Brasen posted...
https://www.energyindepth.org/why-bidens-oil-drilling-permits-surge-is-not-what-it-seems/
This one is more in-depth about how permits work. Again, just because the approval for the contracts/leases/etc happened doesn't mean that production/investments did. Biden's admin in the first two years was at the lowest point in our lifetimes.
I also looked at that one. That's looking at new land leases, and it clearly explains that the reduction on that front won't yield effects on actual production for several years. The drilling that was approved in Biden's first two years was primarily on land leased by Trump's administration, effectively meaning that for those first two years, no real changes were made to production (at least, not at the level of federal administration, since day-to-day fluctuations are always happening).
Basically:
New drilling permits=production soon
New land leases=production in a few years
Biden approved more drilling permits in his first two years than Trump did. That means Biden's policies produced more oil in those first two years than in Trump's first two years. What Biden's policies have/will reduce is long-term production (or rather, reduce growth in production, since it doesn't stop existing operations), not production in the first two years of his administration. This means they had little to no effect on the global spike in gas prices in early 2022 (which, once again, were not tied to an increase in oil prices that might reflect production issues).
Biden is not the reason gas prices spiked. Period.
Brasen posted...
Anyone that wants to lower their carbon footprint can do so on a personal level.
A personal level doesn't amount to much of anything. These are changes that need to happen at a federal policy level in most countries to make any meaningful difference.
Brasen posted...
That whole "solve the problem" only works in a vacuum. No, the US isn't going to mandate a disadvantage to its adversaries of dropping oil overnight due to climate change projections when countries like India, China, Brazil would never mandate the same. Be more feasible if we were invested in an alternative that could meet demand (nuclear being the only one with our current technology). But we don't have that infrastructure in place nor even the notions of doing so. That was the whole point of the argument.
Nobody's suggesting dropping oil overnight. What Biden's administration did was commit to not expanding production any further while working toward developing alternatives to offset that lack of future growth. That those efforts to develop alternatives have been stonewalled by the GOP and anti-environmentalist state governments because their raison d'etre is to prevent the Democrats from accomplishing anything is not something you can blame on Biden.