Critics say the COP21 Paris talks only provided more of a reason to keep the oil export ban in place, arguing that to do otherwise would lead to "a massive expansion of dangerous oil drilling." (Photo: Mr. Hicks46/flickr/cc)
Dec 14, 2015
Climate justice advocates warn that lifting the decades-old U.S. oil export ban--an outcome that appears imminent as a result of Republican maneuvering and Democratic capitulation in Congress--would be antithetical to the goals of the brand-new Paris Agreement aimed at reining in global emissions.
News outlets reported Monday afternoon that a provision to end the ban, instituted during energy shortages of the 1970s, is almost certain to be tucked into the omnibus year-end spending bill needed to keep the government running.
According to ABC News:
In return for lifting the 4-decade-old ban, Democrats were seeking various environmental concessions, including permanently extending tax credits for solar and wind energy production and reviving an environmental conservation fund. Democrats also were trying to block GOP efforts to roll back Obama administration environmental regulations, with Democratic lawmakers who traveled to the Paris climate talks returning energized to fight harder on such issues.
But critics say the COP21 Paris talks only provided more of a reason to keep the oil export ban in place, arguing that to do otherwise would lead to "a massive expansion of dangerous oil drilling."
\u201c.@PressSec asked if it would be ironic to allow ending of crude oil export ban days after #ParisAgreement reached. (answer should be yes!)\u201d— David Turnbull (@David Turnbull) 1450118323
As Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a blog post last week:
Ending the oil export ban is a poor idea on many grounds: Unions oppose it because it will cost refinery jobs, conservationists oppose it because it will lead to more drilling in sensitive areas and increased pollution in communities of color. It makes a mockery of the idea that we're actually interested in "energy independence." We'd get 4,500 more rail cars a day full of explosive oil. It's such bad policy that 69 percent of Americans, across both parties, oppose lifting the ban.
And if it's bad policy, it's even worse timing. Right at the very moment when we desperately need to be reducing emissions and investing in clean energy solutions -- right when President Obama in his Paris speech and his Keystone XL rejection has called for leaving carbon underground -- lifting the crude oil export ban would do the exact opposite: add 3.3 million barrels of extra oil production per day between now and 2035. That's more than 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year, the equivalent of the annual emissions from 108 million passenger vehicles or 135 coal-fired power plants.
In keeping with widespread public opposition to repealing the ban, U.S. President Barack Obama previously vowed to veto standalone legislation that did so. However, the White House has stopped short of saying Obama would veto a spending bill that includes lifting the ban.
A vote is expected later this week.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Climate justice advocates warn that lifting the decades-old U.S. oil export ban--an outcome that appears imminent as a result of Republican maneuvering and Democratic capitulation in Congress--would be antithetical to the goals of the brand-new Paris Agreement aimed at reining in global emissions.
News outlets reported Monday afternoon that a provision to end the ban, instituted during energy shortages of the 1970s, is almost certain to be tucked into the omnibus year-end spending bill needed to keep the government running.
According to ABC News:
In return for lifting the 4-decade-old ban, Democrats were seeking various environmental concessions, including permanently extending tax credits for solar and wind energy production and reviving an environmental conservation fund. Democrats also were trying to block GOP efforts to roll back Obama administration environmental regulations, with Democratic lawmakers who traveled to the Paris climate talks returning energized to fight harder on such issues.
But critics say the COP21 Paris talks only provided more of a reason to keep the oil export ban in place, arguing that to do otherwise would lead to "a massive expansion of dangerous oil drilling."
\u201c.@PressSec asked if it would be ironic to allow ending of crude oil export ban days after #ParisAgreement reached. (answer should be yes!)\u201d— David Turnbull (@David Turnbull) 1450118323
As Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a blog post last week:
Ending the oil export ban is a poor idea on many grounds: Unions oppose it because it will cost refinery jobs, conservationists oppose it because it will lead to more drilling in sensitive areas and increased pollution in communities of color. It makes a mockery of the idea that we're actually interested in "energy independence." We'd get 4,500 more rail cars a day full of explosive oil. It's such bad policy that 69 percent of Americans, across both parties, oppose lifting the ban.
And if it's bad policy, it's even worse timing. Right at the very moment when we desperately need to be reducing emissions and investing in clean energy solutions -- right when President Obama in his Paris speech and his Keystone XL rejection has called for leaving carbon underground -- lifting the crude oil export ban would do the exact opposite: add 3.3 million barrels of extra oil production per day between now and 2035. That's more than 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year, the equivalent of the annual emissions from 108 million passenger vehicles or 135 coal-fired power plants.
In keeping with widespread public opposition to repealing the ban, U.S. President Barack Obama previously vowed to veto standalone legislation that did so. However, the White House has stopped short of saying Obama would veto a spending bill that includes lifting the ban.
A vote is expected later this week.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Climate justice advocates warn that lifting the decades-old U.S. oil export ban--an outcome that appears imminent as a result of Republican maneuvering and Democratic capitulation in Congress--would be antithetical to the goals of the brand-new Paris Agreement aimed at reining in global emissions.
News outlets reported Monday afternoon that a provision to end the ban, instituted during energy shortages of the 1970s, is almost certain to be tucked into the omnibus year-end spending bill needed to keep the government running.
According to ABC News:
In return for lifting the 4-decade-old ban, Democrats were seeking various environmental concessions, including permanently extending tax credits for solar and wind energy production and reviving an environmental conservation fund. Democrats also were trying to block GOP efforts to roll back Obama administration environmental regulations, with Democratic lawmakers who traveled to the Paris climate talks returning energized to fight harder on such issues.
But critics say the COP21 Paris talks only provided more of a reason to keep the oil export ban in place, arguing that to do otherwise would lead to "a massive expansion of dangerous oil drilling."
\u201c.@PressSec asked if it would be ironic to allow ending of crude oil export ban days after #ParisAgreement reached. (answer should be yes!)\u201d— David Turnbull (@David Turnbull) 1450118323
As Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a blog post last week:
Ending the oil export ban is a poor idea on many grounds: Unions oppose it because it will cost refinery jobs, conservationists oppose it because it will lead to more drilling in sensitive areas and increased pollution in communities of color. It makes a mockery of the idea that we're actually interested in "energy independence." We'd get 4,500 more rail cars a day full of explosive oil. It's such bad policy that 69 percent of Americans, across both parties, oppose lifting the ban.
And if it's bad policy, it's even worse timing. Right at the very moment when we desperately need to be reducing emissions and investing in clean energy solutions -- right when President Obama in his Paris speech and his Keystone XL rejection has called for leaving carbon underground -- lifting the crude oil export ban would do the exact opposite: add 3.3 million barrels of extra oil production per day between now and 2035. That's more than 515 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year, the equivalent of the annual emissions from 108 million passenger vehicles or 135 coal-fired power plants.
In keeping with widespread public opposition to repealing the ban, U.S. President Barack Obama previously vowed to veto standalone legislation that did so. However, the White House has stopped short of saying Obama would veto a spending bill that includes lifting the ban.
A vote is expected later this week.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.