\n<\/p>\n
Platform Holly, near Goleta, is one of just a handful of oil rigs off the California coast.<\/span>State Lands Commission\/AP<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This story was originally published by<\/em>\u00a0Inside Climate News<\/a>\u00a0and is reproduced here as part of the\u00a0<\/em>Climate Desk<\/a>\u00a0collaboration.<\/em><\/p>\n It\u2019s not often<\/span> that the governors of California and Florida are on the same page, but this week they\u2019re aligned in opposition to the White House\u2019s latest plan to expand offshore oil drilling near both their shores.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Trump administration\u2019s plans,\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0Thursday by the Department of the Interior, propose offering as many as 34 offshore drilling leases across nearly 1.3 billion acres off the coasts of Alaska, California and Florida. That would open up waters that haven\u2019t had new leases in decades\u2014or in some cases ever, environmental groups said\u2014and reverse previous policy by the Biden administration that aimed to slow down offshore oil development.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Biden administration slammed the brakes on offshore oil and gas leasing and crippled the long-term pipeline of America\u2019s offshore production,\u201d\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a statement with the plan\u2019s announcement. \u201cBy moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America\u2019s offshore industry stays strong.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy of Alaska\u00a0praised the move<\/a>. But California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, both quickly spoke up against it.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cDonald Trump\u2019s idiotic proposal to sell off California\u2019s coasts to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water,\u201d Newsom wrote Thursday on X, echoing his own\u00a0earlier words<\/a>. \u201cWe will not stand by as our coastal economy and communities are put in danger.\u201d<\/p>\n DeSantis reiterated his support for a 2020\u00a0memorandum<\/a>\u00a0preventing offshore oil and gas leasing in parts of the Gulf of Mexico\u2014including off Florida\u2019s coast\u2014through 2032.<\/p>\n \u201cPresident Trump\u2019s 2020 memorandum protecting Florida\u2019s eastern Gulf waters represents a thoughtful approach to the issue,\u201d he\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0on X. \u201cThe Interior Department should not depart from the 2020 policy.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile, at COP30 in Brazil, amid fire and\u00a0extreme heat<\/a>, dozens of world leaders have called for a swift phaseout of oil, gas and coal, as\u00a0global temperatures<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0emissions<\/a>\u00a0soar past the thresholds outlined in the Paris Agreement a decade ago. The federal government\u00a0is notably absent<\/a>, although the country\u2019s civil sector, oil and gas lobbyists and Newsom himself have made their presence known.\u00a0<\/p>\n Last month, more than 100 lawmakers signed a\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0to President Donald Trump and Burgum, strongly opposing any new offshore oil and gas leases off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the Arctic Ocean and in the Eastern Gulf.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a matter of national consequence for coastal communities across the country, regardless of political affiliation,\u201d the letter read.<\/p>\n Both California senators signed the letter, but neither senator from Florida or Alaska did.\u00a0<\/p>\n On Thursday after the announcement, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) posted on X that he fought for years to keep drilling off Florida\u2019s coasts and supported the 2020 memorandum.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI have been speaking to [Burgum] and made my expectations clear that this moratorium must remain in place, and that in any plan, Florida\u2019s coasts must remain off the table for oil drilling to protect Florida\u2019s tourism, environment, and military training opportunities,\u201d the\u00a0post<\/a>\u00a0read.<\/p>\n Asked for comment, the White House deferred to the Department of the Interior, which did not respond.<\/p>\n Although Trump\u2019s plans have prompted bipartisan condemnation\u2014and lawmakers are already\u00a0readying to fight the move<\/a>\u2014the announcement received a more positive reception from the oil industry.<\/p>\n Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas industry group, said in a\u00a0statement<\/a>\u00a0that the plan is a \u201chistoric step\u201d in developing the country\u2019s offshore oil resources. API has for decades lobbied to block climate action and support fossil fuel expansion.<\/p>\n \u201cWe applaud Secretary Burgum for laying the groundwork for a new and more expansive five-year program that unlocks opportunities for long-term investment offshore and supports energy affordability at a time of rising demand at home and abroad,\u201d Sommers said.<\/p>\n According to a New York Times\u00a0analysis<\/a>, the oil and gas industry contributed at least $75 million to Trump\u2019s 2024 election campaign, which doesn\u2019t account for \u201cdark money\u201d donations that can\u2019t be tracked. Trump has responded by slashing renewable energy initiatives and doubling down on fossil fuels. According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, industry executives are\u00a0already making millions<\/a>\u00a0of dollars off their investment.\u00a0<\/p>\n Still, the availability of leases doesn\u2019t guarantee that drilling will occur, said Frank Maisano, a senior principal at Bracewell LLP, a lobbying firm that represents clients across the energy sector, including oil and gas.<\/p>\n \u201cNobody knows what will happen,\u201d Maisano said, adding that it\u2019s possible companies may take on leases without drilling immediately.<\/p>\n Maisano said he felt positively about the White House plan because it creates clarity on where leases are available. He added that he believes activity off the Florida coast, which has infrastructure and clear drilling opportunities, is more likely than off California.\u00a0<\/p>\n Brian Prest, an economist and fellow at the energy and environment research nonprofit Resources for the Future, said in an email to Inside Climate News<\/em> that development of these leases could be fraught.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not clear to what degree there will be industry interest in these leases, but even if some lease sales do end up getting bought, I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if ten years from now there\u2019s no new development to show for it,\u201d Prest wrote. \u201cBut who knows!\u201d<\/p>\n California has led efforts to restrict offshore drilling since a devastating 1969 oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast. In Florida, concerns about tourism, recreation and coastal ecosystems\u2014as well as the disastrous 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf\u2014have prompted bipartisan support for moratoriums on offshore drilling.\u00a0<\/p>\n In Alaska, the announcement represents the latest of Trump\u2019s plans to expand fossil fuel development in the state. Among them are six oil lease sales in the Cook Inlet, a\u00a0crucial<\/a>\u00a0Beluga whale habitat. The Republican-controlled Congress, meanwhile, recently\u00a0overturned<\/a>\u00a0a measure that protected nearly half of Alaska\u2019s National Petroleum Reserve\u2014the largest block of public land in the country, which contains diverse wetland ecosystems and key habitats\u2014from oil drilling.\u00a0<\/p>\n Recently, ConocoPhillips\u00a0proposed exploratory drilling<\/a>\u00a0in the Arctic wilderness, threatening the migratory route of a caribou herd relied on by a local community for subsistence hunting.\u00a0<\/p>\n All three states are already seeing acute impacts of climate change, including sea level rise, precipitation changes, heat waves and coastal flooding and erosion.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Los Angeles wildfires at the start of the year killed an estimated 440 people and were\u00a0among<\/a>\u00a0the most costly domestic weather-related disasters on record. Climate change is driving increased wildfire risks across the state.<\/p>\n Florida faces retreating shores and increasingly intense storms, alongside an\u00a0ensuing home insurance crisis<\/a>. Last year, Hurricanes Helene and Milton hit the state hard, killing more than 70 people,\u00a0according<\/a>\u00a0to<\/a>\u00a0the National Hurricane Center.<\/p>\n Alaska\u2014parts of which are warming four times faster than the rest of the country\u2014is experiencing melting glaciers and\u00a0food insecurity<\/a>. Recently, entire villages were destroyed and more than 1,500 people were displaced by\u00a0Typhoon Halong<\/a>, supercharged by unusually warm waters.\u00a0<\/p>\n Environmental groups blasted the White House announcement. Irene Gutierrez, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the potential impact is significant.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a bad idea,\u201d she said. \u201cThis is looking towards the past rather than to the future, and this is really a time when we should be investing in renewable energy and affordable energy and not these sort of speculative oil developments off the coast.\u201d<\/p>\n Gutierrez added that drilling in Arctic waters off Alaska\u2019s shores is particularly risky given wind and icy conditions that would make it difficult to clean up oil spills, as well as local dependence on fish. She urged members of the public to weigh in on the administration\u2019s plan. The\u00a0public comment<\/a>\u00a0period will\u00a0begin on Nov. 24<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe are tracking next developments in the plan to see what happens and to see if the administration actually listens to what the public wants here, which is no dangerous oil developments off the coast,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n