A cleaner environment, which we all want, and affordable, reliable energy, which we all need, are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are mutually reinforcing.
We need a growing and thriving economy to make innovative leaps in cleaner technology. That thriving economy depends on affordable energy. Congress is on the verge of doing harm to the innovative economy, with no accompanying benefit to the environment.
The House is expected to vote soon on S.J. Res.14, which would reverse reforms put in place during the Trump administration that eliminated costly and largely ineffective redundancies. The Senate narrowly approved the measure in April.
The resolution of disapproval to be considered under the Congressional Review Act would undo those reforms, resulting in unnecessary and expensive restrictions and creating a requirement for new, unworkable standards for existing oil and gas production.
We can and must be good stewards of our environment. At the same time, we must not hurt the most vulnerable in society by putting affordable, reliable energy further out of reach or damaging the economy.
The way we do both is through innovation. The kinds of top-down mandates favored by supporters of S.J. Res.14 serve only to put that innovation further out of reach. We cannot regulate our way to economic prosperity or a cleaner environment. That path leads to significant economic harm to millions of people to no good end. The Environmental Protection Agency has already determined that the focus on methane is illogical and redundant, and “rescinding the methane limits will not actually change the amount of methane emission reductions.”
Other countries have been imposing these kinds of draconian policies for years to little effect.
From 2007 to 2019, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have fallen by roughly 15%, while global emissions have increased by more than 20%. The United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the last two decades, not because of command-and-control regulation but through bottom-up innovation such as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The same is true within the U.S. Since 2007, states that have worked to reduce emissions through innovation rather than mandates, including Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wyoming, have had reductions of per capita energy-related CO2 emissions 5 times greater than California, where mandates have driven up prices and failed to help the environment.
S.J. Res.14 opens the door to an EPA ban on fracking and other oil and gas extraction techniques. That would be an economic disaster.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “compared to a world with hydraulic fracturing, in 2025, the United States economy would have 7.7 million fewer jobs, $1.1 trillion less in gross domestic product (GDP), and $950 billion less in labor income,” with natural gas prices increasing more than 240%, gasoline prices going up over 100% — that’s $6 a gallon at the pump — and retail electricity costs rising by $480 billion.
The lesson is clear. The best way to achieve a healthy, flourishing environment and a growing economy at the same time is with bottom-up solutions that embrace the innovation and investment necessary to make the leaps in technology necessary to achieve real progress.
We should not go back to the discredited method of restrictive and pointless government mandates that increase costs, hurt the most vulnerable, and provide no concomitant benefit.
People in the U.S. spend over $1.27 trillion per year on energy. More than 30 million households face high energy burdens and pay a substantial portion of their take-home pay for electricity, heating, and fuel.
The lowest-income households devote more than 20% of their after-tax income to residential utilities and gasoline. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated energy poverty in the U.S., and overturning the methane regulations would make it worse.
That’s why the House should reject S.J. Res.14.
Chris Hudson is vice president of government affairs at Americans for Prosperity.
