Biden administration hit by lawsuits from green groups and Big Oil

By limiting offshore drilling opportunities, the administration’s plan leaves the United States potentially vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy markets and dependence on imported fuels.

On the other hand, environmental groups have cited concerns related to the project’s potential harm to local ecosystems, communities, and wildlife. They allege that the administration failed to properly evaluate the health implications of offshore drilling on frontline communities, many of whom already experience disproportionate health burdens due to existing pollution.

This marks the beginning of litigation involving the Gulf of Mexico oil plan, but stands amid a larger trend where environmental groups challenge government decisions that do not sufficiently consider the environmental and societal costs of fossil fuel extraction.

As such, similar action was undertaken when the Willow Project in Alaska was approved.

While both sides have made reasonable arguments, it is a fact that the approval of the oil drilling plan goes against the administration’s climate promises. Despite pledges to limit fossil fuel expansion, the Biden’s plan expands offshore drilling opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico, which conflicts with the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and phasing out fossil fuels.

Though the plan aligns with the Inflation Reduction Act, which connects offshore wind power auctions to oil and gas lease sales, critics argue that this approach hinders rather than supports the administration’s commitment to addressing climate change.

During his campaign, Biden made promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030, net zero emissions by 2050, rejoin the Paris Agreement, and most importantly prioritize climate considerations in national security and foreign policy. Though he did fulfill some of them to an extent, the fate of the most vital priorities lies in the balance.

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency does not possess the authority to impose state-specific limits on carbon emissions. The decision rendered it difficult for the administration to progress on its climate goals, especially by cutting the carbon emissions from power plants.

Additionally, while the administration temporarily suspended new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal approvals, it failed to extend this moratorium to fracking and other forms of fossil fuel extraction.

In his first year in office, Biden had approved 3,557 permits for the drilling of oil and gas on public lands. Its most confounding approval was the aforementioned Willow Project which was proposed by ConocoPhillips and could produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil a day, making it the largest proposed oil drilling on US federal land.

He also caused a public outcry for his absence in COP28, gathering criticism from many who argued that it signaled a lack of interest in the ongoing climate crisis. His absence was filled by a statement in which he stated that he welcomed the ‘historic’ COP28 deal and cited the work needed to reach climate goals.

Ultimately, Biden’s priorities on the climate front have been perplexing since he took office. The outcome of the lawsuits are extremely difficult to predict with opposing perspectives in play also.

Nonetheless, lawsuits can be an effective tool for advocacy groups to hold the government accountable for its decisions and ensure that environmental and social costs are taken into consideration.

Hence, the lawsuits represent an important step in the ongoing debate about balancing energy security with environmental sustainability.