By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Barack Obama, utilizing the hitherto unknown
“No-Backsies!” provision of Article II, has unilaterally declared an
“indefinite” ban on oil exploration in certain parts of the Atlantic and
Arctic.
The president is relying on a novel — and imaginary, and
dishonest — interpretation of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which
he says empowers him to make, by unilateral executive fiat, new drilling rules
that cannot be undone by any successor president. Legally speaking this is, as
Professor Patrick Parenteau of Vermont Law School wryly put it, “uncharted
waters.”
The New York Times,
acknowledging that President Obama is interpreting his powers in a way that is
not obviously legal and is at the very least at odds with prior practice,
concedes: “The declaration’s fate will almost certainly be decided by the
federal courts.”
We might hazard a guess about how that will happen, based
on the example of the Obama administration.
President Obama thinks highly of the legal expertise of
Elena Kagan, so highly that he installed her on the Supreme Court. Prior to
that, she insisted, during her confirmation hearings, that there is no
constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But President Obama was willing to
set such counsel aside when his administration refused to defend the Defense of
Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, on the grounds
that he believed it to be unconstitutional. (Madison et al. were really sneaky
about the gay stuff in the Constitution.) Kagan, once safely ensconced in her
lifetime Supreme Court tenure, also turned her back on Kagan’s counsel and
joined in the opinion that overturned DOMA and created a federal right to
same-sex marriage.
There isn’t anything that says the administration has to
defend a law it doesn’t like. The Obama administration got its way by simply
getting out of the way, creating an interesting precedent. If a president
doesn’t like a law, he can simply find an ally willing to sue to have it
overturned — and then refuse to defend it.
Neat trick.
That seemed like a good idea at the time to Democrats,
just as creating a hyper-politicized process for confirming Supreme Court
nominees sounded like a good idea to them back in 1987 (Merrick Garland, who
has returned to his day job, is not so sure), and just as the wanton use of the
filibuster seemed like a good idea to Democrats when they were in the minority
and limiting the filibuster seemed like a good idea to them when they were in
the majority, just as using the reconciliation process to circumvent ordinary
legislative procedures sounded like a good idea back in 2009, that “pen and
phone” rule by presidential decree was a good idea before the election of
Donald Trump, etc. In 20 years, when some future Republican stages a successful
Electoral College challenge and supplants a Democrat who thought he had won the
presidential election, we’ll remind them that they thought that was a good idea
back in 2016.
The Obama administration is a mess on the question of
process here. But it also is in error on the question of substance.
Preventing U.S. firms from drilling in certain Arctic and
Atlantic waters is a bad idea for any number of reasons, but the first and most
obvious is that this will not prevent drilling in those waters per se, only
drilling by firms under U.S. jurisdiction.
But oil doesn’t care about national boundaries. Foreign
firms operating in international waters or in waters under the legal
jurisdiction of other countries — in the case of the Arctic waters off the
Alaskan coast, Russia is significant — will not be constrained at all. As an
environmental question, this ought to be understood as a net loss, inasmuch as
American firms generally operate under higher environmental standards than most
of their foreign competitors, a consequence of the fact that outside of the
United States the oil business is dominated by state-owned firms, and states
(particularly states with the character of Russia) do not regulate themselves
very well.
For another thing, oil drilling has changed a great deal
in the past several decades. Environmental and safety standards already were
high, but there have been improvements since then, in everything from seismic
modeling to ordinary daily management practices. The Obama administration and
its allies used to understand this, which is why the White House worked to open
up Atlantic waters off the southeastern United States to drilling, or at least
tried, or at least pretended to try. Mother
Jones once was so despondent over President Obama’s oil policy that its
editors dubbed him “The Oil President.”
We ought to be honest about all this: There is no
environmentally clean way to produce energy, period. Oil, gas, and coal all
have obvious and well-documented environmental costs, but so do solar, wind,
and other so-called renewable sources. The question isn’t good methods vs. bad
methods, but better methods vs. worse ones. And the experience of the
natural-gas industry suggests that it is easier to effectively regulate a
booming industry than a waning one, because the costs at the margin are less
noticeable the fatter those margins are. This is one reason why gas drillers so
often go well beyond their formal regulatory requirements.
That this can be reversed — in spite of the Obama
administration’s insistence that the High and Mighty Barack Obama, First of His
Name, can make legal pronouncements that are not only unilateral but eternal —
seems obvious.
That it should be reversed is obvious, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment