According to a report produced in November 2018 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) fossil fuel extraction on U.S. public lands contributes nearly 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
Over the weekend, the levels of the greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere reached their highest levels in human history (going back 800,000 years) as measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
Incredibly, yesterday the Trump administration’s Interior Secretary David Bernhardt – who oversees the fossil fuel on America’s public lands, which account for nearly 25% of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions – told a House Oversight Hearing that “I haven’t lost any sleep over it.”
Maybe it is because Sec. Bernhardt won’t physically be with us when the brunt of climate change effects are experienced by the rest of us.
Matthew, the results of that report seem very odd to me. “For the emissions portion of this study, we estimated the greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 , CH4 , and N2O) resulting from the extraction and end-use combustion of fossil fuels derived from U.S. Federal lands, including offshore area.” This report seems to assume that if fossil fuels were not produced from US public lands, no substitution would occur with fossil fuels from other sources. I’m not an expert, but I think that hasn’t been the case in the past. Which makes me wonder, why would anyone make that assumption, and then make calculations?
Are you saying that the Secretary should feel good and sleep well because of substitution?
No, I’m just saying that there are pros and cons to domestic production of anything from food to energy to forest products- and the way the study is used “25% of emissions come from fossil fuel extraction on public lands” is misleading at best. Would we feel better if 25% of our emissions were generated by the Saudis? I know the schools in some western states would not.
One would make that assumption if one were suggesting we should be responsible for cleaning up our own share of the mess. Instead of trying to make money off it.
I would agree that if they went on to say that eliminating this carbon source would reduce global carbon emissions by that amount it would be misleading, but that’s not what I read here. Economists could (and probably have) examined how much would be replaced by other carbon, how much by non-carbon energy sources and how much my reduced consumption.