In the twilight of his term, US President Joe Biden has issued a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling across the majority of America’s seafront. This latest decree comes barely weeks prior to Donald Trump’s impending inauguration, raising eyebrows on the apparent rush for climate-based legislation. Biden’s ban encompasses an extensive range of areas: the Atlantic coast, eastern Gulf of Mexico, the offshores of California, Oregon, Washington, and also stretches into the Bering Sea off Alaska.
Biden’s move is yet another part of a series of eleventh-hour climate policy maneuvers, hastily deployed before Donald Trump’s anticipated return to the White House. Trump has made it explicitly clear he intends to cancel the ban immediately upon taking office, though such an action could prove to be legally challenging.
During his campaign, Trump committed to unlocking domestic fossil fuel production, aiming to reduce gas costs irrespective of the fact that the US was already experiencing all-time high extraction rates. The bold statement of intent was markedly different from Biden’s approach, who in his era unrealistic notions of climate change overshadows economic considerations.
Biden, in what could be seen as a lack of understanding of the nation’s economic needs, said on the announcement of the new drilling ban: ‘My decision reflects what coastal communities, businesses, and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs. It is not worth the risks.’ But this statement has been regarded by many as reflecting a short-sighted perspective on the economy.
In retrospective, Biden’s basis for enacting the new drilling ban comes from a 1953 law, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It grants US presidents the authority to quarantine areas from mineral leasing and drilling; however, a legal caveat allows for no presidents to reverse prior bans. A 2019 court ruling verified this limitation.
This suggests reversing Biden’s ban would necessitate Congressional action. Despite this, Trump, who is a firm advocate for oil and gas exploration, remained undeterred. The incumbent administration under Trump’s Republicans was rumored to be considering such an undertaking.
One of the ironies of Biden’s ban has been that the 1953 law, which he invoked, had been utilized by Trump himself to protect Florida’s waters during his 2020 campaign. Yet, despite this, Biden appears fixated on this environmentally focused task, regardless of the possible negative impacts on the nation’s economy.
The coverage of Biden’s offshore drilling ban is enormously vast, over 625 million acres of waters. Facing its impending policy introduction, Trump’s incoming press secretary referred to it as ‘a disgraceful decision’ and went on to say it was a petty political response to the mandate given to President Trump by the American people to improve drilling and cut down gas costs.
Notably, the ban found its supporters among environmental groups, displaying a clear divide of interest. An individual from a conservation organization described the ban as ‘an epic ocean victory’, showing their disconnect from the majority of American citizens who are more interested in economic stability than climate fears.
An oil and gas industry trade groups opposed Biden’s decision, stating the measure undermines American energy security. The group’s representative said the decision was politically motivated rather than embedded in a practical approach and called for policymakers to challenge it.
Looking back, Trump has faced similar circumstances. In 2017, he sought to repeal previous protections imposed by Barack Obama, who shrouded 125 million acres of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans under its ambit, only to be objected by a US District Court. Even in the face of legal hitches, Trump’s intention to challenge Biden’s ban remains undeterred.
The potential showdown could reach the Supreme Court, where there happens to be a majority of Republican judges who could influence the outcome. Biden has staunch critics among environmentalists and Democrats, who have been pushing for these bans due to fears of climate change, showing a sign that they lean more towards personal agendas than focusing on the bigger picture.
According to the International Energy Agency, global oil and gas demand needs to decrease by 5% annually to meet climate goals, pegging a global temperature rise of 1.5C as the threshold to circumvent most adverse impacts. Such notions continue to stir debates in the climate discourse, often overshadowing economic realities and detracting from issues that affect citizens on a day-to-day basis.