Earlier today we saw how Republicans keep repeating some nonsense about unlocking America’s energy potential. We didn’t really get into what they're babbling about in any depth though. When they talk about “unlocking America's energy potential,” they’re generally referring to policies and initiatives aimed at expanding domestic energy production, particularly focusing on fossil fuels, as well as embracing certain forms of renewable energy under narrow, specific conditions.
First and foremost they’re talking about offshore drilling, expanding oil and gas exploration and drilling in offshore areas, including in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of states where there's been significant opposition in the past. I suspect though that when they start pushing for more offshore drilling, the’ll face opposition and, based on historical public sentiment and political dynamics, not just from Democrats. Floridians, for example have been particularly vocal against offshore drilling. Both Republican and Democratic politicians in Florida have historically opposed it due to the potential threat to tourism and the marine environment, especially after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The state's coastal economy relies heavily on tourism and fishing, which could be jeopardized by drilling activities. This would immediately put half a dozen seats held by Republicans in serious jeopardy— Maria Salazar, Cory Mills, Carlos Gimenez, Anna Paulina Luna, Vern Buchanan and Brian Mast.
Needless to say, California has strong anti-drilling sentiments, with majorities across political lines opposing more offshore oil drilling. The state's environmental consciousness, coupled with its economic dependency on tourism and coastal recreation, would likely lead to voter backlash against such policies and probably endanger Young Kim’s 2026 reelection prospects. Similarly offshore drilling proposals have met bipartisan resistance in New York, especially on Long Island where coastal areas are economically and culturally tied to clean beaches and marine life, which could hurt reelection prospects for Nick LaLota and Andrew Garbarino. New Jersey has a situation much like New York’s and offshore drilling proposals would deal a death blow to Jeff Van Drew’s political viability and maybe even hurt Chris Smith.
In South Carolina, I’d imagine offshore drilling would kill Nancy Mace’s career and hurt Russell Fry’s. And in North Carolina, where coastal Republicans have aligned with Democrats on this issue, the state has seen bipartisan support for protecting its coastal environment. Politically, David Rouser has the most to lose. And in Georgia, where there’s documented opposition to drilling off the coast, and where both political parties have shown a preference for protecting the coastal environment over expanding drilling operations, aggressive GOP action in this area would hurt, and possibly defeat, Buddy Carter.
There is, however, also an onshore drilling component: opening up more federal lands for for-profit oil and gas extraction and getting rid of restrictions on drilling in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other public lands.
Republicans are, of course, hoping at the bit to “cut red tape” speeding up the environmental review process for energy projects under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act. This includes reducing the time and complexity of getting permits for pipelines and refineries. They are also eager to promote nuclear energy, by streamlining nuclear permitting processes to facilitate the construction of new reactors.
There is a reasonable argument to be made that America's energy potential is allready unlocked, particularly after the shale (fracking) revolution. The Republicans are always bitching about regulatory constraints, arguing that potential is not fully realized due to what they claim is excessive regulations and environmental restrictions that slow down development. Under previous administrations, especially those with a stronger environmental focus (like Biden’s), policies have been enacted that aim to transition towards renewable energy, sometimes at the expense of fossil fuels, which they wish to reverse or balance out. Many Democrats, argue that the focus should be on sustainable, clean energy to address climate change, suggesting that the potential should be “unlocked’ by moving towards renewables more aggressively, not by increasing fossil fuel usage.
Over the weekend, Zack Colman reported that Biden would announce today that he is withdrawing 625 million acres of coastline from future oil and gas drilling— “all of the Atlantic Coast and eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coast from Washington to California and parts of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea, setting up a potential roadblock for Republicans’ plans to expand production in federal waters… Although most of the areas covered under the presidential memorandums have drawn little interest from the oil and gas industry, the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico is believed to hold large untapped reservoirs of oil. Opening that area to exploration has long drawn opposition from Florida officials from both parties— as well as Trump, who prohibited leasing there through 2032 under his own 2020 memorandum.” Since then, of course, he famously promised Big Oil and Gas that they could set energy policy in return for the campaign contributions they lavished on his election.
And sure enough, early this morning, the White House published this statement. "Today President Biden will take action to protect the entire U.S. East coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, and additional portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska from future oil and natural gas leasing. In protecting more than 625 million acres of the U.S. ocean from offshore drilling, President Biden has determined that the environmental and economic risks and harms that would result from drilling in these areas outweigh their limited fossil fuel resource potential. With these withdrawals, President Biden is protecting coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and local economies – including fishing, recreation, and tourism— from oil spills and other impacts of offshore drilling.”
Today’s actions build upon the Biden-Harris Administration’s ambitious climate agenda and unprecedented commitment to protect America’s natural wonders now and for future generations. The withdrawals advance two important Biden-Harris Administration priorities: honoring and protecting areas of significance to Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples as well as States and other stakeholders; and helping to ensure our oceans and coasts are resilient to the threats of climate change and nature loss.
The Biden-Harris Administration’s climate and conservation record includes creating three new national marine sanctuaries and a new national estuarine research reserve, including the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Central California; advancing designations for four additional sanctuaries; safeguarding Bristol Bay salmon fisheries; approving more than 19 gigawatts of offshorenwind projects, enough to power more than 6 million homes; investing $2.6 billion in coastal communities; and releasing the first-ever U. S. Ocean Climate Action Plan.
With today’s withdrawals, President Biden has now conserved more than 670 million acres of U.S. lands, waters, and ocean— more than any president in history.
Comments