- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
For people who want news coverage of this, the are articles from the Associated Press and Reuters
For people who want news coverage of this, the are articles from the Associated Press and Reuters
Yeah, it would be better to do nothing! /s
As opposed to more fossil fuel projects, yeah.
Looking a bit more into the specific projects though, it looks like there’s no energy generating projects at all here, its all distribution infrastructure, with sprinklings of renewable energy wording because they use powerlines too.
Your desperation to be displeased, while oh so edgy and endearing to the ladies, isn’t helpful.
We are talking about the bill that issued millions of acres in new oil and gas leasing. Im fully expecting emissions to continue increasing
No, the bill did not do that. Oil leases do not require Congress pass a bill and are completely unrelated.
https://www.energy.senate.gov/2023/6/manchin-record-onshore-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-prompted-by-inflation-reduction-act
And thus proving my statement. Prompted does not mean legislated. Yes, to appease Manchin they had to line his pockets. It is sad but once more you prove that your assumptions are invalid.
Man you really just looked at the link text
“This is the first onshore oil and gas lease sale since the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, which required that significant federal oil and gas lease sales take place”
100% false. It was agreed to for Manchin’s Vote. It had nothing to do with it otherwise. You are desperate to condemn what you don’t remotely understand. Your assumptions are 100% invalid and the whine you have is that to get the benefit, Manchin had to get paid off, but you target the Bill and pretend that the agreement to make the leases was the point.
It was required to get Manchin’s Vote. The Inflation Reduction Act had nothing in it requiring that to occur. It was a condition to get it passed, not remotely the intent nor any part of it as you claim.
What the bill required was that specific lease sales which were already filed no longer be delayed or blocked, not that new leases take place.
Here is the actual wording: (Sec. 50264) Interior must accept the highest bid for oil and gas leases under the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257 within 30 days of the act’s enactment. It must also conduct (1) Lease Sale 258 by the end of 2022, (2) Lease Sale 259 by March 31, 2023, and (3) Lease Sale 261 no later than the end of the FY2023.
(Sec. 50265) The act limits Interior’s authority to issue leases and rights-of-way to develop wind or solar energy on onshore or offshore land for 10 years. Interior may grant such rights-of-way and leases if it offers a certain amount of land for oil and gas leases and holds oil and gas lease sales.
Lease Sale 257, 258, and 259 were required to take place as a result of the Bill but were not created by it. At no point does the Bill create a single new lease, it required existing lease sales occur.