It sucks hard. But I think we need to be very very very clear that if Biden had not approved this, the oil company would have sued, and they would have won. The government could have appealed, and they would have lost to the Supreme Court. Again. We have to point this out. Every time. What we really really need to do is work on a House and a Senate that will nuke the filibuster and modify the courts. We are so close to that in 2024, with 51 and replacing Sinema.
President Biden needs to explain this clearly to the American people. If he phrases it like you have, I think most people will understand. He can also make the case for taking back control of the House, increasing our margin in the Senate and for expanding SCOTUS. Most people are keenly aware the the current court is packed with right wing people, some of whom have no business being on the court to begin with. Leaders will constantly disappoint us. It's a matter of degrees that the progressive caucus needs to wrap their heads around. Nobody ever gets everything they want. When campaign promises run into walls in Congress, there's not a lot that can be done. We just have to hope that those times are few and far between. So far, with President Biden, they have been.
#2 - the case for - is clearly explained (thank you) and is the harsh reality that progressives/activists need to absorb. If they choose to not vote to reelect Biden because he disappointed them in this instance than good luck getting anything they want with his republican replacement.
I'm so very very disappointed in this decision. I cried as I read the article as I did when I heard Biden had approved the project. The environmental consequences are terrible and the broken trust with young voters is dire. Young voters deciding it wasn't worth the trouble to vote is a big reason we suffered 4 years of TFG.
Thank you for your explanation of the decision. Your explanation of the legal reasons that may be behind the decision help make a little sense of the situation.
We are many decades away from weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, nowhere more so than our military. To my knowledge we don't even have plans for electric tanks, and EF-35s to replace our F-35s, armored vehicles, etc. ad infinitum. We are currently very dependent on unreliable, untrustworthy, or even enemy sources for our oil, just as we are for electronics. Unless we want to become a pacifist nation that watches the rest of the world fall to the likes of Russia and China and naively hope they decide to leave us alone, hard decisions like this need to be made to reduce the dependencies we and our allies have. We currently have too little ability to force Russia to abandon their quest to rebuild the Soviet Empire, largely due to oil and gas dependence. Imagine how it would go down if we had to buy oil from them and electronic components from China to keep our military operational.
As sad as this decision was, we need to give the guy a break. If we say, screw the economy, screw the military, screw our allies, stop using oil now! Then we won't have long to enjoy the moment of reduced oil consumption.
After years of T**** attacking anything that competes with oil and coal, anything that helps the environment, anything that keeps us from being poisoned by big corporations in the name of profit, Biden is a warrior that is making great strides. Not to mention that he managed to restore almost all of the pacts and alliances that T**** spent years destroying, and most of the clout the US had before the orange guy.
A particularly poignant aspect of the electoral implications is that the fact that the courts would rule against Biden -- possibly in a way that catastrophically exceeds the facts here -- is 100% attributable to too many people not taking the 2016 election, with the Supreme Court on the ballot, as seriously as they might have done.
For those of us who are disappointed, Biden was in a no win situation. He is doing his best to mitigate it and to not vote for him because of this shows a lack of people’s willingness to research the issues behind it. Thanks Jay for the explanation.
It is a bit reminiscent of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. With few options on the table, Biden did what he had to do. His effectiveness as president comes from the ability to make a decision, after obviously listening to his advisors. I can just hear him in a meeting saying, "So, what are the options?" Then listening, and making a decision.
Multiple use is the mandate, and as many Americans hate wilderness designations as hate oil& gas development. Biden’s record has been decidedly on the conservation side and he’s restored a lot of the protections trump unilaterally stripped away. Biden has no more ability to stop fossil fuel production completely than trump had to give away public land for retail development. I trust the Biden administration and if some generation isn’t going to vote because of this, fine. I’m tired of anyone who holds us hostage because of one pet issue like banning tiktok or this one project. Voters on left need to grow up or they’re giving republicans a chance to finish what they started in 2016, back when the one issue was Hillary wasn’t nice enough.
The optics are abysmal. But it is clear that this 8s a calculated hit for which they have braced, likely having examined all nuances, as you describe. It could even br that they are chosing to concede that which is done and plan to clamp down even tighter on future drilling, rendering a zero sum factor....of course I'm speculating....and a lot will be flying under the bridge come six years....so much happens in a single week lately that six years worth of happenings is nearly too much upon which to chew....
While approaching carbon neutrality is an awesome ideal, we will be dependent on oil products for a time to come, so that supply may as well be controlled and generate jobs, she stays cynically, while lamenting the predicted irreparable damage to the ecosystem....
From what you said (and it's pretty much all I know of the pros of the lease) is that Biden had a choice of breaking one of two incompatible promises, a campaign promise or a promise already made by the United States. If he breaks the first, his disappoints a lot of people, including me. But if he breaks the second he is not acting as president of the United States but as a political entity intent on political promises. Do we really want our president breaching existing contracts? We rightly excoriated trump for withdrawing from existing treaties--which was certainly a breach of promises to other countries, if not contracts with them. I can't recall any actual contract breaches by the US that Trump did--possibly the lease of the hotel in DC--but I'll bet they existed.
And all this to lose anyway? It isn't so much fear of being "bludgeoned" by the supremes as fear that in the process some very bad law might be made by them. Who KNOWS what reasoning the court might use to decide this to further its own political agenda.
The 92 million metric tons of emissions per year assumes the all the oil will be pumped AND used to be "burned for human use." But 6 years plus whatever time environmental groups can add to that through their own litigation (focused, I presume, on the procedures that got the contract signed in the first place, not to mention the 30 years of pumping it will take to get to that per/year figure, gives us more and more time to reduce DEMAND for burning the oil for fuel and could make some or most of that pumping actually unprofitable. Remember that trump's support of the coal industry did little to actually prop up the industry, since coal has become a fuel that isn't cost effective.
Combine those two ideas--respect for the rule of law that says contracts can't simply be breached at will, least of all by the United States, plus the idea that we don't KNOW that pumping the oil will remain profitable enough for ConocoPhillips to keep doing it--and I'd say that I am disappointed but not utterly dismayed by the signing of this lease. He did at least extract some good concessions. Biden has had to make some very difficult choices--the fate of the railway strike was another--but only hindsight is 2020. Foresight is far iffier.
Expected demand may be reducing more than people realize so that by the time this is fully operational not much may be utilized. More electric vehicles, gen z not wanting to own cars, the military relying on drones over tanks, etc.
Maybe folks should ascend to a higher altitude to view this situation from an energy security, global, national security and geopolitical perspective. Also, the Biden Administration and the energy industry are fully engaged on climate matters. It would be bad for business if they were not so engaged. This reader applauds the Biden Administration for its leadership, flexibility, patience and time sensitivity in protecting American interests at a critical time.
Meantime, we should not lose focus on other issues of critical importance to our nation and the world. Who wants to freeze in the dark during climate change or be one of those people who got stranded in their Tesla or ran out of fuel during recent floods and Sierra snowstorms? As a nation, we have a way to go and our trajectory has not changed.
First, given the choice between Biden and disappointment and any Republican and outright disgust, rage and fear for the future of Democracy and the planet - I'll choose disappointment. I know that's not optimal but it is what it is until we vote the Republican party out.
It seems to me that increasing oil production outside of Russia might be a good thing in terms of undercutting Putin's economic power. This is probably too little too late for the short term but long term I think it works.
Oil is going to keep being a problem until we quit using it. I think that's where our focus should be. As soon as we can kill demand, drilling won't be an issue.
Earthjustice is already saying they will sue to stop the Willow project and I’m sure they’ll be joined by others. This situation reminds me of how Trump negotiated with the Taliban instead of the Afghani Government and left Biden holding the bag. Imo Biden’s actions leaving Afghanistan cannot be discussed without referencing how it got to a Sophie’s Choice type situation. To me the same must be done in discussing the Willow project. We are teetering on the brink of authoritarianism taking over this country and we cannot afford to demand perfection or ultimatums imo. Thank you for your explanation. It will help in discussing it and I will share.
More good points, because yeah I have only recently started to see the New York Times more neutrally characterize it as a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan as opposed to “chaotic withdrawal” which isn’t fair.
Biden had zero good options thanks to Trump’s in bad faith withdrawal negotiations done after he lost the election. The true and accurate fact is that the Taliban would have returned to targeting and killing Americans if Americans had stayed at all past the deadline. Which Biden did push forward from the Trump negotiated deadline by announcing the withdrawal would commence at that time.
Biden did what he could with little good available choices left to him, and the truth is his administration spearheaded the most intense airlift since the Berlin Airlift happened, when things got worse as the deadline loomed. The airlift saved hundreds of thousands of lives and deserves to be remembered positively for that reason.
It sucks hard. But I think we need to be very very very clear that if Biden had not approved this, the oil company would have sued, and they would have won. The government could have appealed, and they would have lost to the Supreme Court. Again. We have to point this out. Every time. What we really really need to do is work on a House and a Senate that will nuke the filibuster and modify the courts. We are so close to that in 2024, with 51 and replacing Sinema.
Manchin doesn’t want to get rid of the filibuster either though.
We just need 50 votes! Manchin can’t stop it alone if we replace Sinema.
Yes, but we have to keep working on the senate margins all the same.
President Biden needs to explain this clearly to the American people. If he phrases it like you have, I think most people will understand. He can also make the case for taking back control of the House, increasing our margin in the Senate and for expanding SCOTUS. Most people are keenly aware the the current court is packed with right wing people, some of whom have no business being on the court to begin with. Leaders will constantly disappoint us. It's a matter of degrees that the progressive caucus needs to wrap their heads around. Nobody ever gets everything they want. When campaign promises run into walls in Congress, there's not a lot that can be done. We just have to hope that those times are few and far between. So far, with President Biden, they have been.
The messaging wasn’t clear I agree
Yep. Messaging from Democrats wasn’t clear.
Also, water is wet. Fire is hot. The sun rises in the east. 
#2 - the case for - is clearly explained (thank you) and is the harsh reality that progressives/activists need to absorb. If they choose to not vote to reelect Biden because he disappointed them in this instance than good luck getting anything they want with his republican replacement.
I hope they aren’t too deflated. But we must be mindful that you have to earn voter enthusiasm. It’s not enough to say the other guy is unacceptable.
There is that. Absolutely.
I'm so very very disappointed in this decision. I cried as I read the article as I did when I heard Biden had approved the project. The environmental consequences are terrible and the broken trust with young voters is dire. Young voters deciding it wasn't worth the trouble to vote is a big reason we suffered 4 years of TFG.
Thank you for your explanation of the decision. Your explanation of the legal reasons that may be behind the decision help make a little sense of the situation.
Thank you Jay for a balanced explanation. I feel better about it now, since it was, as you say, a no-win situation.
We are many decades away from weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, nowhere more so than our military. To my knowledge we don't even have plans for electric tanks, and EF-35s to replace our F-35s, armored vehicles, etc. ad infinitum. We are currently very dependent on unreliable, untrustworthy, or even enemy sources for our oil, just as we are for electronics. Unless we want to become a pacifist nation that watches the rest of the world fall to the likes of Russia and China and naively hope they decide to leave us alone, hard decisions like this need to be made to reduce the dependencies we and our allies have. We currently have too little ability to force Russia to abandon their quest to rebuild the Soviet Empire, largely due to oil and gas dependence. Imagine how it would go down if we had to buy oil from them and electronic components from China to keep our military operational.
As sad as this decision was, we need to give the guy a break. If we say, screw the economy, screw the military, screw our allies, stop using oil now! Then we won't have long to enjoy the moment of reduced oil consumption.
After years of T**** attacking anything that competes with oil and coal, anything that helps the environment, anything that keeps us from being poisoned by big corporations in the name of profit, Biden is a warrior that is making great strides. Not to mention that he managed to restore almost all of the pacts and alliances that T**** spent years destroying, and most of the clout the US had before the orange guy.
A particularly poignant aspect of the electoral implications is that the fact that the courts would rule against Biden -- possibly in a way that catastrophically exceeds the facts here -- is 100% attributable to too many people not taking the 2016 election, with the Supreme Court on the ballot, as seriously as they might have done.
For those of us who are disappointed, Biden was in a no win situation. He is doing his best to mitigate it and to not vote for him because of this shows a lack of people’s willingness to research the issues behind it. Thanks Jay for the explanation.
It is a bit reminiscent of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. With few options on the table, Biden did what he had to do. His effectiveness as president comes from the ability to make a decision, after obviously listening to his advisors. I can just hear him in a meeting saying, "So, what are the options?" Then listening, and making a decision.
Multiple use is the mandate, and as many Americans hate wilderness designations as hate oil& gas development. Biden’s record has been decidedly on the conservation side and he’s restored a lot of the protections trump unilaterally stripped away. Biden has no more ability to stop fossil fuel production completely than trump had to give away public land for retail development. I trust the Biden administration and if some generation isn’t going to vote because of this, fine. I’m tired of anyone who holds us hostage because of one pet issue like banning tiktok or this one project. Voters on left need to grow up or they’re giving republicans a chance to finish what they started in 2016, back when the one issue was Hillary wasn’t nice enough.
Well said.
The optics are abysmal. But it is clear that this 8s a calculated hit for which they have braced, likely having examined all nuances, as you describe. It could even br that they are chosing to concede that which is done and plan to clamp down even tighter on future drilling, rendering a zero sum factor....of course I'm speculating....and a lot will be flying under the bridge come six years....so much happens in a single week lately that six years worth of happenings is nearly too much upon which to chew....
While approaching carbon neutrality is an awesome ideal, we will be dependent on oil products for a time to come, so that supply may as well be controlled and generate jobs, she stays cynically, while lamenting the predicted irreparable damage to the ecosystem....
From what you said (and it's pretty much all I know of the pros of the lease) is that Biden had a choice of breaking one of two incompatible promises, a campaign promise or a promise already made by the United States. If he breaks the first, his disappoints a lot of people, including me. But if he breaks the second he is not acting as president of the United States but as a political entity intent on political promises. Do we really want our president breaching existing contracts? We rightly excoriated trump for withdrawing from existing treaties--which was certainly a breach of promises to other countries, if not contracts with them. I can't recall any actual contract breaches by the US that Trump did--possibly the lease of the hotel in DC--but I'll bet they existed.
And all this to lose anyway? It isn't so much fear of being "bludgeoned" by the supremes as fear that in the process some very bad law might be made by them. Who KNOWS what reasoning the court might use to decide this to further its own political agenda.
The 92 million metric tons of emissions per year assumes the all the oil will be pumped AND used to be "burned for human use." But 6 years plus whatever time environmental groups can add to that through their own litigation (focused, I presume, on the procedures that got the contract signed in the first place, not to mention the 30 years of pumping it will take to get to that per/year figure, gives us more and more time to reduce DEMAND for burning the oil for fuel and could make some or most of that pumping actually unprofitable. Remember that trump's support of the coal industry did little to actually prop up the industry, since coal has become a fuel that isn't cost effective.
Combine those two ideas--respect for the rule of law that says contracts can't simply be breached at will, least of all by the United States, plus the idea that we don't KNOW that pumping the oil will remain profitable enough for ConocoPhillips to keep doing it--and I'd say that I am disappointed but not utterly dismayed by the signing of this lease. He did at least extract some good concessions. Biden has had to make some very difficult choices--the fate of the railway strike was another--but only hindsight is 2020. Foresight is far iffier.
Expected demand may be reducing more than people realize so that by the time this is fully operational not much may be utilized. More electric vehicles, gen z not wanting to own cars, the military relying on drones over tanks, etc.
Good points! Thanks!
I really appreciate your explication of issues!
Maybe folks should ascend to a higher altitude to view this situation from an energy security, global, national security and geopolitical perspective. Also, the Biden Administration and the energy industry are fully engaged on climate matters. It would be bad for business if they were not so engaged. This reader applauds the Biden Administration for its leadership, flexibility, patience and time sensitivity in protecting American interests at a critical time.
Meantime, we should not lose focus on other issues of critical importance to our nation and the world. Who wants to freeze in the dark during climate change or be one of those people who got stranded in their Tesla or ran out of fuel during recent floods and Sierra snowstorms? As a nation, we have a way to go and our trajectory has not changed.
Yes!
This is extremely disappointing.
First, given the choice between Biden and disappointment and any Republican and outright disgust, rage and fear for the future of Democracy and the planet - I'll choose disappointment. I know that's not optimal but it is what it is until we vote the Republican party out.
It seems to me that increasing oil production outside of Russia might be a good thing in terms of undercutting Putin's economic power. This is probably too little too late for the short term but long term I think it works.
Oil is going to keep being a problem until we quit using it. I think that's where our focus should be. As soon as we can kill demand, drilling won't be an issue.
Earthjustice is already saying they will sue to stop the Willow project and I’m sure they’ll be joined by others. This situation reminds me of how Trump negotiated with the Taliban instead of the Afghani Government and left Biden holding the bag. Imo Biden’s actions leaving Afghanistan cannot be discussed without referencing how it got to a Sophie’s Choice type situation. To me the same must be done in discussing the Willow project. We are teetering on the brink of authoritarianism taking over this country and we cannot afford to demand perfection or ultimatums imo. Thank you for your explanation. It will help in discussing it and I will share.
More good points, because yeah I have only recently started to see the New York Times more neutrally characterize it as a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan as opposed to “chaotic withdrawal” which isn’t fair.
Biden had zero good options thanks to Trump’s in bad faith withdrawal negotiations done after he lost the election. The true and accurate fact is that the Taliban would have returned to targeting and killing Americans if Americans had stayed at all past the deadline. Which Biden did push forward from the Trump negotiated deadline by announcing the withdrawal would commence at that time.
Biden did what he could with little good available choices left to him, and the truth is his administration spearheaded the most intense airlift since the Berlin Airlift happened, when things got worse as the deadline loomed. The airlift saved hundreds of thousands of lives and deserves to be remembered positively for that reason.