• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obama permanently protects huge portions of Arctic, Atlantic from offshore drilling.

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nintendoman58

Member
https://thinkprogress.org/permanent-protections-arctic-atlantic-e6978298eae1#.m4rckmw3p

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that 98 percent of U.S.-controlled Arctic waters (115 million acres) will be permanently withheld from any future oil and gas leasing. In addition, 3.8 million acres of underwater canyon along the Atlantic coast will be protected from oil and gas leasing.

Simultaneously, the Canadian government announced it will withdraw all oil and gas leases in Canadian Arctic waters. The two countries will also begin work to phase out the use of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) in the Arctic and committed to an HFO ban to the International Maritime Organization.

“Today, in partnership with our neighbors and allies in Canada, the United States is taking historic steps to build a strong Arctic economy, preserve a healthy Arctic ecosystem and protect our fragile Arctic waters, including designating the bulk of our Arctic water and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean as indefinitely off limits to future oil and gas leasing,” President Obama said in a statement.
Click to expand...

Unlike some of President Obama’s other executive actions or agency rules, the new administration will have trouble reversing this one. For instance, a new Department of the Interior rule, which seeks to protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests from coal mining run-off, is likely to be among the first acts Congress will seek to overturn in the new year. Likewise, a moratorium on new coal mining leases on public lands and multiple efforts to reduce methane leaked during natural gas extraction are expected to be on the chopping block.

Keeping fossil fuels from being burned — whether through regulation or through market forces — is the only way people can hope to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
Click to expand...

Hooray!
 
D

DeadlyParasite

Member
Good. I can only imagine what disgusting environmental damage would be done by refineries and rigs out along our arctic Canadian territories.

I'm sure Albertans are throwing up a fit about oil jobs being lost or whatever, too bad. The tar sands are a grim reminder of the price we paid for oil dependency.
 
B

Banderdash

Member
This is like that west wing episode where they declare Montana a national park.


Can't trump overturn this, if not through act of congress... then through executive order?
 
W

woodland

Member
Banderdash said:
This is like that west wing episode where they declare Montana a national park.


Can't trump overturn this, if not through act of congress... then through executive order?
Click to expand...

WSJ article mentions it'll probably require 60 votes to do anything - I don't know politics so I don't know if they'd have to repeal the whole Offshore Whatever act or if they could just remove this part. 60 doesn't seem too difficult to get to me but then again, idk.
 
B

bman94

Member
It's down to the wire and he's still trying to brace America for the dry fuck it's about to get for the next 4 years.
 
K

~Kinggi~

Banned
Hey, i love it, but yeah how exactly does permanent hold? This type of shit sounds like an executive order that will just be flipped. Im drunk, someone explain pls
 
B

BobLoblaw

Banned
This is really good news...but now I'm worried about four years from now what Trump will do if (hopefully) he's on his way out.
 
U

Ultramantaro1

Member
Doesn't matter, the country with the biggest landmass past the artic circle is Russia, and they won't care about such an agreement. Only thing that can help is oil prices staying low and discouraging gas companies from investing in this prohibitively expensive region.

Great symbolic gesture though.
 
K

kess

Member
woodland said:
WSJ article mentions it'll probably require 60 votes to do anything - I don't know politics so I don't know if they'd have to repeal the whole Offshore Whatever act or if they could just remove this part. 60 doesn't seem too difficult to get to me but then again, idk.
Click to expand...

Sixty votes means if it reaches that point it's going to get a lot more exposure than it is now, and that fight would benefit the Democrats. Who wants to see offshore drilling in 4 years when solar panels are beyond carbon neutral? Morons, that's who.
 
Oppo

Oppo

Member
Slayven said:
Can he permanently protect minorities? No reindeer or penguin ever called me nigger
Click to expand...

hey, Slayven? I know you live to drop these little bon mots in any thread but could you not derail a thread about arctic drilling with this?

OT - One has to imagine the back room scrambling happening right now between the Canadian and American leaders, trying to figure out what they can rope off for the next guy in the US
 
S

Salamando

Member
aadiboy said:
How "permanent" are we talking?
Click to expand...

Not totally.

Opponents of Obama's action either need to get 60 votes in the Senate to amend the act (of which there are 52 republicans) or spend years/decades challenging the action in court. The latter would be completely unprecedented, as nothing of the sort has been done before.
 
A

anonymous_abc

Member
Salamando said:
Not totally.

Opponents of Obama's action either need to get 60 votes in the Senate to amend the act (of which there are 52 republicans) or spend years/decades challenging the action in court. The latter would be completely unprecedented, as nothing of the sort has been done before.
Click to expand...

So the GOP will do it, confirmed‽
 
RPGCrazied

RPGCrazied

Member
I hope he isn't done. Confirm Garland anyway Obama. Even if its just for a year, its better than nothing. And I'd hate to see who Trump puts forward instead. Cruz? Oh god.
 
S

Strimei

Member
Unlike some of President Obama’s other executive actions or agency rules, the new administration will have trouble reversing this one. For instance, a new Department of the Interior rule, which seeks to protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests from coal mining run-off, is likely to be among the first acts Congress will seek to overturn in the new year. Likewise, a moratorium on new coal mining leases on public lands and multiple efforts to reduce methane leaked during natural gas extraction are expected to be on the chopping block.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but the "for instance" doesn't actually show how they'll have trouble reversing it.

Basically its "They'll find it hard to reverse it. For example, they're going to reverse this stuff."
 
L

LudicrousSpeed

Member
Strimei said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but the "for instance" doesn't actually show how they'll have trouble reversing it.

Basically its "They'll find it hard to reverse it. For example, they're going to reverse this stuff."
Click to expand...

The why is that Obama used a specific law passed by Congress in the 50s which provides a mechanism by which a President can declare certain parts of territory off-limits for oil and gas drilling leases, but provides no mechanism by which anyone can undo that declaration.

In order to undo this, Congress will have to pass a new law that provides such a mechanism.
 
SenjutsuSage

SenjutsuSage

Banned
Republicans in North Carolina just created all kinds of new rules that the outgoing, losing Governor signed to completely take away powers from his successor. You guys really believe the Republicans who now control both houses of congress won't try to create some new laws, which they will then have validated by the soon to be Republican controlled Supreme Court?

I agree with Michelle Obama. I don't feel like there's much hope at the moment.
 
L

Little Green Yoda

Member
kess said:
Sixty votes means if it reaches that point it's going to get a lot more exposure than it is now, and that fight would benefit the Democrats. Who wants to see offshore drilling in 4 years when solar panels are beyond carbon neutral? Morons, that's who.
Click to expand...
I think a core lesson of this election season is never to underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.
 
SenjutsuSage

SenjutsuSage

Banned
Strimei said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but the "for instance" doesn't actually show how they'll have trouble reversing it.

Basically its "They'll find it hard to reverse it. For example, they're going to reverse this stuff."
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. What the hell did I just read?
 
E

exmachina64

Banned
woodland said:
WSJ article mentions it'll probably require 60 votes to do anything - I don't know politics so I don't know if they'd have to repeal the whole Offshore Whatever act or if they could just remove this part. 60 doesn't seem too difficult to get to me but then again, idk.
Click to expand...

Which Democrats would vote in favor of repealing that law?
 
L

LudicrousSpeed

Member
SenjutsuSage said:
Republicans in North Carolina just created all kinds of new rules that the outgoing, losing Governor signed to completely take away powers from his successor. You guys really believe the Republicans who now control both houses of congress won't try to create some new laws, which they will then have validated by the soon to be Republican controlled Supreme Court?

I agree with Michelle Obama. I don't feel like there's much hope at the moment.
Click to expand...

Creating laws isn't that easy, because the Senate has a 60 vote threshold and the Republicans have 52 votes. Any bill that can't get 8 Democrats on board to allow a vote is going to have problems getting to an up or down vote. About the only things that don't require 60 votes are appointments to Trump's cabinet, appointments to federal judgeships, and one special bill each year called a Reconcilliation bill that has a bunch of requirements about what it can and cannot do.

Now, if Senate Republicans nuke the filibuster, that's a different story. But so long as the 60 vote threshold remains, the 52 vote majority the Republicans have isn't going to be all that effective.

EDIT: Forgot about the Louisiana special election. 52 votes, not 51.
 
C

Chie Satonaka

Member
Good news. My first thought when seeing the title was that it was just going to be revoked as soon as the jackass gets in.

Slayven said:
Can he permanently protect minorities? No reindeer or penguin ever called me nigger
Click to expand...

Of course not. Protection of minorities is unamerican.
 
S

Strimei

Member
LudicrousSpeed said:
The why is that Obama used a specific law passed by Congress in the 50s which provides a mechanism by which a President can declare certain parts of territory off-limits for oil and gas drilling leases, but provides no mechanism by which anyone can undo that declaration.

In order to undo this, Congress will have to pass a new law that provides such a mechanism.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Not impossible but it'll require work. Good to know. Still, wouldn't surprise me if they manage, they're out to reverse everything.
 
SenjutsuSage

SenjutsuSage

Banned
LudicrousSpeed said:
Creating laws isn't that easy, because the Senate has a 60 vote threshold and the Republicans have 52 votes. Any bill that can't get 8 Democrats on board to allow a vote is going to have problems getting to an up or down vote. About the only things that don't require 60 votes are appointments to Trump's cabinet, appointments to federal judgeships, and one special bill each year called a Reconcilliation bill that has a bunch of requirements about what it can and cannot do.

Now, if Senate Republicans nuke the filibuster, that's a different story. But so long as the 60 vote threshold remains, the 52 vote majority the Republicans have isn't going to be all that effective.

EDIT: Forgot about the Louisiana special election. 52 votes, not 51.
Click to expand...

Expect Republicans to find plenty of use for reconciliation that you never thought possible. These next 4 years could be the Republican Party's last full hold on power at the Federal level. I firmly believe the next time they lose it, they won't get it back. They are going to use this opportunity to do everything they've ever wanted to do, and then some.
 
A

Ac30

Member
SenjutsuSage said:
Expect Republicans to find plenty of use for reconciliation that you never thought possible. These next 4 years could be the Republican Party's last full hold on power at the Federal level. I firmly believe the next time they lose it, they won't get it back. They are going to use this opportunity to do everything they've ever wanted to do, and then some.
Click to expand...

That's what they said about 2016 though. Once the young people flee the rust belt the dems are gonna have an uphill battle
 
U

UraMallas

Member
Ac30 said:
That's what they said about 2016 though. Once the young people flee the rust belt the dems are gonna have an uphill battle
Click to expand...

The problem for the Rs is the South. When Nevada becomes a solid D and Arizona, Texas and Georgia become swing states due to shifting demos in 12 years, the Rust Belt won't matter nearly as much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump
2
98
9K
GrizzleBoy replied
WSJ: EPA Move to Rescind Obama Administration’s Clean Water Rule
2 3
120
11K
Version 3.0 replied
E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule
2 3
117
13K
TylerD replied
NYT: Court Blocks E.P.A. Effort to Suspend Obama-Era Methane Rule
42
7K
Master Yoshi replied
  • Locked
U.S. House of Reps. moves to encourage drilling in national parks
2 3
140
12K
Mairu replied
Top Bottom