Inb4 a random red state sues for loss of profits and 5th circuit blocks the motion.
My money is on Texas this time.
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
405 points (98.6% liked)
News
23761 readers
3960 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Average national cost of gasoline per gallon in the US (monthly average) first went over $3 nearly two decades ago. Today it's $3.07. The July 2006 average of $3.025/gallon would have the purchasing power of around $4.75 in today's dollars. What are people really thinking they should be paying for gasoline in a world that needs to be moving AWAY from using fossil fuels?
Seriously, we'd see a move away from massive SUVs in a heartbeat if Americans had to pay what we do in the UK for petrol. It's over twice as much here.
For some reason they think it's a right to take 3 tons of their own personal metal on a two hour round trip every day.
The problem with those numbers is that gas is a totally inelastic demand for anyone who can't afford an EV. Actual wages haven't gone up 60% in 2 decades, so paying 4.75 today would hit a lot harder than paying $3 in 2006.
I can't disagree with your first sentence. However.
Actual wages haven’t gone up 60% in 2 decades, so paying 4.75 today would hit a lot harder than paying $3 in 2006.
Yes, but by that logic, actual fuel cost has gone down. I was 3 dollars then and it's 3 dollars now. But now wages in pure dollar amounts are much higher.
60% seems close enough between, say, 2006 and 2022
But again, that's wages in raw dollar amounts. Adjusted for inflation, people don't make more, but then adjusted for inflation, gas is literally cheaper than it used to be. You have to either adjust for inflation for everything, or nothing.
I am reminded of Obama banning coal plants from dumping their waste in rivers, 2 weeks before the end of his term, which was immediately reversed by Trump.
That's what it says in the summary.
Thing is, it's not a complete waste of time even if it has no practical impact on oil production. It means that Trump has to make a clear unambiguous statement in support of drilling. In the same way history has recorded the coal / river thing, so it will be for oil.
I... Dude are you fucking kidding? "Trump has to make a clear unambiguous statement in support of drilling" Has he not already done that countless times? Proudly in fact?
This action is meaningless, don't try to sugar coat it with the usual "well at least we'll have a record". We already HAVE a record, FFS! Even if we didn't, it doesn't matter, no one keeps track of voting records anymore! Thinking this matters is like thinking someone leaking nudes of a pornstar matters. The pornstar won't care, those who see it won't be shocked, and the entire process only serves as masterbation material for idiots.
When you do something for 4 years, and then stop at the last minute so you cynically can point out your opposition doing the same thing, it just shows that you don't actually want what your voters want, but are too chickenshit to just endorse the republican position that you implemented for 3 years and 11 months.
That's... disingenuous I think.
Biden has a lot to answer for, but this is just hyperbole.
Ideals are worthless if you can't get elected. Like fracking might be objectively bad, but if banning fracking will block you from getting elected then it's not a good policy.
Sure, a lot of people don't want more drilling, but apparently more voters do want more drilling.
Ideals are worthless if you can't get elected. Like fracking might be objectively bad, but if banning fracking will block you from getting elected then it's not a good policy.
Sure, a lot of people don't want more drilling, but apparently more voters do want more drilling.
Except this very same excuse could be made by Trump. Which would still make this just disingenuous political trickery rather than any genuine effort to help.
It's the Hunter Biden pardon all over again. So you pardoned your son, big deal. Would be more concerning if a father did not help his son. But don't go around for a year beforehand pretending to be holier than thou, spouting bullshit about believing in justice and not giving him a pardon.
And actually banning fracking, cold turkey, would be a huge shock to the economy. Biden did finally gets us to start transitioning to EVs after so many delays and he did take record amounts of land off the table for drilling. He’s earned the benefit of the doubt that he would have taken care of this second term, as EVs started to dominate the new car market
Biden was the only major candidate where you could say this with a straight face
Or the more Machiavellian answer is maybe this is part of the Ukraine war….. anything to help wean countries off Russian oil
Biden did finally gets us to start transitioning to EVs after so many delays
Delays he caused by putting tariffs on the competition so the big 3 can continue to force anyone who wants a half-decent EV to pay 60K+.
If we had chinese EVs for 20-30K, 4/5 cars bought in the last 4 years would be EVs and trying to ban the only car most people can afford would be political suicide, and the big 3 would be forced to compete.
Instead Biden continued to escalate Trump's trade war with China and EVs are still 10K more expensive than ICE cars, which are massively overpriced due to the captive market.
You can bet that if Harris has won, Biden wouldn't had do this.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what Biden is thinking too. He presided over record oil extraction during his term.
What can be done by presidential mandate can be undone by presidential mandate. If the Democrats weren’t buffoons they might try doing the mandating at the beginning of their term, when it can be in place for 4-8 years, instead of at the end of it when it will be in place for a month at best.
but doing it at the beginning of his term would require him to actually be pushing hard for this.
He doesn't want it to ever actually take place, just like Obama and Net Neutrality
It will likely take longer to get this implemented than it will for Trump to rescind it.
He put his energy into green energy that was in the IRA.
If he had pushed this earlier and then the green energy stuff now, you'd say "why didn't he do the green energy at the start of his term?" There no winning when that's all you say.
This is a presidential order, IRA was an act of congress. This drilling ban could have been done immediately, and either way, IRA would have taken years to get through congress
And we're back to "why didn't they do everything, everywhere, all at once?"
It’s as though you didn’t read my comment at all. I said the presidential order could have been done right away, and IRA would take awhile regardless given there were more steps involved (an act of congress)
Why couldn't he do both at the start of the term?
So he's too incompetent to have done both? Why did we tolerate him running for re-election?
Should last what two weeks?
Yeah if he did this 3-4 years ago, it would have made a dent, now it's nothing but virtue signaling.
It's complete virtue signaling. The amount of oil extracted from federal land has never been higher than in the past four years.
If only he had done this and prosecute Trump 3 goddamn years ago, maybe he wouldn't have lost!
... or you know, spend the last 3 years setting up a proper democrat candidate instead of getting in the way till the last minute.
Global warming averted forever!
Why are we linking to a Republican rag to report on Democratic “policy”?
Because this is the sort of meaningless feel-good story that Bezos thinks his readers want as he turns The Washington Post into The New York Post.
Is it anything more than symbolic at this point considering Trump will be in office in 15 days?
Because he's going to immediately reverse it.
Excellent. Let’s move on from oil.
These memorandums, how legally robust are they? Will Trump just be able to turn them over?
Apparently no https://youtu.be/SGwc5jWnhM8
if I do something good on my way out maybe history won't remember me for enabling the genocide of Palestine.
instead of prohibiting leasing, which will be immediately overturned, he should lease them to a conservation trust for 99 years. you know ... if he was serious.
Ok do genocide next
In my opinion we're doing more than enough genocide already, don't you think?
Nelson: Ha-ha
