From THE DAILY CALLER

Mariane Angela
News Reporter

A federal judge temporarily halted the enforcement of a Biden-Harris administration rule in five states on Thursday designed to reduce methane emissions and minimize natural gas waste on federal lands.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from enforcing a new rule that was implemented in April in North Dakota, Montana, Texas, Wyoming and Utah, according to The Hill. These states argued that the federal rule, which mandates oil and gas companies to implement waste reduction plans and leak detection programs on public lands, constitutes an overreach of federal authority, infringing upon state rights.

The contested rule requires operators to curtail the venting, flaring and leaking of natural gas during oil extraction processes, the outlet reported. The Biden-Harris administration has made it part of its climate agenda to reduce certain emissions, like methane, the primary component of natural gas.

Traynor stated in his decision that the states are likely to prevail because “on the merits of their claim, the 2024 Rule is arbitrary and capricious” and pointed out that various aspects of the rule are “inadequately explained” and “contradictory,” the North Dakota Monitor reported. This regulation impacts federal and tribal territories, and the Fort Berthold Reservation hosts the majority of oil and gas extraction on tribal lands in North Dakota.

BLM, under the Department of the Interior, argued that venting and flaring natural gas squanders public and Native American resources, cutting significant royalty revenues for taxpayers, tribes, and states, while exacerbating climate change, the North Dakota Monitor stated. However, Judge Traynor contends that the BLM lacks the authority for air quality control, a power reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency and the states by the Clean Air Act.

North Dakota challenged the rule, claiming it infringed on state sovereignty and would diminish state revenue from oil and gas production, while the BLM estimated the rule could generate over $50 million in tax revenue, the North Dakota Monitor reported. Traynor further questioned the economic benefit of the rule and said that it “offers no rationale why flaring is more economically productive than venting.” (RELATED: Biden Admin Moves To Ban New Oil Leases On 1.6 Million Acres Of Land)

The North Dakota Petroleum Council celebrated the decision as a victory for the oil industry, citing that the rule would have imposed stringent flaring limits and costly compliance requirements, particularly burdening smaller operators, the North Dakota Monitor stated. In response, Republican North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum lauded the court’s temporary injunction, accusing the Biden administration of overreaching on federal land oil and gas production regulations.

The White House, Burgum and the North Dakota Petroleum Council did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

From CLIMATE DEPOT

By Marc Morano

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-09-11/climate-anxiety-and-the-kid-question

By Jade S. Sasser

Excerpt: Jade S. Sasser is an associate professor in the Department of Gender & Sexuality Studies at UC Riverside. Her research explores the relationships between reproductive justice, women’s health and climate change, and she’s the host of the podcast “Climate Anxiety and the Kid Question.” The following excerpt is from her newest book, “Climate Anxiety and the Kid Question: Deciding Whether to Have Children in an Uncertain Future,” which was published earlier this year.

These interviewees have more climate change knowledge than most people do. All of them are college-educated; most of them either grew up or have lived for some time in Southern California; and most have taken environmental studies classes, either as undergrads or in graduate school.

Their experiences as members of marginalized groups have shaped their experiences with climate emotions like anxiety, fear, and trauma — as well as hope and optimism. Paying closer attention to those emotions and mental health in communities of color, including how they shape reproductive plans, will become an increasingly important component of climate justice in the United States.

…

Melanie, a 26-year-old Native American woman, was raised on the Navajo reservation and in Southern California. She idealizes having a big, happy family, but there are aspects of the world that give her pause, so she struggles with whether it’s morally OK to have children.

“ I think I may not have children although I do want them,” she notes. “Just because, with all of the things we see going on in the world, it seems unfair to bring someone into all of this against their will.”

Melanie’s feelings about climate change include a general sense of powerlessness and lack of control over other people’s actions, which directly translates into her fears about parenthood: “With climate change, we’re the driving force of things breaking down, but then also, the planet’s going to do what the planet’s going to do. … So … it almost feels, like, kind of shameful to want to have children.”