this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
211 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5259 readers
956 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://www.energy.senate.gov/2023/6/manchin-record-onshore-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-prompted-by-inflation-reduction-act
And thus proving my statement. Prompted does not mean legislated. Yes, to appease Manchin they had to line his pockets. It is sad but once more you prove that your assumptions are invalid.
Man you really just looked at the link text
"This is the first onshore oil and gas lease sale since the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, which required that significant federal oil and gas lease sales take place"
100% false. It was agreed to for Manchin's Vote. It had nothing to do with it otherwise. You are desperate to condemn what you don't remotely understand. Your assumptions are 100% invalid and the whine you have is that to get the benefit, Manchin had to get paid off, but you target the Bill and pretend that the agreement to make the leases was the point.
It was required to get Manchin's Vote. The Inflation Reduction Act had nothing in it requiring that to occur. It was a condition to get it passed, not remotely the intent nor any part of it as you claim.
What the bill required was that specific lease sales which were already filed no longer be delayed or blocked, not that new leases take place.
Here is the actual wording: (Sec. 50264) Interior must accept the highest bid for oil and gas leases under the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257 within 30 days of the act's enactment. It must also conduct (1) Lease Sale 258 by the end of 2022, (2) Lease Sale 259 by March 31, 2023, and (3) Lease Sale 261 no later than the end of the FY2023.
(Sec. 50265) The act limits Interior's authority to issue leases and rights-of-way to develop wind or solar energy on onshore or offshore land for 10 years. Interior may grant such rights-of-way and leases if it offers a certain amount of land for oil and gas leases and holds oil and gas lease sales.
Lease Sale 257, 258, and 259 were required to take place as a result of the Bill but were not created by it. At no point does the Bill create a single new lease, it required existing lease sales occur.
here is literally the full text of the bill https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/text/pl
Section 50264 outlines the 4 new oil and gas lease sales. Lease 257 for 1.7 million acres
Lease 258 for 958 thousand acres
Lease 259 for 1.6 million acres
and Lease 261 for an astounding 67 million acres of land, all exclusively for fossil fuel extraction
these are not optional, these are mandated sales the Secretary of the Interior must comply with "the Secretary shall, without modification
or delay--(A) accept the highest valid bid for each tract or
bidding unit of Lease Sale 257 for which a valid bid was
received on November 17, 2021; and
(B) provide the appropriate lease form to the
winning bidder to execute and return."
My statement "We are talking about the bill that issued millions of acres in new oil and gas leasing." I have cited the source bill and given all the text outlining exactly my claim. Legislated, meaning written into legislation and passing congress and signed into law by the president. There's no room for interpretation here.
Yup, details of the lease, which was already waiting for action but was being delayed and Manchin wanted to get moved forward. It was well documented at the time the negotiations were going on. Well done. you are almost there.
the...4 leases. 2 of which were barred by Biden, and 2 brand new leases. You're not reading what Im writing anymore.
Yup, which is why Manchin demanded they be aloud to move forward. still 100% not a part of the bill as they were existing lease sales which simply were being held up.
Yeah youre still not reading what i wrote
No, what you wrote is tripe and I read the text and researched the topic. You've no leg to stand on outside of some pure "I don't like how the sausage is made!" immature idealism.
You read the part about 2 new leases?