By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Biden issued an executive order permanently banning future offshore oil and gas leasing across 625 million acres of US ocean waters, citing environmental concerns and arguing the ban is unnecessary to meet national energy needs. This action, invoking the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is designed to be difficult for a future administration to reverse, requiring congressional action. While the oil industry and some Republicans strongly opposed the move, the administration maintains the ban will have little economic impact and enjoys bipartisan support from coastal communities and governors. The decision builds on prior presidential actions to protect coastal areas from offshore drilling.
Read the original article here
President Biden’s recent decision to permanently ban offshore drilling across a staggering 625 million acres of ocean represents a significant shift in environmental policy, and one that could prove incredibly difficult for a future administration to reverse. The sheer scale of the ban, encompassing an area roughly the size of the lower 48 United States, is undeniably impactful.
This action is far from a simple executive order; it leverages existing legal frameworks, making a reversal far more complex than simply issuing a countermand. Any attempt to overturn the ban would necessitate navigating established laws and potentially facing significant legal challenges. The suggestion that a future president could simply undo this with a stroke of a pen is a gross oversimplification of the legal complexities involved.
The political ramifications are equally noteworthy. The claim that a future president could effortlessly reverse this policy ignores the potential for substantial public outcry and legal battles. While executive actions can be reversed, the scale of this initiative, coupled with the environmental implications, will likely result in intense resistance from various quarters. This isn’t merely about one person’s opinion; the environmental community and potentially a significant portion of the public would undoubtedly fight any attempt to unravel the ban.
Concerns about the permanence of the ban are understandable, especially given the current political climate. The assertion that anything is truly “permanent” in the volatile world of politics is debatable. However, the legal groundwork laid by Biden makes a swift reversal extremely unlikely. The idea that a simple executive order could immediately erase this protection is naive at best. A future administration would be forced to deal with the existing legal infrastructure established by the ban.
The legal challenge to undoing such a large-scale environmental protection isn’t solely about executive orders and counter-orders. The implication that Congress could easily overturn this measure oversimplifies the legislative process. Gaining the necessary political will and votes to repeal such a significant environmental protection would be a monumental undertaking. This isn’t something that could be easily done with a simple majority vote.
Furthermore, the economic considerations are substantial. The cost of offshore drilling projects is enormous. With oil prices fluctuating and the regulatory climate significantly altered, the prospect of resuming these activities might not be economically viable even if the ban were lifted. This makes the reversal not just politically difficult but also financially challenging for any future administration contemplating a reversal.
The argument that this is merely “legacy seeking” ignores the significant environmental implications. Protecting this vast ocean expanse has profound consequences for marine ecosystems, biodiversity, and the long-term health of the planet. It’s an action with far-reaching implications that go beyond a single administration’s political agenda.
In essence, while nothing is entirely impervious to change in the political landscape, Biden’s action goes beyond a simple executive order. It relies on legal foundations and creates an intricate web of environmental considerations that would significantly hinder any future attempt to reverse the ban. The obstacles are substantial, ranging from the vast legal hurdles to the enormous political and economic consequences of reversing the environmental protection of such a wide area. The claim that a future president could easily reverse this policy disregards the complexities and potential repercussions involved.