US judge halts hundreds of drilling projects in groundbreaking climate change ruling
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the first significant check on the Trump administration’s “energy-first” agenda, a US judge has temporarily halted hundreds of drilling projects for failing to take climate change into account.
Drilling had been stalled on more than 300,000 acres of public land in Wyoming after it was ruled the Trump administration violated environmental laws by failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions. The federal judge has ordered the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages US public lands and issues leases to the energy industry, to redo its analysis.
The decision stems from an environmental lawsuit. WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center sued the BLM in 2016 for failing to calculate and limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from future oil and gas projects.
The agency “did not adequately quantify the climate change impacts of oil and gas leasing”, said Rudolph Contreras, a US district judge in Washington DC, in a ruling late on Tuesday. He added that the agency “must consider the cumulative impact of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions” generated by past, present and future BLM leases across the country.
The decision is the first significant check on the climate impact of the Trump administration’s “energy-first” agenda that has opened up vast swaths of public land for mining and drilling. Environmental advocates are praising the move, with Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians’ Climate and Energy Program director, calling it a “triumph for our climate”.
“This ruling says that the entire oil & gas drilling program is off the rails, and moving forward illegally,” said Nichols.
Under Trump, the pace of leasing public lands for oil and gas development has surged. A recent study found the administration has made more than 13m onshore acres available for leasing , far more than any similar period under Obama. The vast majority are located in the western states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. The administration also plans to make large portions of the Atlantic available for oil and gas development, and the interior department has been criticized for favoring the energy industry .
The BLM did not reply to a request for comment. The Western Energy Alliance, one of the defendants in the case, also did not respond to a request. Kathleen Sgamma, its president, told the Washington Post: “This judge has ignored decades of legal precedent in this ruling. The judge is basically asking BLM to take a wild guess on how many wells will be developed on leases, prematurely.”
Nichols predicts there will be implications for public lands across the west. His group is now poised to bring litigation to block drilling on hundreds of thousands of acres in other states.
“With the science mounting that we need to aggressively rein in greenhouse gases, this ruling is monumental,” said Kyle Tisdel, attorney and energy and communities program director for the Western Environmental Law Center. “Every acre of our public land sold to the oil and gas industry is another blow to the climate, making this ruling a powerful reality check on the Trump administration and a potent tool for reining in climate pollution.”
Initial image: Drilling has been halted on more than 300,000 acres of public land in Wyoming. Photograph: Brennan Linsley/AP
Tags
Who is online
404 visitors
I am glad to hear this.
Keeping my fingers crossed...
Let them freeze or roast depending on what area if the US they live in, no heating or air conditioning for them. In fact take away their cars, and all other modes of transportation, and force them to walk naked and barefoot to wherever they need to go; as all plastic rubber products have oil in them these days. Also they are not allowed to have any food they do not grow themselves on their property they live on. We can't have any carbon emissions coming from transportation of products to any stores or restaurants they might frequent. In fact if they are breathing or farting they are adding to carbon emissions, so if they really care about the environment.....
Want energy independence? Not going to get there w/o oil.
If they were arguing that more study must be done on the environmental impact of drilling to the land, fine. If they wanted to make sure that the oil and gas companies were following the laws to their letter, fine. But that is not what they are fighting for. What they are arguing is about carbon emissions. Burning oil and gas produces carbon- no way around it. It doesn't matter if it comes from oil fields in the US or abroad. What matters is the cost, and our security. The cost of transporting that oil in super tankers to the US causes even more carbon damage. Seems everyone has forgotten about the Iranian oil embargo during the Hostage crisis. That was just Iran. Imagine an entire block of middle eastern countries banding together to drop the world oil supply- for even a few months?
[Removed]
Calling someone a fascist when they don't agree with you is a form of fascist propaganda; but it it seems that the irony escapes some.
I have called no one a fascist.
If some members self-identify as fascists, then they should feel spotlighted. As true fascists, they would be behaving this way intentionally. My Comments would come as no surprise. So my Comments are not directed at them.
Far more important are members who do not self-identify as fascists, but nevertheless adopt fascist behavior. These are whom I am addressing. They should be asking themselves why, if they aren't fascists, are they behaving like fascists.
Another anti-Constitution judge creating his own laws instead of adherence to the Constitution. [Deleted]
Calling for violence is a TOS violation.
And he's a pastor. Calling for the tarring and feathering of a human being
Is that what Jesus would do pastor?
We had a proud history in this country of treating politicians and that includes judges appropriate to their misbehavior against the citizens. Too bad you disagree with a fine American tradition
Would you care to be more precise?
Jesus would not do it but it’s a great idea in this instance.
My knowledge of the case is limited by what I see here, but on its surface, this sounds like a problem of separation of powers. Unless there is some clear violation in the the facts in evidence, it's not really the responsibility or privilege of the judiciary to determine if a federal agency is doing its job "adequately." Any oversight of this agency would come from direct superiors in the executive branch and from the legislative branch, which funds it.
What do you believe should be the recourse of someone who feels that an administration is not doing its job?
As I indicated, it sort of depends on the details, which aren't really clear. Is there a clear standard? Was evidence presented demonstrating that the agency ignore that standard? I don't know. The judge's words make it sound like in his lay opinion, the agency could simply do a better job than it is. He doesn't even say they weren't doing what was required, just that they could have done it better. So he shuts everything down? That's not how things generally work.
Under that system, a judge could shut down the whole government. Cops aren't catching enough criminals. Fires aren't being put out fast enough. The IRS isn't collecting enough taxes. Students aren't getting good enough grades. You can go on and on. I'm not saying the judge is wrong because I don't know. All I can do is go by what's in the story.
I would think there could be some bureaucratic appeal process, FBI investigation (if appropriate) or congressional review.
The administration should seek a stay of this order pending an appeal of the case.