The Biden Administration Makes Two Big Moves To Conserve Public Lands, Sparking Backlash From Industry

For the Biden administration, Earth Day is a month-long affair. 

On Monday, the president announced $7 billion in funding to deliver residential solar projects for 60 state and local governments, tribes and nonprofits as part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Solar for All initiative, which my colleague Dan Gearino covered. In the coming days, cabinet members are expected to release additional funding for more clean energy, infrastructure and habitat restoration projects. 

But two of the administration’s biggest—and potentially most controversial—moves came last week in the lead-up to this nature-centric annual event. 

On Thursday, the Biden administration finalized a rule that will significantly boost conservation across public lands, followed by an announcement on Friday that the Department of the Interior will ban drilling in roughly 13 million acres of northwestern Alaska. 

Experts say that Biden is hoping to solidify his environmental record as the presidential election draws closer, but not everyone is happy about these changes to public lands management. 

A New Lease on Conservation: The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees around 245 million acres of nature, a 10th of land in the United States. Historically, portions of these public lands have been leased out primarily for industry activities, such as ranching, drilling and recreation. But the new “Public Lands Rule” finalized last week will soon allow BLM to use the same mechanism to lease out land for conservation. 

“Like many federal public-land-management agencies, BLM’s history is one of prioritizing extractive uses over conservationist ones, and that emphasis has long been reflected in the laws that govern how BLM does its job,” Matthew Sanders, the acting deputy director of the Environmental Law Clinic and a lecturer in law at Stanford Law School, told me over email. “The new Public Lands Rule elevates conservation and gives it ‘equal footing’ as other uses.”

For example, the rule could enable organizations such as environmental nonprofits to lease an area to restore its degraded ecosystems. Additionally, extractive companies can secure “mitigation” leases alongside their working leases to offset some of the harmful environmental impacts of their activities. 

The rule comes at a time when public lands are increasingly threatened by the impacts of climate change, from long-term droughts in Arizona to extreme wildfires in California. It will require BLM field offices to identify and prioritize “areas of critical environmental concern,” in an effort to enhance climate resilience. 

However, government officials in ranching and oil-heavy states have not been shy about voicing their disdain for the new rule. 

“This misguided rule will hamper critical projects such as mineral extraction and strike a harsh blow to small family-run businesses dependent on BLM land access,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Salt Lake Tribune. 

The final version of the plan will soon be published in the Federal Register before it goes into effect after 30 days. But several state and industry representatives have announced their plans to challenge it in court, including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican.

“It remains to be seen whether conservation leases actually become a thing and how seriously BLM implements the new rule,” Sanders told me. “I expect certain industry groups and perhaps some western states will challenge the new rule in court.”

Alaskan Oil Shield: In the 1920s, the U.S. government set aside 23 million acres of land in Alaska’s North Slope as an emergency oil supply, creating the country’s largest single block of public land, known as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. But this underground trove of oil is located below a swath of critical wilderness, which provides habitat for grizzly and polar bears, caribou and an abundance of migratory birds.

The Biden administration will now shield more than half of this area from the oil and gas industry, to act as a “firewall” for nature, reports The New York Times. 

“Alaska’s majestic and rugged lands and waters are among the most remarkable and healthy landscapes in the world, sustaining a vibrant subsistence economy for Alaska Native communities,” President Biden said in a statement. “These natural wonders demand our protection.”

Additionally, further South, the Interior Department denied a permit for an industrial road that would have cut through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve to connect to a large copper deposit, which is now essentially out of reach. Similar to the Public Lands Rule, these moves have had mixed feedback, sparking outrage from those who have long benefited from Alaska’s vast oil reserves. 

“Well, it’s lawless. He doesn’t have the authority to do it,” Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said on Sunday during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s, as I say, national security suicide.”

Notably, the decision will not affect the Willow Project, a major Arctic oil project that has been in development for years and is expected to produce 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak. The Biden administration faced criticism for allowing the project to move forward, but many Indigenous groups and environmentalists have marked the most recent Arctic decisions a win. 

“President Biden has taken an important step to safeguard the areas of the Western Arctic that are essential to our traditions, our communities and our families,” Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, founder of Grandmothers Growing Goodness and the former mayor of the village of Nuiqsut in Alaska, told E&E News. “For too long, oil and gas executives have been prioritized over our voices and the needs of the communities who live here.”

More Top Climate News

Universities across the U.S. are currently under fire for their close ties to the fossil fuel industry. 

An investigation by the Guardian and the Lens, a nonprofit newsroom in New Orleans, revealed that Louisiana State University gave Shell influence over research at the school’s Institute for Energy Innovation after the oil company donated $25 million in 2022 to help create it. Shell’s donation came with a seat on the advisory board that chooses the Institute’s research areas and has the power to stop a project from moving forward. 

“I have a hard time seeing a faculty member engaged in legitimate research being eager for an oil company or representative of a chemical company to vote on his or her research agenda,” Robert Mann, a political commentator and former LSU journalism professor, told the Lens and the Guardian. “That is an egregious violation of academic freedom.” 

Other schools such as Columbia University and University of Virginia are facing backlash from students protesting investments in coal, oil and gas, reports the Guardian. 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration officially launched a website for the U.S. Climate Corps, an initiative that will eventually employ more than 20,000 young people in careers related to tackling the climate crisis, according to the White House. Salary and location vary widely depending on the jobs, which include hydrological technicians, trail crew members in national parks and wildlife trackers (in some cases, that means getting paid to watch birds).