![]() ![]() There is wide agreement among climate experts that efforts to restrict fossil fuel production on public lands pale in comparison to other climate initiatives being pursued by the administration. But it’s still less than 1.5 percent of total U.S. Banning new leases outright, by contrast, would yield annual reductions of 85 million tons to 147 million tons, RFF found. That would result in an annual emissions reduction of 4 million tons to 7 million tons after accounting for the policy’s impact on global oil markets, according to an analysis by Resources for the Future. The “Build Back Better Act” would raise the royalty rate for onshore oil production to 18.75 percent, up from 12.5 percent ( Greenwire, Nov. The agency did not propose a specific royalty rate, but Congress is weighing one. Instead, it focused on reforming the oil and gas leasing program with higher royalty rates and more stringent bonding requirements to ensure that wells are cleaned up. In its recommendations last week, Interior made only passing mention of climate. “In the big picture, it is just not true that if you leave some oil undeveloped it will be substituted one for one with someone else’s oil.”Ī 2018 study co-authored by Erickson estimated that banning new leases would reduce emissions by 39 million tons annually. “Leaving oil in the ground in one place is a way to reduce global oil consumption,” said Pete Erickson, who leads the climate policy program at the Stockholm Environment Institute. Burning that oil produced 438 kg of CO 2 per barrel. Drilling and transporting oil from the Mars oil and gas field produced 70 kilograms of carbon dioxide per barrel, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Oil Climate Index. And they note that comparing the emission intensity of oil production in different regions ignores the fact that most of the CO 2 from oil and gas comes from burning those fossil fuels-not drilling for them. They contend many models overestimate the amount of lost federal production that would be made up elsewhere. who now serves as a senior researcher at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “The bottom line is if you want to affect emissions you have to lower demand,” said Marianne Kah, a former chief economist at ConocoPhilips Co. ![]() An April analysis by Wood Mackenzie found that only Saudi Arabia has lower emissions intensity than oil produced in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Some say it would push development elsewhere and could even drive up greenhouse gas levels by encouraging production of dirtier varieties of crude. Analysts have long argued over whether a ban on new leases is an effective way to lower emissions. oil production and more than 10 percent of natural gas output in fiscal 2020, according to Interior. “The leasing ban numbers are not trivial, but they are not going to make or break an NDC commitment or something like that,” said Brian Prest, a fellow at Resources for the Future, referring to the commitments countries make to cut emissions under the Paris climate accord.įederal lands, including offshore development, accounted for almost a quarter of U.S. But analysts say measuring the emissions impact is complicated. It prompted cries from some environmental groups that the president had violated a major campaign pledge. And when the Interior Department released long awaited recommendations for overhauling its leasing program last week, it was silent on the topic of banning new leases ( Energywire, Nov. Period, period, period,” he told voters in February before the election.įulfilling the pledge has been a challenge.Ī federal judge in Louisiana blocked the administration’s pause on new oil and gas leases on federal land over the summer. “And, by the way, no more drilling on federal lands, period. Joe Biden was on the campaign trail in New Hampshire last year when he made one the flashiest pledges of his presidential run. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |