf of mexico being discussed by enviromentalists since, which Biden could've resisted more effectively.
An actual record is revenuedata.doi.gov, which shows around 10 billion USD per year up, right up until 2022, but then $22 and $18 billion USD in 2022 and 2023. Yes, Biden cut back initially sure, but in 2021 or late 2020 he started handing out drilling & mining leases that doubled most Trump years. In this, there is inflation, minerals, price fluctuations, etc but overall picture looks crystal clear. Resession? Let the resoucres flow.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:06 PM on January 16 [1 favorite]
An actual record is revenuedata.doi.gov, which shows around 10 billion USD per year up, right up until 2022, but then $22 and $18 billion USD in 2022 and 2023. Yes, Biden cut back initially sure, but in 2021 or late 2020 he started handing out drilling & mining leases that doubled most Trump years. In this, there is inflation, minerals, price fluctuations, etc but overall picture looks crystal clear. Resession? Let the resoucres flow.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:06 PM on January 16 [1 favorite]
Artifice_Eternity I am sorry if I wasn't clear. This is an important news story and I am not at all critical of you for posting it. I appreciate that you did.
My intent was to respond to those upset that Biden was being criticized in the comments. I think it is important to have enough nuance that we are able to say both that this is a good thing, and that overall not enough is being done.
I believe this is insufficient because what we need is a much more aggressive change in our physical culture. I don't know that there is any special virtue in praising Biden as being better than the literally nothing or worse we'd get from the Republicans. If that makes me a "Glass-half-emptyist" (I really like that turn of phrase) then I'll cop to it.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:22 PM on January 16
My intent was to respond to those upset that Biden was being criticized in the comments. I think it is important to have enough nuance that we are able to say both that this is a good thing, and that overall not enough is being done.
I believe this is insufficient because what we need is a much more aggressive change in our physical culture. I don't know that there is any special virtue in praising Biden as being better than the literally nothing or worse we'd get from the Republicans. If that makes me a "Glass-half-emptyist" (I really like that turn of phrase) then I'll cop to it.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 12:22 PM on January 16
Jeffburdges, you're completely misunderstanding and/or misconstruing the record.
Biden didn't cancel leases. He suspended sales of new leases. Then he was literally compelled by court order to resume them.
Even so, as of last fall, the Biden administration had offered the fewest offshore oil and gas leases in history. Needless to say, the industry isn't happy.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:25 PM on January 16
Biden didn't cancel leases. He suspended sales of new leases. Then he was literally compelled by court order to resume them.
Even so, as of last fall, the Biden administration had offered the fewest offshore oil and gas leases in history. Needless to say, the industry isn't happy.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:25 PM on January 16
I believe this is insufficient because what we need is a much more aggressive change in our physical culture.
That's a perfectly fair position to take. But...
I don't know that there is any special virtue in praising Biden as being better than literally nothing
Biden has been considerably better than "better than nothing".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:27 PM on January 16 [1 favorite]
That's a perfectly fair position to take. But...
I don't know that there is any special virtue in praising Biden as being better than literally nothing
Biden has been considerably better than "better than nothing".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:27 PM on January 16 [1 favorite]
I will note a couple of quotes from the article I linked a couple posts up, about how this administration has offered fewer oil and gas leases for sale than any before it:
They're still vastly better than anything we've seen before.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:06 PM on January 16 [2 favorites]
“This restrictive offshore leasing program is the latest tactic in a coordinated strategy to reduce energy production, ultimately weakening America’s energy dominance, limiting consumers’ access to affordable, reliable energy and compromising our ability to lead on the global stage,” Mike Sommers, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement. ...This is a pretty typical range of reactions to Biden's policies. The right denounces them as extremist, and the left denounces them as inadequate in comparison to a hypothetical better option that was never possible given the legal and political realities.
“This decision is beyond disappointing,” Beth Lowell, the vice president of Oceana, an environmental group, said in a statement. “Expanding dirty and dangerous offshore drilling only exacerbates the climate catastrophe that is already at our doorstep.”
They're still vastly better than anything we've seen before.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:06 PM on January 16 [2 favorites]
Sometimes the "hypothetical better options" aren't strictly hypothetical. I won't deny his administration's policies sometimes gets more criticism than is fair. But there are plenty of grounds to criticize his response to Gaza, or police violence, or even the climate, with decisions like approving the Willow Project (and we'll see what happens with CP2). He could have definitely done worse (and Trump most definitely will if given the chance.) but he the idea he has gone as far left as is legally or politically possible seems hard to defend.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 1:48 PM on January 16
posted by The Manwich Horror at 1:48 PM on January 16
do people have any information on the decision on Venture Global? a non paywall link to nytimes?
posted by eustatic at 2:38 PM on January 24
posted by eustatic at 2:38 PM on January 24
I don't have a nonpaywalled link, but here are relevant excerpts from the NYT story from today:
The Biden administration is pausing a decision on whether to approve what would be the largest natural gas export terminal in the United States, a delay that could stretch past the November election and spell trouble for that project and 16 other proposed terminals, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:05 PM on January 24
The White House is directing the Energy Department to expand its evaluation of the project to consider its impact on climate change, as well as the economy and national security, said these people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal deliberations. The Energy Department has never rejected a proposed natural gas project because of its expected environmental impact.
The move comes as Mr. Biden gears up for what is likely to be a contentious re-election campaign. He is courting climate voters, particularly the young activists who helped him win election in 2020 and who have been angered by his administration’s approval last year of the Willow project, an enormous oil drilling operation in Alaska. ...
Still, Republicans and former President Donald J. Trump, who is expected to be his party’s choice to challenge Mr. Biden in November, are sure to try to use any delay in permitting against him, charging that Mr. Biden is hampering American energy.
“This move would amount to a functional ban on new LNG export permits,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “The administration’s war on affordable domestic energy has been bad news for American workers and consumers alike.”
Mr. Trump, who has inaccurately called global warming a “hoax,” has promised to expand fossil fuel production and shred Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. “We’re going to drill, baby drill, right away,” he told voters after he won the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.
Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, would dwarf the country’s existing export terminals. The $10 billion project would be situated along a shipping channel that connects the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Charles, La. It would export up to 20 million tons of natural gas per year, increasing the current amount of exported American gas by about 20 percent.
The project first requires approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before it shifts to the Energy Department for consideration.
The Energy Department is required to weigh whether the export terminal is in “the public interest,” a subjective determination. But now, the White House has requested an additional analysis of the climate impacts of CP2. ...
Whatever new criteria is used to evaluate CP2 would be expected to be applied to the other 16 proposed natural gas terminals that are awaiting approval. ...
More than 150 scientists signed a Dec. 19 letter to Mr. Biden, urging him to reject CP2 and the additional proposed facilities. “The magnitude of the proposed build out of LNG over the next several years is staggering,” they wrote. Approving new terminals would “put us on a continued path toward escalating climate chaos,” the letter said.
Given the scientific imperative, experts say that it is reasonable to consider climate impacts before building new gas export terminals.
“So far there is really no requirement to consider the cumulative climate, economic or market impact of all those facilities,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow in the energy security and climate change program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan research organization. “And it’s a very valid question.”
Shaylyn Hynes a spokeswoman for Venture Global LNG, the Virginia-based company that wants to build CP2, wrote in an email that “it appears the administration may be putting a moratorium on the entire US LNG industry. Such an action would shock the global energy market, having the impact of an economic sanction, and send a devastating signal to our allies that they can no longer rely on the United States.”
A delay of many months could jeopardize the financing for CP2. Venture Global LNG, has other gas export terminals that have already run into equipment and shipping problems and legal disputes. ...
Within the White House, there is little division over the decision to delay CP2, in part because it is not seen as a major energy security issue, said people familiar with the discussion. That’s because the United States is already producing and exporting so much gas. That capacity is set to nearly double over the next four years, making the need for CP2 less urgent.
American dominance of the natural gas market is a recent tale. Until 2016, the United States did not export any natural gas. But the expansion of hydraulic fracking translated into tremendous growth in natural gas supplies and a new export industry.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States redirected exports from Asia to Europe in order to help allies that had been reliant on Russian gas.
« Older BOOM animated short film | This 288-Million-Year-Old Fossilized Scrap of Skin... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:51 PM on January 14 [13 favorites]