President Donald Trump’s administration recently initiated an oil and gas lease sale on federal land in New Mexico, marking a significant shift in energy production policy. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Department of the Interior offered seven parcels totaling 1,317 acres in the Permian Basin, attracting 25 bidders and raking in $20.7 million. The sale highlighted the administration’s pro-development stance, eliminating environmental justice and climate considerations from its analysis, unlike the Biden administration.
Environmental justice and climate costs were not factors in the New Mexico sale under the Biden administration, which also concluded there would be no significant environmental impact. However, the Trump administration’s approach raised concerns as it opted out of assessing the racial and ethnic impact on minority populations and dismissed the costs of increased greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists criticized these revisions, citing the importance of quantifying GHG emissions impacts in lease decisions.
“Costs attributed to [greenhouse gases] are often so variable and uncertain that they are unhelpful for BLM’s analysis,” stated BLM’s environmental assessment, emphasizing the need to consider the benefits of greenhouse gases. Environmentalists, such as Ben Tettlebaum from The Wilderness Society, called out the administration for overlooking the devastating effects of GHG emissions in its decisions.
Overhaul of Environmental Policy
The morning after the New Mexico lease sale, the White House Council on Environmental Quality announced a revamp of environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This move aimed to accelerate permitting processes, prioritizing efficiency over other policy objectives and excluding environmental justice considerations in NEPA determinations. The decision to rescind NEPA regulations since the Carter administration raised concerns among environmental advocates.
Despite both the Biden and Trump administrations agreeing on the minimal environmental impact of the lease sale, the Biden administration conducted a detailed demographic analysis, highlighting the significant minority population in the area. However, the Trump administration omitted this analysis, prompting criticism from environmental law experts like Rose Rushing from the Western Environmental Law Center.
Legal and Environmental Implications
While the Biden administration relied on the social cost of carbon emissions to estimate the impact of the leases, the Trump administration eliminated this metric, arguing against the necessity of cost-benefit analysis. Legal battles are expected to ensue over the exclusion of environmental justice and climate considerations from the assessment, with environmentalists vowing to uphold public participation in the NEPA process.
BLM’s decision to forego key environmental analyses and cost-benefit assessments in the New Mexico lease sale underscores a departure from previous administrations’ policies. The implications of such actions on environmental justice, climate change, and public participation remain subjects of contention between environmental advocates and the federal government. Despite differing approaches, both administrations recognized the need for protection measures in response to the lease sale’s potential environmental impact.
While the Biden administration’s decisions faced criticism, the Trump-era revisions pose new challenges, particularly in sidelining environmental justice and climate analyses. The importance of upholding rigorous environmental standards in federal decision-making processes is imperative to safeguarding the environment and public well-being. The outcome of legal battles and public engagement in these matters will shape future energy production policies and environmental protections, highlighting the ongoing debate over balancing economic interests with environmental concerns.
