914 views
In late 2019, as various candidates jockeyed to win the Democratic nomination for president, Elizabeth Warren made the statement that she would “ban fracking everywhere.” It was just the kind of hollow campaign promise that I loathe, and I explained why that was an unrealistic promise.
Then Joe Biden came along and pandered to the same crowd Warren was trying to impress. He promised “no new fracking”, but once again I explained why that promise wouldn’t be fulfilled.
Now that President Biden has issued a pair of executive orders that are viewed as hostile toward the oil and gas industry, many people have asked me whether Biden has in fact banned fracking.
Bidens excessive Executive Orders
By
February 3, 2021
Within his first two weeks in office, President Biden has signed an unprecedented number of executive orders47.
Writing for Quartz (1/31/21), Amanda Shendruk notes, Joe Biden has been US president for less than two weeks and has already issued nearly as many executive action as Trump and Obama did in the same period,
combined. [Emphasis hers]
These include:
Memorandum on Protecting Womens Health at Home and Abroad. The Mexico City Policy. Translation: abortions in other countries, paid for by you and me.
Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. Boys identifying as girls can use the womens restroom and locker-room. And bye-bye, womens sports.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Biden Administration is seeking to advance “environmental justice” (EJ) through its policy and regulatory priorities in a way that no administration has before. Environmental justice which seeks to address disproportionate environmental impacts on racial minorities, Native American tribes, and disadvantaged communities is hardly a new concept. But in recent months, a variety of political, social, and economic forces has combined to underscore EJ concerns. The Black Lives Matter movement and COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the damaging consequences of systemic racism and the heightened risks that low-income and minority populations bear, including from environmental pollution sources. These movements reignited a drive to address the excessive incidence of environmental contamination and pollution in disadvantaged communities. Some citizens, corporate shareholders, and the Biden Administration appear to share a co
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On February 1, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) January 31, 2021, unopposed motion to vacate and remand its January 6, 2021, final rule on “Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information” (86 Fed. Reg. 469).
EDF v. EPA, No. 4:21-cv-03-BMM. On January 11, 2021, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC), and Citizens for Clean Energy (CCE) filed suit against EPA, claiming that the January 6, 2021, final rule was unlawful and that EPA’s decision to make the final rule effective on publication was unlawful. On January 27, 2021, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that EPA did not provide good cause to exempt the final rule from the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) 30-day notice
Tuesday, February 2, 2021
On January 7, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) issued a final rule codifying the Trump Administration’s interpretation that the prohibitions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) only apply to actions “directed at” migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs (“Final Rule”). Consistent with the proposed rule (see VNF’s previous alert), FWS adopted the interpretation “that the scope of the MBTA does not include incidental take.” The Final Rule is currently scheduled to become effective on February 8, 2021. However, implementation of this Final Rule faces significant hurdles it may be struck down in federal court, disapproved pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”), or withdrawn by the Biden Administration.