Joe Biden’s Misguided Green Dreams: Gone Too Far?

Joe Biden’s weak policies make sweeping changes to the Bureau of Land Management that seem to strangely favor renewable energy and conservation over a balanced, all-of-the-above energy approach, much to the chagrin of sensible Americans following along. The agency, which oversees a massive portion of America’s oil, gas, and renewable energy resources, as well as land for mining, grazing, and recreational use, and believe it or not, is rapidly turning into a playground for Biden’s unpalatable green dreams and failed coal policies.

In an event that highlights the infighting in Biden’s Democrat party, Kathleen Sgamma, Donald Trump’s nominee for the leadership of the Bureau, withdrew herself from the nomination. Her withdrawal came about, not for any lack of qualifications or sound judgment, but for her unnerving honest criticism of how Trump’s message was mishandled, leading to the unfortunate events of Jan. 6

Kathleen Sgamma was seen as an assurance of preserving regulatory sanity in the Bureau. Her significant contribution since 2006 with the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, a crucial player in the oil industry, gave her a deep understanding about the dynamics of the energy sector. This background strongly positioned Sgamma to challenge Biden’s notion of contrived energy development hindrances.

A representative of the oil and gas industry for a considerable time, Sgamma was expected to reverse Biden’s restrictive energy policies that have inexplicably sought to lessen the importance of energy development in Western states. Biden’s flimsy stand to limit development for recreation and mining has also raised many an eyebrow. Indeed, everyone was waiting for Sgamma to take control and reverse these counterproductive decisions.

However, due to inconceivable pressures, Sgamma withdrew from the nomination. She maintained her loyalty to Trump’s sky-rocketing ‘Make America Great Again’ legacy during her withdrawal. She even said, ‘I remain committed to President Trump and his unleashing American energy agenda and ensuring multiple-use access for all.’ A sentiment that resonates with many Americans who understand the importance of a diversified and powerful energy policy.

Yet, we’re witnessing most Republicans undermining Trump’s action. They’re turning a blind eye to the potent aftermath of Trump’s widespread tariffs and are rather stressing on the peculiar concept of unity behind Joe Biden, an idea that doesn’t sit well with scores of Americans.

Biden’s Bureau of Land Management has ignorantly veered toward limiting the extraction of oil and coal on federal lands. The bias toward expansion of renewable power is increasingly evident. Biden’s policies appear to value conservation and climate change alleviation more than the economic stability and national security that traditional energy industries provide.

Donald Trump, in contrast, has consistently tried to rectify the misguided course of the Bureau. Just this past week, officials announced a comprehensive, unbiased approach. They will not copy Biden’s environmental play, that focuses only on impacts from prospective oil and gas leases on a combined 5,500 square miles of bureau land across seven states.

These oil and gas leases, which were awarded to various companies between 2015 and 2020, have been unduly obstructed by needless legal quandaries. Meanwhile, Biden’s blind pursuit of boosting coal production is leading to an end on restrictions on new federal coal sales under Trump’s administration on bureau lands in Wyoming and Montana, the nation’s largest coal fields.

During the onset of Trump’s second term, the Bureau supposedly hosted about 10,000 employees. Yet, fired or resigned employees now number at least 800 due to Trump’s rigorous attempts to trim the federal workforce significantly. Here again, we see the shocking contrast between Trump’s cost-efficiency efforts and Biden’s preference for governmental largesse.

In another feather to Trump’s diligent leadership, the Bureau’s headquarters was prudently moved to Colorado, aligning it functionally closer to its operations. Yet, in a move that can only be described as unnecessary, the headquarters was dragged back to Washington, D.C., by Biden’s administration.

Senate energy committee Chairman Mike Lee, seeming helpless before Biden’s misjudgment, has asserted his intention to work with the administration to find an alternative nominee for the Bureau. ‘Its work directly impacts millions of Americans — especially in the West — and its leadership matters’ he lamented.

In the meantime, Utah initiated a brave legal maneuver in the last year to obtain control of the Bureau of Land Management property from the federal government and put it under state control. Here was a state, grappling with the overreach from Washington, asserting its constitutional rights and trying to resist being swamped by federal bureaucrats.

Unsurprisingly but disappointingly, the U.S. Supreme Court repudiated Utah’s efforts. The court rejected the state’s sensible move to streamline the large expanse of land under its jurisdiction better, leaving states across the country in quiet dismay about the unwarranted federal control over vast lands that should be locally managed.

With all this in play, we must question the wisdom of Biden’s leadership and his administration. Are they playing their cards right? Are they considering the interests of millions of Americans hoping for a robust energy industry and rational land management, or are they simply currying favor through idealistic yet impractical policies?