# Hillary's Craziest Policy Proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 21, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533 "2016-09-21T21:23:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/41 "2016-09-23T02:34:10Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > How about her position on the Trans Pacific Partnership? She helped negotiate the deal, she heavily promoted, and because she ran against Bernie Sanders she changed her position to being against it. It seems pretty crazy to me to be against a proposal that you are one of the key individuals responsible for. It would be like Barney Frank coming out opposed to Dodd-Frank. Well, at the time she was negotiating and promoting the TPP, she was working for someone else, who is a big proponent of it. When you are Secretary of State and the President tells you to negotiate a treaty, that’s what you do. Maybe she loved it and only changed positions out of expediency, or maybe she was lukewarm, or even hated it. There is no way of knowing that based on her actions while she was SoS. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/42 "2016-09-23T13:02:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That, sounds more like the talking points of the polluters. > > [https://thinkprogress.org/trump-energy-speech-pennsylvania-4bdb2314965e#.9uqsn6gqp](https://thinkprogress.org/trump-energy-speech-pennsylvania-4bdb2314965e#.9uqsn6gqp) Honestly I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what I said. You think Trump has a bad energy policy. Great. I didn’t say he had a good one. I said Clinton supported an insane policy. It is absolutely crazy to think we could shut down fossil fuel production on federal lands. Do I think she really meant it. No, I think it was bullshit campaign stuff that she would obviously need to walk back. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/43 "2016-09-23T13:17:05Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Well, at the time she was negotiating and promoting the TPP, she was working for someone else, who is a big proponent of it. When you are Secretary of State and the President tells you to negotiate a treaty, that’s what you do. > > Maybe she loved it and only changed positions out of expediency, or maybe she was lukewarm, or even hated it. There is no way of knowing that based on her actions while she was SoS. So what’s your thought here, that we can’t judge her based on any of her actions or statements as Secretary of State since she might have secretly wanted to do something totally different? She isn’t even saying she made a mistake supporting it or saying she had to be a good soldier and support it. She’s making some crazy statement that after she left it completely changed and went from being the Gold Standard to completely unacceptable. It seems to me that she has a history of going back and forth on Free Trade. She supports it when it counts and decries it when trying to get votes. When it really gets down to it, Democrats in general have that history. Obama bashed NAFTA during the campaign only to now essentially support a bigger version of it. As a person in favor of Free Trade, I’m glad. I believe she will find a way to support it and save face by making some minor tweak. She’ll be a far better President in terms of Free Trade than Trump. She just needs to pretend now while running. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/44 "2016-09-23T13:24:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > This is a shift in position, make no mistake, but it’s a shift in position from one arguable position to another. Neither “I am against the TPP” nor “I am in favor of the TPP” is truly an insane, unreasonable position. Certainly the world economy does not hinge in the balance. Sure, I’m not saying either position is crazy, although I am personally strongly in favor of free trade. I’m saying the shift itself is crazy. She wasn’t some innocent bystander making an observation. She was one of the chief architects and head cheerleaders only to completely reverse course once the campaign started since her opponent was out-lefting her. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/45 "2016-09-23T13:27:38Z")
I don’t think it’s crazy _now_, because the market is not currently wanting for oil or gas. We can think of opening them up later when oil and gas are expensive. I don’t know enough about how much we currently rely on coal to know if the coal portion of the plan would be crazy. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/46 "2016-09-23T13:35:34Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes. > > Also, she has compared Vladamir Putin to Adolph Hitler. This may not be a policy proposal, but unless she believes we shouldn’t have went to war with Hitler, it carries certain implications. This coupled with her support of NATO expansionism is very dangerous. While I personally think that one is usually best off refraining from making Hitler comparisons, no that does not follow at all. Comparing (and contrasting) does not mean “is the exact same as.” And even when meant as such it can mean “exact same as” at a point other than when we went to war, and may point to a lesson to be learned from history. As far as Putin goes we have a fascist/totalitarian leader of a society in economic decline, who is promising to make Russia great again, who is investing in his country’s established military power even as its economy is in decline to fuel expansionist ambitions, and who is testing the use of that power in various expansionistic ways. It is very reasonable to look at what has worked, and not worked, historically when there have been other similar circumstances. What early actions other than what were done could have prevented bolder military expansionism in the case of other similar circumstances, such as the case of Hitler? This thread is probably not the best venue to have that discussion, but asking that question, recognizing that as a meaningful compare and contrast, trying to figure out what exactly we do learn from the past, is extremely valid. Ignoring history, being willfully ignorant of it, would be stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/47 "2016-09-23T13:43:23Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Should Nuland pull off another coup? > > Should NATO expand closer to Russia? There was no Nuland coup, yes NATO should expand, and Putin should stay out of US elections. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/48 "2016-09-23T13:43:44Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I don’t think it’s crazy _now_, because the market is not currently wanting for oil or gas. We can think of opening them up later when oil and gas are expensive. I don’t know enough about how much we currently rely on coal to know if the coal portion of the plan would be crazy. Uh, we get 1/3rd of our electricity from coal and this represents 40% of our coal production. We get 1/3rd of our electricity from natural gas and this represents 14% of our natural gas production. On the oil side, we produce a little more than 2 million barrels per day of oil from Federal Lands. That’s enough of a swing to go from a surplus globally to a deficit. As a commodity, it prices based on the marginal unit of production and prices would soar. You would also be talking about eliminating billions of annual revenue received in royalties and lease payments. Also, let’s not forget that companies have valid leases that they’ve paid a lot of money for. It’s an absolutely insane statement on par with some of Trump’s worst. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/49 "2016-09-23T14:39:41Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Honestly I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what I said. You think Trump has a bad energy policy. Great. I didn’t say he had a good one. I said Clinton supported an insane policy. It is absolutely crazy to think we could shut down fossil fuel production on federal lands. Do I think she really meant it. No, I think it was bullshit campaign stuff that she would obviously need to walk back. The evidence from the studies and what would it mean to allow that means that the real craziness is to continue. The reality is that a lot will continue to come form private lands but even that will have to be limited eventually. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/50 "2016-09-23T14:43:15Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Uh, we get 1/3rd of our electricity from coal and this represents 40% of our coal production. We get 1/3rd of our electricity from natural gas and this represents 14% of our natural gas production. On the oil side, we produce a little more than 2 million barrels per day of oil from Federal Lands. That’s enough of a swing to go from a surplus globally to a deficit. As a commodity, it prices based on the marginal unit of production and prices would soar. > > You would also be talking about eliminating billions of annual revenue received in royalties and lease payments. > > Also, let’s not forget that companies have valid leases that they’ve paid a lot of money for. > > It’s an absolutely insane statement on par with some of Trump’s worst. Again, this statement completely ignores that the economy will suffer even more if we continue to do the real crazy thing. > [@](#): > > Trump does not seem to understand that regulations he so deeply wants to cut are crucial to preserving clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans. > > A recent Harvard study found that the public health benefits of the Clean Power Plan are so robust that they outweigh the costs of the carbon standard in 13 out of 14 power sectors within five years of implementation. The same study estimated that the plan could save some 3,500 lives every year. Similarly, the Waters of the United States rule would protect the drinking water for a third of Americans that currently get their water from unprotected sources. [https://thinkprogress.org/harvard-study-finds-38-billion-economic-benefit-from-epas-carbon-rule-5448fc324979#.fdpyt2mn7](https://thinkprogress.org/harvard-study-finds-38-billion-economic-benefit-from-epas-carbon-rule-5448fc324979#.fdpyt2mn7) ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/51 "2016-09-23T15:53:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The evidence from the studies and what would it mean to allow that means that the real craziness is to continue. The reality is that a lot will continue to come form private lands but even that will have to be limited eventually. This isn’t the thread to discuss climate change, so I will leave out that discussion and stipulate for these purposes that she believes an immediate action like halting all fossil fuel production from federal lands is necessary. I assume at the very least you would agree that there would be some major economic and societal pain in the short term with such a proposal, right? You may believe that the short term pain is necessary in order to avoid or mitigate far more pain in the long term, but please tell me you at least would agree that we would be dealing with things like major power outages, rolling blackouts, and entering into a major depression. You would also have to agree that it would require at the very least buying out these leases for many billions of dollars. If you agree with that, then don’t you think she would need to massively re-frame her statement. Talking about doing something like this without describing the massive hardship we would face would seem to be incredibly irresponsible. In fact, she would have to transform her entire candidacy as that type of proposal would overwhelm every single other item she is proposing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/52 "2016-09-23T17:40:12Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > This isn’t the thread to discuss climate change, so I will leave out that discussion and stipulate for these purposes that she believes an immediate action like halting all fossil fuel production from federal lands is necessary. It is necessary to see who has indeed the craziest policy proposal. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > I assume at the very least you would agree that there would be some major economic and societal pain in the short term with such a proposal, right? Not overall, as the studies that were linked show. In specific areas it will, but that will depend on how stubborn the Republicans are about improving the safety nets that are needed to help the people that will be affected. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > You may believe that the short term pain is necessary in order to avoid or mitigate far more pain in the long term, but please tell me you at least would agree that we would be dealing with things like major power outages, rolling blackouts, and entering into a major depression. You would also have to agree that it would require at the very least buying out these leases for many billions of dollars. And here are the talking points of the polluters, really, look it up. That is not what the ones that propose the changes are going for. [http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/03/distributed-solar-helps-lower-peak-demand-electricity-prices/](http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/03/distributed-solar-helps-lower-peak-demand-electricity-prices/) > [@](#): > > Essentially, when home solar arrays are feeding their excess electricity into the utility grid, they are helping to lower the market prices for electricity by reducing the overall peak demand on the grid during those hours, as utilities don’t need to generate or purchase as much energy to cover peak energy hours. The report also found that rooftop solar, acting as a distributed energy system, could help prevent power outages and rolling blackouts in certain regions, and in effect, strengthen the grid. > > The results of the study, which looked at the value of distributed solar in areas with “modest” solar penetration (equal to about 15% of utility peak load) in the area, concluded that rooftop solar can deliver a range of benefits by offsetting some of the conventional power needs, including: > > [ul] > [li]Lowering conventional electricity market prices due to reduced peak demand[/li][li] Serving as a valuable price hedge by using a free, renewable fuel rather than variably-priced fossil fuels[/li][li] Avoiding costs of new transmission and distribution infrastructure to manage electricity delivery from centralized power plants[/li][li] Reducing the need to build, operate and maintain natural gas generating plants[/li][li] Reducing outages due to a more reliable, distributed electric power system[/li][li] Reducing future costs of mitigating the environmental impacts of coal, natural gas, nuclear, and other generation[/li][li] Enhancing tax revenues associated with local job creation, which is higher for solar than conventional power generation[/li][/ul] [http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article59845756.html](http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article59845756.html) > [@](#): > > The verdict on grid stability and jobs is clear. California has not had rolling blackouts caused by renewable energy and maintains a healthy surplus of reserves to meet peak electricity demand. As for the economy, since 2010, California’s unemployment rate has been cut in half while the amount of renewable energy produced has nearly doubled. More Californians now work in the renewable energy industry than at all 46 of the state’s public and private electric utilities combined. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > If you agree with that, then don’t you think she would need to massively re-frame her statement. Talking about doing something like this without describing the massive hardship we would face would seem to be incredibly irresponsible. In fact, she would have to transform her entire candidacy as that type of proposal would overwhelm every single other item she is proposing. And I don’t agree as the doomsday scenarios of the polluters are happening less when more independent power is available. (most recent news of blackouts in the west are due to a lack of independent sources of power that would had limited the possibility for the blackouts to take place) the most likely result of improving our electrical grid to let solar power and other alternatives (yes, even nuclear) to be present in larger numbers, leads to limit and to also prevent the more numerous rolling blackouts of the past. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/53 "2016-09-23T17:45:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Is is necessary to see who has indeed the craziest policy proposal. > Not overall, as the studies that were linked show. In specific areas it will, but that will depend on how stubborn the Republicans are about improving the safety nets that are needed to help the people that will be affected. > And here are the talking points of the polluters, really, look it up. That is not what the ones that propose the changes are going for. > > [http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/03/distributed-solar-helps-lower-peak-demand-electricity-prices/](http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/03/distributed-solar-helps-lower-peak-demand-electricity-prices/) > [http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article59845756.html](http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article59845756.html) > > And I don’t agree as the doomsday scenarios of the polluters are happening less when more independent power is available. (most recent news of blackouts in the west are due to a lack of independent sources of power that would had limited the possibility for the blackouts to take place) the most likely result of improving our electrical grid to let solar power and other alternatives (yes, even nuclear) to be present in larger numbers leads to limit and even to prevent the more numerous rolling blackouts of the past. If you can’t accept that shutting in 40% of coal production, 14% of gas production, and 18% of oil production would even have a short term negative impact then there is no point in discussing this. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/54 "2016-09-23T18:01:45Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > If you can’t accept that shutting in 40% of coal production, 14% of gas production, and 18% of oil production would even have a short term negative impact then there is no point in discussing this. If in 2008 Obama promised to cut overall coal production by 50%, would you say that was an insane policy position? Because coal production has in fact been reduced by 50% over the last eight years, and I’m not sure the apocalypse is upon us. [Link.](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26612) ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/55 "2016-09-23T18:32:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If in 2008 Obama promised to cut overall coal production by 50%, would you say that was an insane policy position? > > Because coal production has in fact been reduced by 50% over the last eight years, and I’m not sure the apocalypse is upon us. [Link.](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26612) 1. You are comparing off of a historically mild winter. 2) You are talking over an 8-year period. 3) This is occurring as a result of massive boom in natural gas production, which is up roughly 40% in that same time period. 4) You are talking about a market driven reduction as opposed to effectively invalidating leases. If Hillary Clinton says she has a goal of reducing coal production by something like 25% to 50% in the next 5 to 10 years, then I would not consider that completely crazy. Coal is going to keep declining. If she sets some aggressive CO2 emissions goal or fuel efficiency standard that must be met, that’s not crazy even if it is unrealistically aggressive. Calling the shutting in of all fossil fuel production on federal lands a done deal is absolutely ludicrous. Suspending new leases or setting new regulations is not. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/56 "2016-09-23T18:56:17Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Calling the shutting in of all fossil fuel production on federal lands a done deal is absolutely ludicrous. Suspending new leases or setting new regulations is not. I think you’re reading an awful lot into an off-the-cuff sentence from Clinton, a candidate known for having lots of white papers and whose energy policy clearly contemplates further fossil fuel extraction on public lands. I would read “moratorium on fossil fuel leases” as suspending new leases, not shutting down all current fossil fuel production–and even that she seems to have walked back (unfortunately). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/57 "2016-09-23T21:07:21Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > If you can’t accept that shutting in 40% of coal production, 14% of gas production, and 18% of oil production would even have a short term negative impact then there is no point in discussing this. Point of order, you were totally wrong about the blackouts, and so it was with a lot of what you were declaring. In the case of coal, a lot is going away with no new regulations up as per the last action of Scalia in the supreme court. You are the one acting as if the impacts that you are talking about were not replied already in the previous post. So, no, what Clinton said was not the craziest thing. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/58 "2016-09-25T04:03:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Point of order, you were totally wrong about the blackouts, and so it was with a lot of what you were declaring. In what way am I wrong? Take away 20% of our electricity production and we’re going to experience problems. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > In the case of coal, a lot is going away with no new regulations up as per the last action of Scalia in the supreme court. Well, you’re wrong on the no new regulation front. Coal is declining due to a combination of cheap, abundant natural gas and increased costs caused by new regulations. Not sure what your point is. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are the one acting as if the impacts that you are talking about were not replied already in the previous post. What? They weren’t. At all. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, no, what Clinton said was not the craziest thing. Nope, totally insane to the point that there was no way she was remotely serious. She’s pandering to idiots. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533/59 "2016-09-25T04:12:07Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > In what way am I wrong? Take away 20% of our electricity production and we’re going to experience problems. Not what was seen in California, and I cited that already. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Well, you’re wrong on the no new regulation front. Coal is declining due to a combination of cheap, abundant natural gas and increased costs caused by new regulations. Not sure what your point is. :rolleyes: That is what I was talking about, what I was referring to is how the one sin favor of the fossil fuel companies for get about that and just blame regulations. Regulations that once again are not here yet. And still the coal companies are going down. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > What? They weren’t. At all. Yes, again you were wrong about the rolling blackouts and cited also. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Nope, totally insane to the point that there was no way she was remotely serious. She’s pandering to idiots. As it is clear one of those “idiots” is me, you should take that back. And it is still not insane: > **[Paris Pact Could Benefit From Halt of Fossil Fuel Leases | Climate Central](https://www.climatecentral.org/news/paris-pact-benefit-halt-fossil-fuel-leases-20307)** > > Phasing out coal, oil and gas leasing could help the U.S. meet its Paris climate goals, a new study says. > [@](#): > > Fossil fuel leasing — the process that allows energy companies to drill and mine for oil, gas and coal on land and waters controlled by the federal government — has become a significant climate policy issue as scientists and activists urge the government to “keep it in the ground” to stop fossil fuel development from worsening climate change. > > The Obama administration has already halted coal leasing on federal lands — the source of about 40 percent of all U.S. coal — while it brings the federal coal program in line with government climate policy. Oil and gas leasing continues on federal land and waters, mainly in the Gulf of Mexico. > > Most fossil fuels development occurs on private land across the U.S. Federal leases are the source of about 21 percent of U.S. crude oil production and 11 percent of U.S. natural gas. U.S. fossil fuel production is expected to increase by 11 percent by 2040. > > “The Department of the Interior is committed to safely and responsibly managing the development of oil and gas on public lands in a way that continues to meet our nation’s energy needs while advancing renewable forms of energy,” Interior Dept. spokeswoman Amanda Degroff said Tuesday. > > The Obama administration’s vehicle efficiency standards aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 million metric tons annually, and methane regulations are expected to cut emissions by 13 million tons. By contrast, the Clean Power Plan, the administration’s strategy to slash emissions from coal-fired power plants, would cut annual carbon emissions by 730 million metric tons, the same as about 150 million cars. > > Lazarus said the most effective emissions reduction strategy will likely involve reductions in both fossil fuel supply and demand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-craziest-policy-proposal/766533.md?page=2)