In October 2012, President Barack Obama stood on a debate stage and issued a ringing endorsement of an environmentally safe and economically sound fuel to be found on federal lands.
Standing up against the far-left of our party, Obama hailed his administration’s extensive drilling on public lands, especially for natural gas. “We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration … And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically,” he said at the second presidential debate. “We’re encouraging it and working with the industry.”
Obama followed his instincts. President-elect Joe Biden should too. He should chart a moderate course on energy policy and push back against ill-considered proposals to ban natural gas and oil production on public lands.
I’m confident he will.
The former vice president will take office after an election that vaulted him to the presidency but was far from the dark blue wave that some pundits predicted. In fact, it was mostly the centrist down-ballot Democrats who prevailed — candidates such as Mark Kelly, the new senator from Arizona, and Senator-elect John Hickenlooper in Colorado.
Biden is a leader of a similar stripe, an instinctive deal-maker who ultimately took moderate stances on contentious issues such as energy during the campaign, even in the face of pressure from environmental activists.
One exception was Biden’s vow to ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands, part of his climate action agenda. I would urge him to re-think that pledge. When he and his advisers explore the issue further, they will see that banning federal leasing to explore for these critical fuels would be not only misguided economically but, in fact, ironically, an environmental mistake as well.
Biden’s environmental plans are aimed at “curbing greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.” Yet, a leasing ban would accomplish precisely the opposite.
As the American Petroleum Institute found in a recent analysis, a ban would trigger a shortage of natural gas, a low-carbon alternative to coal, which would in turn force U.S. consumers right back to coal. Coal use would increase 15% by 2030, the analysis found.
And that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, making a leasing ban counterproductive to the climate change action advocated by many Democrats in Congress. “CO2 emissions would increase by an average of 58 million metric tons to represent a 5.5% increase in the power sector by 2030,” the analysis said.
Economically, a ban on federal leasing would be nothing short of disastrous, especially across Western states. Oil and gas activity on federally managed land is a profound driver of economic output and employment opportunities for communities throughout America.
In 2019, for example, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management reported that 2018 oil and gas activity on BLM-managed land generated a staggering $71.5 billion in economic output, supporting 300,000 jobs.
Those benefits would not survive a leasing ban. In mid-December, a study found that policies restricting oil and gas development in eight Western states, either a moratorium on all new federal leases or an outright drilling ban, would cause catastrophic damage.
Investment losses across the states over 20 years would exceed $300 billion, with tax losses of more than $110 billion, the study reported. Overall economic growth would decline by $600 million, as further reported in the study, which was conducted by a University of Wyoming professor of energy economics.
Consumers would also suffer under a leasing ban or other restrictions. By restricting the supply of low-cost energy sources such as natural gas, a ban would burden people with higher prices at the gas pump and on energy bills.
It would also strip state governments of lease-generated royalties and tax revenues that fund vital services such as public schools and police. This consequence would be especially harmful to the state of New Mexico, which collected $706.96 million in fiscal year 2020 — the Interior Department found that “for the third straight year, New Mexico received the highest disbursement of all states and received the second highest amount in its history.” In total, Interior distributed over $8 billion in tax revenue back to states from energy production on federal lands — a 30% increase in comparison to 2016 despite the historic pandemic.
For years, many Democrats have understood that natural gas, and specifically production on federal lands, was a leading contributor to reliable jobs, strong environmental stewardship, and valuable tax revenue. It was Obama himself who praised natural gas production “as an important bridge to clean energy.”
As he prepares to take office, Biden would be wise to consider how he can continue this proud legacy, rather than capitulating to the fringe wing of our party.
Dan Boren is a former Democratic member of Congress from Oklahoma.
