Resources for the Future Inc.

09/03/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 09/03/2024 14:12

How Would More Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Increase Global Emissions

How Would More Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Increase Global Emissions?

Date

Sept. 3, 2024

News Type

Press Release

What's the story?

Federal lands leased by the US government to private companies produced more than 10 percent of the nation's oil and gas in 2023. As US elections loom and policymakers contemplate the United States' energy future, a new issue brief explores what a federal oil and gas leasing boom, carried out under existing federal law, could mean for global emissions.

Resources for the Future (RFF) scholar Brian C. Prest found that a major long-term expansion of oil and gas leasing on federal lands would increase cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions by 1.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO₂e) through 2050. This is the equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of over 285 million cars.

Because a significant amount of US oil and gas is exported, most of these emissions impacts would be felt elsewhere: emissions in the United States would only increase by approximately 0.2 gigatons of CO₂e.

️ What are the details?

The analysis builds on historical trends observed over the past two decades and Prest's previous work on the impacts of federal leasing decisions on fuel price, emissions, and other factors. With this knowledge, he envisioned two pathways that reflect potential leasing futures.

  • A "high leasing scenario" in which the number of federal leases rapidly increases through 2028 to match the 2019 Trump-era peak of 2.2 million acres of leases sold, which then continues through 2050.
  • A "business-as-usual scenario" which envisions lease sales at half the level of the high leasing scenario. This baseline is similar to the average number of new annual leases across the Trump and Biden administrations and is representative of a future in which administrations oscillate between phases of high and low-to-no leasing.

Acres Leased and Wells Drilled

The number of new wells drilled decreases under both scenarios. This is not due to lower fuel prices or less demand for oil and gas, but rather because each well is expected to produce more. This trend is consistent with technological advances seen over the past two decades.

Prest also tested alternatives to some of the modeling to see how factors like price point and growth rate for US oil and gas production may affect the results. These tests show that it is highly unlikely a leasing boom would increase emissions outside of 0.6-2.1 gigatons of CO₂e.1.2 gigatons is the central estimate.

Notably, Prest's modeled scenarios provide general estimates of emissions effects that do not correspond precisely to any specific proposed legislation, including the onshore oil and gas provisions in the recently introduced Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA). As discussed in the brief, the onshore oil and gas provisions in EPRA are likely to have a more modest effect on emissions than the high leasing scenario analyzed here.

Author Perspective

"Decisions made today will affect future emissions. Even if oil and gas produced on federal lands only makes up a small percentage of annual emissions, US actions have global consequences. Every little bit of emissions reductions counts, especially given that American choices will have implications for global markets."

-Brian C. Prest, RFF Fellow

Where can I learn more?

For more information, read the issue brief "How Much Would Expanding Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Increase Global Carbon Emissions?" by RFF Fellow Brian C. Prest.

Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.

Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.

For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.

Related Content