Merkley, Wyden, Bonamici, Salinas, Dexter, Bynum Demand Trump Reverse Plan to Open New Offshore Oil and Gas Leases – newportnewstimes.com

Report on Legislative Opposition to New Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing

Introduction: A Call for Sustainable Coastal Management

A coalition of over 100 federal lawmakers, including a significant delegation from Oregon, has formally demanded that the executive branch cease all plans for new offshore oil and gas leasing in U.S. federal waters. This action underscores a profound conflict between proposed fossil fuel expansion and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning climate action, marine conservation, and sustainable economic growth.

Key Stakeholders and Legislative Stance

The opposition is a coordinated effort to protect national environmental and economic interests. The Oregon delegation includes:

• U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley
• U.S. Senator Ron Wyden
• U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici
• U.S. Representative Andrea Salinas
• U.S. Representative Maxine Dexter
• U.S. Representative Janelle Bynum

Their collective demand, directed at the President and the Interior Secretary, calls for an immediate halt to leasing plans in several ecologically sensitive regions.

Geographic Areas of Concern

The proposed offshore leasing plans target several key marine environments, including:

1. The Atlantic Coast
2. The Pacific Coast
3. The Arctic Ocean and northern Bering Sea
4. The Eastern Gulf of Mexico

Analysis of Impacts in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Threats to Marine Ecosystems and Climate Stability (SDG 13 & SDG 14)

The lawmakers’ primary warning centers on the irreversible damage to marine and coastal ecosystems, a direct contradiction to SDG 14: Life Below Water. The initiative also undermines SDG 13: Climate Action by promoting the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure.

• Ecosystem Degradation: Opening these fragile coastlines to drilling would ravage coastal ecosystems, jeopardizing biodiversity and the health of marine life.
• Climate Change Acceleration: New oil and gas leases lock in decades of carbon emissions, directly opposing the global imperative to reduce greenhouse gases and transition to sustainable energy sources.

Socio-Economic Risks for Coastal Communities (SDG 8 & SDG 11)

The proposed drilling poses a significant threat to the economic viability and safety of coastal populations, impacting progress toward SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

• Economic Devastation: Coastal economies reliant on tourism, fishing, and recreation would be devastated by potential oil spills and routine industrial activity, threatening sustainable livelihoods.
• Public Health and Safety: The health and safety of millions of Americans living in coastal regions would be put at risk from both catastrophic events and chronic pollution.
• National Security: The letter also highlights that jeopardizing coastal infrastructure and economies presents a risk to national security.

Contradiction to Clean Energy Transition (SDG 7)

The push for new offshore drilling is fundamentally at odds with SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, which calls for a substantial increase in the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. The lawmakers’ opposition implicitly advocates for redirecting investment and policy focus toward clean energy alternatives rather than perpetuating dependence on finite and environmentally harmful fossil fuels.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses the opposition of lawmakers to new offshore oil and gas leases. Since the burning of fossil fuels like oil and gas is a primary driver of climate change, taking action to prevent the expansion of fossil fuel extraction is directly related to combating climate change and its impacts.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The lawmakers’ warning about ravaging “coastal ecosystems” and the threat to “fragile coastlines” directly connects to the goal of conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources. Offshore drilling poses significant risks of oil spills and pollution, which can devastate marine life and habitats.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article explicitly mentions that new offshore drilling would “devastate coastal economies.” This highlights the link between environmental protection and economic sustainability. Coastal economies often rely on industries like tourism, fishing, and recreation, which are threatened by the environmental risks of oil and gas extraction.
4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The concern that drilling would “put millions of Americans’ health and safety at risk” directly relates to this goal. Pollution from oil and gas operations, both from routine activities and potential accidents, can contaminate air and water, leading to negative health outcomes for coastal communities.
5. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • While the article focuses on stopping fossil fuel expansion rather than promoting renewables, this action is a critical component of transitioning to a sustainable energy system. By opposing new oil and gas leases, the lawmakers are implicitly advocating for a shift away from fossil fuels, which is necessary to increase the share of renewable energy in the global mix.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • The lawmakers are demanding that the President and Interior Secretary “cease any plans” for new offshore leases. This is a direct call to integrate climate change considerations (i.e., reducing fossil fuel dependence) into national energy and environmental policy.
2. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds…
   • The opposition to offshore drilling is a preventative measure aimed at avoiding potential marine pollution from oil spills and other operational discharges, which would harm “coastal ecosystems.”
3. Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts…
   • The article’s focus on protecting “fragile coastlines” and preventing the devastation of “coastal ecosystems” aligns perfectly with this target of managing and protecting these specific environments from the adverse impacts of industrial activities like drilling.
4. Target 8.4: Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation…
   • The warning that drilling would “devastate coastal economies” implies a need to pursue economic models that do not rely on environmentally destructive practices. Protecting the environment is presented as essential for sustaining the economic health of coastal regions.
5. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • The concern for the “health and safety” of millions of Americans directly points to this target. Preventing new offshore drilling would avert the potential for pollution and contamination that could lead to illnesses in coastal populations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 13.2: National policy on new fossil fuel exploration.
   • The primary indicator implied in the article is the decision by the federal government regarding new offshore oil and gas leases. Progress would be measured by the “ceasing” of these plans, as demanded by the lawmakers. The number of new leases granted or denied would be a direct measure.
2. Indicator for Targets 14.1 and 14.2: Area of marine and coastal ecosystems protected from new industrial activities.
   • An implied indicator is the extent of U.S. federal waters (Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Gulf) that are kept free from new oil and gas leasing. Success would mean these “fragile coastlines” and “coastal ecosystems” are protected from the specific threat of new drilling.
3. Indicator for Target 8.4: Sustainability of coastal economies.
   • While not providing data, the article implies that the health of coastal economies (e.g., revenue from tourism, fishing) can be used as an indicator. Preventing drilling would, according to the lawmakers, protect these economies from devastation, thus maintaining their economic viability.
4. Indicator for Target 3.9: Reduction of health risks from potential pollution.
   • The article implies that preventing new drilling is a direct way to avoid increased health risks. An indicator would be the number of people in coastal communities whose health is not put at risk by new sources of industrial pollution from offshore drilling.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: newportnewstimes.com