Thursday, January 28, 2021

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally.

 

Recent scene in Laramie Wyoming during the Mullen Fire.

For some time we've thought that our Casualties of the Covid Recession didn't make too much sense in a way, as it tracked two different economic situations, one being the Covid Recession itself, and the other being a local situation caused by troubled energy sector prices.  These admittedly did occur concurrently, but that thread grew to big to be handy, so we're starting a new one now, or rather two new ones.  This one deals only with economic and economic related events in Wyoming's economy.

This won't be the only thread on Wyoming's economy, as we've always dealt with that through independant threads. Rather, only the periodic ones we would have put in that other thread, and were putting in it, will go here.

October 29, 2020

The University of Wyoming announced two days ago that its cutting 70 positions and several degree programs.

Federal District of Columbia District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled yesterday that a collection of oil and gas leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management were improperly issued as the agency failed to take into account climate change in its environmental assessment.  The leases were accordingly remanded to the Bureau of Land Management.

The affected leases are located throughout the west and were issued from 2016 through early 2019.

November 6, 2020

The state rejected a wind farm in Albany County out of concerns over what the installation, which would partially have been on state land, would do to the view at the location.

November 12, 2020

The Governor's office made the following release:

Governor Launches Energy Rebound Program to Put Hundreds of Oil and Gas Workers Back to Work in Wyoming

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon will use CARES Act funding to assist Wyoming’s economic recovery and boost employment in the oil and gas industry.

The Energy Rebound Program will utilize up to $15 million in CARES Act funding to provide business relief targeted towards drilled, but uncompleted oil and gas wells (DUCs), wells that were unable to be re-completed, and plugging and abandonment projects which could not be finished due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“These funds will have a direct impact on Wyoming’s employment rate and put people back to work in our oil and gas sector which was impacted by COVID-19. It will provide opportunities for employees who lost jobs when drilling ceased,” Governor Mark Gordon said. “The oil and gas industry is a huge contributor to Wyoming revenues, employment, and its overall economy. These dollars will assist in our state’s economic rebound.”

Wyoming is the 8th largest oil and gas producing state in the country and the economic impact of the pandemic on the industry was sudden and widespread. When global demand for oil plummeted due to COVID, work stopped almost immediately, with oil and gas companies conducting a few activities to safely stop ongoing drilling and reclamation activities. This left many projects in limbo, awaiting capital to continue. 

The use of the funds will provide a stimulus to the economic recovery. Funds would be used to commence operations that would include the hiring of crews, many of whom would stay at hotels near the project, water acquisition, ordering of supplies and equipment for drilling and re-completions, and plugging and abandonment activities. 

“The Energy Rebound Program is an excellent use of the CARES Act funding,” House Speaker Steve Harshman said. “CARES funding was designed to address many of the disastrous economic effects stemming from the COVID and the collapse of much of Wyoming's economy. The program will provide immediate jobs and long-term revenue for Wyoming.  Thank you to the Governor, his staff and industry leaders for their work on this initiative. Working together we can make Wyoming’s future bright.”

The Wyoming Business Council will announce additional details of the program in the coming days.

--END--

December 1, 2020

Wyoming's unemployment rate fell to 5.5% for October.  In October 2019 it was at 3.7%, but 5.5% is still a very good rate overall. The difference in the rates is explained by the continued recession in the oil and gas industry.

Natrona County has the highest unemployment rate in the state, at 7.8%.

A company analyzing WTDOT budget shortfalls estimates it may be short $350,000,000.

December 2, 2020

Governor Gordon indicated that the state will be complete with its findings soon to authorize the drilling of 5,000 oil and gas wells in Converse County, and it is anticipated that the BLM shall authorize the same by the end of the year.

Of course, this brings in an economic and a political issue. The economic one is that right now the prices in the petroleum industry are operating against drilling actually taking place, and simply authorizing leases doesn't mean so much that they'll be drilled right away, as that leases will be taken out in anticipation of increased prices and then perhaps drilled if and when the prices climb.  Secondly, nobody is presently sure how the incoming Biden Administration will approach oil and gas drilling on Federal land, although presumably where leases have been taken out there will be no effort to retract them, and indeed that would be an unconstitutional taking.  Part of the current effort, therefore, is likely to try to get this massive project, which has been anticipated for several years, leased out prior to the new administration taking office out of fear that leases may be suspended.

Among the budget cuts being proposed at the University of Wyoming is elimination of the Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing, a well respected program.

December 4, 2020

The owners of the Decker coal mine declared bankruptcy leading to the layoff of 75 employees.

Much of Wyoming has been declared to be in a drought, with some if it in an extreme drought.

December 22, 2020

The Tribune reports that school enrollment fell this year by 1,900 students.

December 31, 2020

Congress funded the amount of $75,000,000 to start a Stretegic Uranium Reserve. The same bill limits importation of uranium from Russia, which accounts for about 13% of the uranium imported by the US.

The US has lots of uranium, but imports 90% of that used for its nuclear power generators due to the post Cold War collapse in prices.  If the US seriously determines to move away from fossil fuel generation of electricity, nuclear reactors will be an absolute necessity.

January 6, 2021

The price of oil climbed to an eleven year high following a Saudi Arabian announcement that they had agreed to cut their production.

Several Native American Tribes objected to the massive late term oil leasing announced by the Federal Government in Converse County, Wyoming.  The objection was based on retained treaty rights in the region and influenced by it, indicating that an ultimate court battle over the leasing is probable.  This was an unforeseen development.

Wyoming State Park fee receipts have climbed during the pandemic.

January 8, 2021

The Wyoming Cowboy Challenge Academy, a sort of boot camp for juvenile offenders, has been proposed for closing by the Governor.  A closure would result in the loss of 41 jobs in Guernsey, which is already suffering due to a recent Burlington Northern machine shop closure.

I've frankly long been a skeptic of the "boot camp" approach to criminal correction, fwiw.  Basic training does instill discipline, but the concept that offenders lack discipline is questionable to me.  Having said that, it would provide focus, which of course, is something that military service is noted to do itself.

January 10, 2021

Grand Teton National Park has gone to on line book for camping spots.

The Hayden Generating Plant, a coal fired power plant, is going to be closed in 2028, eight years earlier than previously planned.  The plant is just south of the Wyoming border in Utah.

January 12, 2021

The Denver Post reports that Denver's housing market is collapsing.

January 15, 2021

The state lost 14,000 jobs last  year, 6,000 of them in mining.

January 16, 2021

The eating of the seed corn continues as UW contemplates another $20,000,000 in cuts to be made by July.

January 17, 2021

Flights from the Natrona County International Airport are down 50% compared to a year ago.

January 21, 2021

The Biden Administration has issued a 60 day moratorium on new oil and gas leases or permits on Federal lands.  The order states:



The move met with immediate disapproval from Wyoming's elected officials, who noted it would harm the state's petroleum industry.

The order is in effect for 60 days, but it's widely suspected that it's the opener to much more restrictive provisions regarding oil and gas exploration on Federal lands, including the possibility of a complete withdrawal of Federal lands from oil and gas exploration.

January 23, 2021

President Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke yesterday.  According to Canadian sources post conversation, Trudeau urged Biden to resume the XL Pipeline while also congratulating him on rejoining the Paris Climate Accord.

While not getting into this issues with specificity, there's something oddly amusing concerning it.  Starting at some point in the 1960s Canada, which was an extremely conservative nation before that point, veered towards increasing liberalism, although it still retains conservatives.  Politically, the left wing of Canadian politicos tend to be in power more often than the right wing. The right wing tends to admire the US and praise it, while the left wing tends to diss it, except when it comes down to money, in which case Canadians tend to follow their pocket book politically.

Of course, Canada has its own internal politics, divided between the east and the west, just like the US. All of that is showing forth here where Canada is praising the US for a turn towards environmentalism, while also asking it to keep going with a controversial pipeline project that serves Canadian oil (while potentially hurting U.S. oil), while internally the eastern provinces are blaming Alberta for all of this.

Of course all of this is in the background of an animated debate in Wyoming, where conservatives are outraged while others (fewer in number) are saying "I told you so" in regard to the perennial failure to diversify the economy.  Added to that, conservatives have angst, now, over angering Canada, where as before they criticized the country constantly.

January 28, 2021

Well, here we go.  We anticipated this order just yesterday here:

Before the Oil. And after it? The economies of Wyoming and Alaska.

And here it is:

Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

JANUARY 27, 2021  PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

The United States and the world face a profound climate crisis.  We have a narrow moment to pursue action at home and abroad in order to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of that crisis and to seize the opportunity that tackling climate change presents.  Domestic action must go hand in hand with United States international leadership, aimed at significantly enhancing global action.  Together, we must listen to science and meet the moment.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART I — PUTTING THE CLIMATE CRISIS AT THE CENTER OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Section 101.  Policy.  United States international engagement to address climate change — which has become a climate crisis — is more necessary and urgent than ever.  The scientific community has made clear that the scale and speed of necessary action is greater than previously believed.  There is little time left to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.  Responding to the climate crisis will require both significant short-term global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and net-zero global emissions by mid-century or before.

It is the policy of my Administration that climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security.  The United States will work with other countries and partners, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to put the world on a sustainable climate pathway.  The United States will also move quickly to build resilience, both at home and abroad, against the impacts of climate change that are already manifest and will continue to intensify according to current trajectories.

Sec. 102.  Purpose.  This order builds on and reaffirms actions my Administration has already taken to place the climate crisis at the forefront of this Nation’s foreign policy and national security planning, including submitting the United States instrument of acceptance to rejoin the Paris Agreement.  In implementing — and building upon — the Paris Agreement’s three overarching objectives (a safe global temperature, increased climate resilience, and financial flows aligned with a pathway toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate‑resilient development), the United States will exercise its leadership to promote a significant increase in global climate ambition to meet the climate challenge.  In this regard:

(a)  I will host an early Leaders’ Climate Summit aimed at raising climate ambition and making a positive contribution to the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) and beyond. 

(b)  The United States will reconvene the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, beginning with the Leaders’ Climate Summit.  In cooperation with the members of that Forum, as well as with other partners as appropriate, the United States will pursue green recovery efforts, initiatives to advance the clean energy transition, sectoral decarbonization, and alignment of financial flows with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, including with respect to coal financing, nature-based solutions, and solutions to other climate-related challenges.

(c)  I have created a new Presidentially appointed position, the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, to elevate the issue of climate change and underscore the commitment my Administration will make toward addressing it.  

(d)  Recognizing that climate change affects a wide range of subjects, it will be a United States priority to press for enhanced climate ambition and integration of climate considerations across a wide range of international fora, including the Group of Seven (G7), the Group of Twenty (G20), and fora that address clean energy, aviation, shipping, the Arctic, the ocean, sustainable development, migration, and other relevant topics.  The Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and others, as appropriate, are encouraged to promote innovative approaches, including international multi-stakeholder initiatives.  In addition, my Administration will work in partnership with States, localities, Tribes, territories, and other United States stakeholders to advance United States climate diplomacy.

(e)  The United States will immediately begin the process of developing its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement.  The process will include analysis and input from relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies), as well as appropriate outreach to domestic stakeholders.  The United States will aim to submit its nationally determined contribution in advance of the Leaders’ Climate Summit.

(f)  The United States will also immediately begin to develop a climate finance plan, making strategic use of multilateral and bilateral channels and institutions, to assist developing countries in implementing ambitious emissions reduction measures, protecting critical ecosystems, building resilience against the impacts of climate change, and promoting the flow of capital toward climate-aligned investments and away from high-carbon investments.  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, shall lead a process to develop this plan, with the participation of the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Chief Executive Officer of the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Director of the United States Trade and Development Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the head of any other agency providing foreign assistance and development financing, as appropriate.  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the plan to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, within 90 days of the date of this order.

(g)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall:

(i)    ensure that the United States is present and engaged in relevant international fora and institutions that are working on the management of climate-related financial risks;

(ii)   develop a strategy for how the voice and vote of the United States can be used in international financial institutions, including the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, to promote financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and debt relief initiatives that are aligned with and support the goals of the Paris Agreement; and

(iii)  develop, in collaboration with the Secretary of State, the Administrator of USAID, and the Chief Executive Officer of the DFC, a plan for promoting the protection of the Amazon rainforest and other critical ecosystems that serve as global carbon sinks, including through market-based mechanisms.

(h)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Energy shall work together and with the Export–Import Bank of the United States, the Chief Executive Officer of the DFC, and the heads of other agencies and partners, as appropriate, to identify steps through which the United States can promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy while simultaneously advancing sustainable development and a green recovery, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

(i)  The Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall identify steps through which the United States can intensify international collaborations to drive innovation and deployment of clean energy technologies, which are critical for climate protection.

(j)  The Secretary of State shall prepare, within 60 days of the date of this order, a transmittal package seeking the Senate’s advice and consent to ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, regarding the phasedown of the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons.

Sec. 103.  Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security.  To ensure that climate change considerations are central to United States foreign policy and national security:

(a)  Agencies that engage in extensive international work shall develop, in coordination with the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, within 90 days of the date of this order, strategies and implementation plans for integrating climate considerations into their international work, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.  These strategies and plans should include an assessment of:

(i)    climate impacts relevant to broad agency strategies in particular countries or regions;

(ii)   climate impacts on their agency-managed infrastructure abroad (e.g., embassies, military installations), without prejudice to existing requirements regarding assessment of such infrastructure;

(iii)  how the agency intends to manage such impacts or incorporate risk mitigation into its installation master plans; and

(iv)   how the agency’s international work, including partner engagement, can contribute to addressing the climate crisis.

(b)  The Director of National Intelligence shall prepare, within 120 days of the date of this order, a National Intelligence Estimate on the national and economic security impacts of climate change.

(c)  The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the  Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate, shall develop and submit to the President, within 120 days of the date of this order, an analysis of the security implications of climate change (Climate Risk Analysis) that can be incorporated into modeling, simulation, war-gaming, and other analyses.

(d)  The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall consider the security implications of climate change, including any relevant information from the Climate Risk Analysis described in subsection (c) of this section, in developing the National Defense Strategy, Defense Planning Guidance, Chairman’s Risk Assessment, and other relevant strategy, planning, and programming documents and processes.  Starting in January 2022, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall provide an annual update, through the National Security Council, on the progress made in incorporating the security implications of climate change into these documents and processes.

(e)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider the implications of climate change in the Arctic, along our Nation’s borders, and to National Critical Functions, including any relevant information from the Climate Risk Analysis described in subsection (c) of this section, in developing relevant strategy, planning, and programming documents and processes.  Starting in January 2022, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide an annual update, through the National Security Council, on the progress made in incorporating the homeland security implications of climate change into these documents and processes.

Sec. 104.  Reinstatement.  The Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016 (Climate Change and National Security), is hereby reinstated. 

PART II — TAKING A GOVERNMENT-WIDE APPROACH TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS

Sec. 201.  Policy.  Even as our Nation emerges from profound public health and economic crises borne of a pandemic, we face a climate crisis that threatens our people and communities, public health and economy, and, starkly, our ability to live on planet Earth.  Despite the peril that is already evident, there is promise in the solutions — opportunities to create well-paying union jobs to build a modern and sustainable infrastructure, deliver an equitable, clean energy future, and put the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050.

We must listen to science — and act.  We must strengthen our clean air and water protections.  We must hold polluters accountable for their actions.  We must deliver environmental justice in communities all across America.  The Federal Government must drive assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of climate pollution and climate-related risks in every sector of our economy, marshaling the creativity, courage, and capital necessary to make our Nation resilient in the face of this threat.  Together, we must combat the climate crisis with bold, progressive action that combines the full capacity of the Federal Government with efforts from every corner of our Nation, every level of government, and every sector of our economy. 

It is the policy of my Administration to organize and deploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector of the economy; increases resilience to the impacts of climate change; protects public health; conserves our lands, waters, and biodiversity; delivers environmental justice; and spurs well-paying union jobs and economic growth, especially through innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure.  Successfully meeting these challenges will require the Federal Government to pursue such a coordinated approach from planning to implementation, coupled with substantive engagement by stakeholders, including State, local, and Tribal governments.

Sec. 202.  White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy.  There is hereby established the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy (Climate Policy Office) within the Executive Office of the President, which shall coordinate the policy-making process with respect to domestic climate-policy issues; coordinate domestic climate-policy advice to the President; ensure that domestic climate-policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President’s stated goals and that those goals are being effectively pursued; and monitor implementation of the President’s domestic climate-policy agenda.  The Climate Policy Office shall have a staff headed by the Assistant to the President and National Climate Advisor (National Climate Advisor) and shall include the Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Climate Advisor.  The Climate Policy Office shall have such staff and other assistance as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this order, subject to the availability of appropriations, and may work with established or ad hoc committees or interagency groups.  All agencies shall cooperate with the Climate Policy Office and provide such information, support, and assistance to the Climate Policy Office as it may request, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

Sec.203.  National Climate Task Force.  There is hereby established a National Climate Task Force (Task Force).  The Task Force shall be chaired by the National Climate Advisor.

(a)  Membership.  The Task Force shall consist of the following additional members:

(i)      the Secretary of the Treasury;

(ii)     the Secretary of Defense;

(iii)    the Attorney General;

(iv)     the Secretary of the Interior;

(v)      the Secretary of Agriculture;

(vi)     the Secretary of Commerce;

(vii)    the Secretary of Labor;

(viii)   the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(ix)     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(x)      the Secretary of Transportation;

(xi)     the Secretary of Energy;

(xii)    the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(xiii)   the Administrator of General Services;

(xiv)    the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality;

(xv)     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(xvi)    the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xvii)   the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xviii)  the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy;

(xix)    the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

(xx)     the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and

(xxi)    the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.

(b)  Mission and Work.  The Task Force shall facilitate the organization and deployment of a Government-wide approach to combat the climate crisis.  This Task Force shall facilitate planning and implementation of key Federal actions to reduce climate pollution; increase resilience to the impacts of climate change; protect public health; conserve our lands, waters, oceans, and biodiversity; deliver environmental justice; and spur well-paying union jobs and economic growth.  As necessary and appropriate, members of the Task Force will engage on these matters with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments; workers and communities; and leaders across the various sectors of our economy. 

(c)  Prioritizing Actions.  To the extent permitted by law, Task Force members shall prioritize action on climate change in their policy-making and budget processes, in their contracting and procurement, and in their engagement with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments; workers and communities; and leaders across all the sectors of our economy.

USE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUYING POWER AND REAL PROPERTY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT

Sec. 204.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration to lead the Nation’s effort to combat the climate crisis by example — specifically, by aligning the management of Federal procurement and real property, public lands and waters, and financial programs to support robust climate action.  By providing an immediate, clear, and stable source of product demand, increased transparency and data, and robust standards for the market, my Administration will help to catalyze private sector investment into, and accelerate the advancement of America’s industrial capacity to supply, domestic clean energy, buildings, vehicles, and other necessary products and materials.

Sec. 205.  Federal Clean Electricity and Vehicle Procurement Strategy.  (a)  The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office and Management and Budget, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall assist the National Climate Advisor, through the Task Force established in section 203 of this order, in developing a comprehensive plan to create good jobs and stimulate clean energy industries by revitalizing the Federal Government’s sustainability efforts.

(b)  The plan shall aim to use, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, all available procurement authorities to achieve or facilitate:

(i)   a carbon pollution-free electricity sector no later than 2035; and

(ii)  clean and zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Tribal government fleets, including vehicles of the United States Postal Service.

(c)  If necessary, the plan shall recommend any additional legislation needed to accomplish these objectives.

(d)  The plan shall also aim to ensure that the United States retains the union jobs integral to and involved in running and maintaining clean and zero-emission fleets, while spurring the creation of union jobs in the manufacture of those new vehicles.  The plan shall be submitted to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 206.  Procurement Standards.  Consistent with the Executive Order of January 25, 2021, entitled, “Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers,” agencies shall adhere to the requirements of the Made in America Laws in making clean energy, energy efficiency, and clean energy procurement decisions.  Agencies shall, consistent with applicable law, apply and enforce the Davis-Bacon Act and prevailing wage and benefit requirements.  The Secretary of Labor shall take steps to update prevailing wage requirements.  The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall consider additional administrative steps and guidance to assist the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council in developing regulatory amendments to promote increased contractor attention on reduced carbon emission and Federal sustainability.  

Sec. 207.  Renewable Energy on Public Lands and in Offshore Waters.  The Secretary of the Interior shall review siting and permitting processes on public lands and in offshore waters to identify to the Task Force steps that can be taken, consistent with applicable law, to increase renewable energy production on those lands and in those waters, with the goal of doubling offshore wind by 2030 while ensuring robust protection for our lands, waters, and biodiversity and creating good jobs.  In conducting this review, the Secretary of the Interior shall consult, as appropriate, with the heads of relevant agencies, including the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary of Energy, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, State and Tribal authorities, project developers, and other interested parties.  The Secretary of the Interior shall engage with Tribal authorities regarding the development and management of renewable and conventional energy resources on Tribal lands.

Sec. 208.  Oil and Natural Gas Development on Public Lands and in Offshore Waters.  To the extent consistent with applicable law,the Secretary of the Interior shall pause new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters pending completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices in light of the Secretary of the Interior’s broad stewardship responsibilities over the public lands and in offshore waters, including potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands or in offshore waters.  The Secretary of the Interior shall complete that review in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Energy.  In conducting this analysis, and to the extent consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of the Interior shall consider whether to adjust royalties associated with coal, oil, and gas resources extracted from public lands and offshore waters, or take other appropriate action, to account for corresponding climate costs.

Sec. 209.  Fossil Fuel Subsidies.  The heads of agencies shall identify for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the National Climate Advisor any fossil fuel subsidies provided by their respective agencies, and then take steps to ensure that, to the extent consistent with applicable law, Federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels.  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall seek, in coordination with the heads of agencies and the National Climate Advisor, to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies from the budget request for Fiscal Year 2022 and thereafter.

Sec. 210.  Clean Energy in Financial Management.  The heads of agencies shall identify opportunities for Federal funding to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the National Climate Advisor, and then take steps to ensure that, to the extent consistent with applicable law, Federal funding is used to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure.  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with agency heads and the National Climate Advisor, shall seek to prioritize such investments in the President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2022 and thereafter.

     Sec. 211.  Climate Action Plans and Data and Information Products to Improve Adaptation and Increase Resilience.  (a)  The head of each agency shall submit a draft action plan to the Task Force and the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer within 120 days of the date of this order that describes steps the agency can take with regard to its facilities and operations to bolster adaptation and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.  Action plans should, among other things, describe the agency’s climate vulnerabilities and describe the agency’s plan to use the power of procurement to increase the energy and water efficiency of United States Government installations, buildings, and facilities and ensure they are climate-ready.  Agencies shall consider the feasibility of using the purchasing power of the Federal Government to drive innovation, and shall seek to increase the Federal Government’s resilience against supply chain disruptions.  Such disruptions put the Nation’s manufacturing sector at risk, as well as consumer access to critical goods and services.  Agencies shall make their action plans public, and post them on the agency website, to the extent consistent with applicable law.

(b)  Within 30 days of an agency’s submission of an action plan, the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall review the plan to assess its consistency with the policy set forth in section 204 of this order and the priorities issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  After submitting an initial action plan, the head of each agency shall submit to the Task Force and Federal Chief Sustainability Officer progress reports annually on the status of implementation efforts.  Agencies shall make progress reports public and post them on the agency website, to the extent consistent with applicable law.  The heads of agencies shall assign their respective agency Chief Sustainability Officer the authority to perform duties relating to implementation of this order within the agency, to the extent consistent with applicable law.

(d)  To assist agencies and State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, communities, and businesses in preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in coordination with the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall provide to the Task Force a report on ways to expand and improve climate forecast capabilities and information products for the public.  In addition, the Secretary of the Interior and the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, in their capacities as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Federal Geographic Data Committee, shall assess and provide to the Task Force a report on the potential development of a consolidated Federal geographic mapping service that can facilitate public access to climate-related information that will assist Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments in climate planning and resilience activities.

EMPOWERING WORKERS THROUGH REBUILDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

     Sec. 212.  Policy.  This Nation needs millions of construction, manufacturing, engineering, and skilled-trades workers to build a new American infrastructure and clean energy economy.  These jobs will create opportunities for young people and for older workers shifting to new professions, and for people from all backgrounds and communities.  Such jobs will bring opportunity to communities too often left behind — places that have suffered as a result of economic shifts and places that have suffered the most from persistent pollution, including low-income rural and urban communities, communities of color, and Native communities. 

     Sec. 213.  Sustainable Infrastructure.  (a)  The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take steps, consistent with applicable law, to ensure that Federal infrastructure investment reduces climate pollution, and to require that Federal permitting decisions consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.  In addition, they shall review, and report to the National Climate Advisor on, siting and permitting processes, including those in progress under the auspices of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, and identify steps that can be taken, consistent with applicable law, to accelerate the deployment of clean energy and transmission projects in an environmentally stable manner.

     (b)  Agency heads conducting infrastructure reviews shall, as appropriate, consult from an early stage with State, local, and Tribal officials involved in permitting or authorizing proposed infrastructure projects to develop efficient timelines for decision-making that are appropriate given the complexities of proposed projects.

EMPOWERING WORKERS BY ADVANCING CONSERVATION, AGRICULTURE, AND REFORESTATION

     Sec. 214.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration to put a new generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters.  The Federal Government must protect America’s natural treasures, increase reforestation, improve access to recreation, and increase resilience to wildfires and storms, while creating well-paying union jobs for more Americans, including more opportunities for women and people of color in occupations where they are underrepresented.  America’s farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have an important role to play in combating the climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by sequestering carbon in soils, grasses, trees, and other vegetation and sourcing sustainable bioproducts and fuels.  Coastal communities have an essential role to play in mitigating climate change and strengthening resilience by protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems, such as wetlands, seagrasses, coral and oyster reefs, and mangrove and kelp forests, to protect vulnerable coastlines, sequester carbon, and support biodiversity and fisheries.

     Sec. 215.  Civilian Climate Corps.  In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 214 of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall submit a strategy to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order for creating a Civilian Climate Corps Initiative, within existing appropriations, to mobilize the next generation of conservation and resilience workers and maximize the creation of accessible training opportunities and good jobs.  The initiative shall aim to conserve and restore public lands and waters, bolster community resilience, increase reforestation, increase carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, protect biodiversity, improve access to recreation, and address the changing climate.

     Sec. 216.  Conserving Our Nation’s Lands and Waters.  (a)  The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall submit a report to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order recommending steps that the United States should take, working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders, to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.

(i)   The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall, as appropriate, solicit input from State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders in identifying strategies that will encourage broad participation in the goal of conserving 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.

(ii)  The report shall propose guidelines for determining whether lands and waters qualify for conservation, and it also shall establish mechanisms to measure progress toward the 30-percent goal.  The Secretary of the Interior shall subsequently submit annual reports to the Task Force to monitor progress.

(b)  The Secretary of Agriculture shall:

(i)   initiate efforts in the first 60 days from the date of this order to collect input from Tribes, farmers, ranchers, forest owners, conservation groups, firefighters, and other stakeholders on how to best use Department of Agriculture programs, funding and financing capacities, and other authorities, and how to encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices that decrease wildfire risk fueled by climate change and result in additional, measurable, and verifiable carbon reductions and sequestration and that source sustainable bioproducts and fuels; and

(ii)  submit to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order a report making recommendations for an agricultural and forestry climate strategy.

     (c)  The Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall initiate efforts in the first 60 days from the date of this order to collect input from fishermen, regional ocean councils, fishery management councils, scientists, and other stakeholders on how to make fisheries and protected resources more resilient to climate change, including changes in management and conservation measures, and improvements in science, monitoring, and cooperative research.

EMPOWERING WORKERS THROUGH REVITALIZING ENERGY COMMUNITIES

     Sec. 217.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration to improve air and water quality and to create well-paying union jobs and more opportunities for women and people of color in hard-hit communities, including rural communities, while reducing methane emissions, oil and brine leaks, and other environmental harms from tens of thousands of former mining and well sites.  Mining and power plant workers drove the industrial revolution and the economic growth that followed, and have been essential to the growth of the United States.  As the Nation shifts to a clean energy economy, Federal leadership is essential to foster economic revitalization of and investment in these communities, ensure the creation of good jobs that provide a choice to join a union, and secure the benefits that have been earned by workers.

     Such work should include projects that reduce emissions of toxic substances and greenhouse gases from existing and abandoned infrastructure and that prevent environmental damage that harms communities and poses a risk to public health and safety.  Plugging leaks in oil and gas wells and reclaiming abandoned mine land can create well-paying union jobs in coal, oil, and gas communities while restoring natural assets, revitalizing recreation economies, and curbing methane emissions.  In addition, such work should include efforts to turn properties idled in these communities, such as brownfields, into new hubs for the growth of our economy.  Federal agencies should therefore coordinate investments and other efforts to assist coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities, and achieve substantial reductions of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector as quickly as possible.

     Sec. 218.  Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization.  There is hereby established an Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization (Interagency Working Group).  The National Climate Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Interagency Working Group.

(a)   Membership.  The Interagency Working Group shall consist of the following additional members:

(i)     the Secretary of the Treasury;

(ii)    the Secretary of the Interior;

(iii)   the Secretary of Agriculture;

(iv)    the Secretary of Commerce;

(v)     the Secretary of Labor;

(vi)    the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(vii)   the Secretary of Transportation;

(viii)  the Secretary of Energy;

(ix)    the Secretary of Education;

(x)     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(xi)    the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xii)   the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of the Domestic Policy Council; and

(xiii)  the Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

(b)  Mission and Work. 

(i)   The Interagency Working Group shall coordinate the identification and delivery of Federal resources to revitalize the economies of coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities; develop strategies to implement the policy set forth in section 217 of this order and for economic and social recovery; assess opportunities to ensure benefits and protections for coal and power plant workers; and submit reports to the National Climate Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on a regular basis on the progress of the revitalization effort.

(ii)  As part of this effort, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Interagency Working Group shall submit a report to the President describing all mechanisms, consistent with applicable law, to prioritize grantmaking, Federal loan programs, technical assistance, financing, procurement, or other existing programs to support and revitalize the economies of coal and power plant communities, and providing recommendations for action consistent with the goals of the Interagency Working Group.

(c)  Consultation.  Consistent with the objectives set out in this order and in accordance with applicable law, the Interagency Working Group shall seek the views of State, local, and Tribal officials; unions; environmental justice organizations; community groups; and other persons it identifies who may have perspectives on the mission of the Interagency Working Group.

(d)  Administration.  The Interagency Working Group shall be housed within the Department of Energy.  The Chairs shall convene regular meetings of the Interagency Working Group, determine its agenda, and direct its work.  The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Chairs, shall designate an Executive Director of the Interagency Working Group, who shall coordinate the work of the Interagency Working Group and head any staff assigned to the Interagency Working Group.

(e)  Officers.  To facilitate the work of the Interagency Working Group, the head of each agency listed in subsection (a) of this section shall assign a designated official within the agency the authority to represent the agency on the Interagency Working Group and perform such other duties relating to the implementation of this order within the agency as the head of the agency deems appropriate.

SECURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SPURRING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

     Sec. 219.  Policy.  To secure an equitable economic future, the United States must ensure that environmental and economic justice are key considerations in how we govern.  That means investing and building a clean energy economy that creates well‑paying union jobs, turning disadvantaged communities — historically marginalized and overburdened — into healthy, thriving communities, and undertaking robust actions to mitigate climate change while preparing for the impacts of climate change across rural, urban, and Tribal areas.  Agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts.  It is therefore the policy of my Administration to secure environmental justice and spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and health care. 

     Sec. 220.  White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council.  (a)  Section 1-102 of Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), is hereby amended to read as follows:

“(a)  There is hereby created within the Executive Office of the President a White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council (Interagency Council).  The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall serve as Chair of the Interagency Council.

“(b)  Membership.  The Interagency Council shall consist of the following additional members:

(i)      the Secretary of Defense;

(ii)     the Attorney General;

(iii)    the Secretary of the Interior;

(iv)     the Secretary of Agriculture;

(v)      the Secretary of Commerce;

(vi)     the Secretary of Labor;

(vii)    the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(viii)   the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(ix)     the Secretary of Transportation;

(x)      the Secretary of Energy;

(xi)     the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;

(xii)    the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(xiii)   the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xiv)    the Executive Director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council;

(xv)     the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xvi)    the National Climate Advisor;

(xvii)   the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; and

(xviii)  the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.

“(c)  At the direction of the Chair, the Interagency Council may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Interagency Council members or their designees under this section, as appropriate.

“(d)  Mission and Work.  The Interagency Council shall develop a strategy to address current and historic environmental injustice by consulting with the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council and with local environmental justice leaders.  The Interagency Council shall also develop clear performance metrics to ensure accountability, and publish an annual public performance scorecard on its implementation.

“(e)  Administration.  The Office of Administration within the Executive Office of the President shall provide funding and administrative support for the Interagency Council, to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.  To the extent permitted by law, including the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency shall provide administrative support as necessary.

“(f)  Meetings and Staff.  The Chair shall convene regular meetings of the Council, determine its agenda, and direct its work.  The Chair shall designate an Executive Director of the Council, who shall coordinate the work of the Interagency Council and head any staff assigned to the Council.

“(g)  Officers.  To facilitate the work of the Interagency Council, the head of each agency listed in subsection (b) shall assign a designated official within the agency to be an Environmental Justice Officer, with the authority to represent the agency on the Interagency Council and perform such other duties relating to the implementation of this order within the agency as the head of the agency deems appropriate.”

(b)  The Interagency Council shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, submit to the President, through the National Climate Advisor, a set of recommendations for further updating Executive Order 12898.

     Sec. 221.  White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.  There is hereby established, within the Environmental Protection Agency, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (Advisory Council), which shall advise the Interagency Council and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

     (a)  Membership.  Members shall be appointed by the President, shall be drawn from across the political spectrum, and may include those with knowledge about or experience in environmental justice, climate change, disaster preparedness, racial inequity, or any other area determined by the President to be of value to the Advisory Council.

     (b)  Mission and Work.  The Advisory Council shall be solely advisory.  It shall provide recommendations to the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council established in section 220 of this order on how to increase the Federal Government’s efforts to address current and historic environmental injustice, including recommendations for updating Executive Order 12898.

     (c)  Administration.  The Environmental Protection Agency shall provide funding and administrative support for the Advisory Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.  Members of the Advisory Council shall serve without either compensation or reimbursement of expenses.

     (d)  Federal Advisory Committee Act.  Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), may apply to the Advisory Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services.

     Sec. 222.  Agency Responsibilities.  In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 219:

     (a)  The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall, within 6 months of the date of this order, create a geospatial Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and shall annually publish interactive maps highlighting disadvantaged communities.

     (b)  The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, within existing appropriations and consistent with applicable law:

(i)   strengthen enforcement of environmental violations with disproportionate impact on underserved communities through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; and

(ii)  create a community notification program to monitor and provide real-time data to the public on current environmental pollution, including emissions, criteria pollutants, and toxins, in frontline and fenceline communities — places with the most significant exposure to such pollution.

     (c)  The Attorney General shall, within existing appropriations and consistent with applicable law:

(i)    consider renaming the Environment and Natural Resources Division the Environmental Justice and Natural Resources Division;

(ii)   direct that division to coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, as well as with other client agencies as appropriate, to develop a comprehensive environmental justice enforcement strategy, which shall seek to provide timely remedies for systemic environmental violations and contaminations, and injury to natural resources; and

(iii)  ensure comprehensive attention to environmental justice throughout the Department of Justice, including by considering creating an Office of Environmental Justice within the Department to coordinate environmental justice activities among Department of Justice components and United States Attorneys’ Offices nationwide.

(d)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, consistent with applicable law and within existing appropriations: 

(i)   establish an Office of Climate Change and Health Equity to address the impact of climate change on the health of the American people; and

(ii)  establish an Interagency Working Group to Decrease Risk of Climate Change to Children, the Elderly, People with Disabilities, and the Vulnerable as well as a biennial Health Care System Readiness Advisory Council, both of which shall report their progress and findings regularly to the Task Force.

(e)  The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall, in consultation with the National Climate Advisor, within existing appropriations, and within 100 days of the date of this order, publish a report identifying the climate strategies and technologies that will result in the most air and water quality improvements, which shall be made public to the maximum extent possible and published on the Office’s website.

     Sec. 223.  Justice40 Initiative.  (a)  Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Climate Advisor, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall jointly publish recommendations on how certain Federal investments might be made toward a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits flow to disadvantaged communities.  The recommendations shall focus on investments in the areas of clean energy and energy efficiency; clean transit; affordable and sustainable housing; training and workforce development; the remediation and reduction of legacy pollution; and the development of critical clean water infrastructure.  The recommendations shall reflect existing authorities the agencies may possess for achieving the 40-percent goal as well as recommendations on any legislation needed to achieve the 40‑percent goal. 

     (b)  In developing the recommendations, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Climate Advisor shall consult with affected disadvantaged communities.

     (c)  Within 60 days of the recommendations described in subsection (a) of this section, agency heads shall identify applicable program investment funds based on the recommendations and consider interim investment guidance to relevant program staff, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

     (d)  By February 2022, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Administrator of the United States Digital Service, and other relevant agency heads, shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, publish on a public website an annual Environmental Justice Scorecard detailing agency environmental justice performance measures.

PART III — GENERAL PROVISIONS

     Sec. 301.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

So, what does this mean for us?

Well, in the short term, maybe not that much.  Here's an item noting something that is already evident, but seemingly forgotten in this discussion:

An analysis by The Associated Press found that oil companies stockpiled leases and pushed through drilling permit applications on public lands in the waning months of the Trump administration, giving the industry a large inventory to work with.

This is predictably already headed for court, although my prediction that this withdrawal will be reversed by a court would be that it pretty clearly will not be.  Withdrawals have a long history of bein regarded as legal.  Again, NPR:

The oil and gas industry, hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic, is expected to challenge the move, as are fossil-fuel rich Western states whose economies are closely linked to extractive industry on public lands.

Anticipating the move, Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas companies in many Western states, said: "We'll be in court shortly thereafter."

In another predictable, if completely pointless, gesture was freshman Senator Cynthia Lummis, fresh off the controversy of voting to challenge Pennsylvania's electoral votes on a basis which, if applied to Wyoming, would have wiped out Wyoming's electoral votes as well, introducing a bill to prohibit this withdrawal..  This has less than 0 percent chance of being a success as the Democrats control the House and the Senate and even if Congress passed such a bill, which it will not, the President would veto it and its absurd to suppose that there's be enough votes to override it.

So, we're off into new country for sure.

This obviously has to conclude this edition of Subsidiarity Economics.  The next issue will be a volume II.  None the less, it's probably time to read this once again.

Before the Oil. And after it? The economies of Wyoming and Alaska.

Like it or not, the new age has arrived.

And something else related worth reading, before chapter 1 is closed:

Leman: Subsidiarity and the common good

Prior Thread:

Casualties of the COVID Recession

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Before the Oil. And after it? The economies of Wyoming and Alaska.

This is a thread that I captioned, in a somewhat different form ("Before the Oil") and then failed to add any text to, after I'd come back from the last vacation I went on, which was to Alaska.  

Fish hook statue, Homer Alaska.

That was several years ago, 2015, which I guess says something about me, and it isn't good.

Anyhow, what I had intended to write on, and still will, was Alaska before aggressive oil exploration in the 1970s.  I never got around to it, but unlike some undeveloped posts here, and indeed unlike some developed ones, I didn't trash the draft as I still intended to come back to it, which I'm not doing. 

But now, I'm going to add in Wyoming as well.

Indeed, even since I started what was sort of a pioneering thread, at the time I resumed it several days ago, this story has continued to develop and now I can't really claim the "you heard it here first" tag that it would have deserved.  An article very similar to this one, in some ways, has already appeared in the Tribune, for instance.  And indeed, not one articles, but now two.

Wyoming stands in a completely unique position in comparison to Alaska in that oil has been a feature of our economy going all the way back to the 1880s.  This isn't the case for Alaska, although oil was discovered in Alaska as early as 1902,but because of the state's high transient population, chances are good that there are plenty of Alaskans at this point who have no memory of a pre oil economy.  Both Wyoming and Alaska can be pretty chauvinistic about out states, but truth be known the transient population is so high that there are more imports than imports in the state at any one time.*

Real commercial exploration of oil started in Alaska in 1957, not earlier, in spite of a least one paper on Alaska's oil trying to track the history of oil exploration back that far.  I reality, prior to 57, oil wasn't much of a thing in Alaska and there are Alaskans just a little older than I am that might have a memory of the pre oil days. No living Wyomingite remembers a Wyoming before oil.

We may be about to find out what that is like.


Indeed, on the day I'm finally putting this up, it's believed that President Biden will enter a second, more permanent, order.

It's a fact of human memory that its largely inaccurate on certain things, while blisteringly accurate on others.  It's odd, but true.  And as part of that, it's almost impossible for people who have become acclimated to one economy to accept its change, let alone its disappearance. There are still people sitting around in Detroit who had worked in the automobile industry in the 1970s who are waiting for it to come back irrespective of the fact that automobile manufacturing went global in general, and went south, in the United States, in particular.  I don't know why Ford, Chrysler and General Motors centered their activities in that far northern state, but they did. They're never going to do that again.

Wyoming and Colorado were the homes, in the late 19th Century and early 20th, of a collection of famous saddle makers.  You could not only order one of their fine saddles in their shops, but also by mail.  There are still saddle makers in Wyoming, and in Colorado, and some very fine ones at that, but not that do the largescale sort of business that the saddle makers of that period did.  At least one of them located in Colorado warned his fellows to get out of the business in the early 20th Century before taking his own life.  He saw the automobile induced change coming, but he couldn't adapt to it himself.

At least Wyoming has been sort of like that.  We've experienced booms and busts repeatedly. Every time we busted, we vowed to broaden our economy, but we've never done it.  In our heart of hearts, we really don't think the oil economy will ever go away.


On this blog there's a very long thread on the history of coal.  I'm not going to repeat what was written out there, as its written out there. But what you'll find is that if you really look into it, coal began to decline as "King Coal" prior to World War One.  That wasn't obvious to common people however.  Indeed, it certainly wouldn't have been obvious to Wyomingites as coal came on strong here in the 1970s, well into the decline, paradoxically making coal's golden age something that's really a feature of my adult life.

Not so much that I obtained employment in the local coal industry, however.  Coal is cyclical like other energy sources and when oil slumped in the 1980s coal followed along, but more slowly. Again the history of my personal connection with it can be read in the other thread.

Petroleum oil and natural gas, which of course are not the same thing, have a more complicated history in regard to the state and the nation.  The US is a massive petroleum producer and always has been.  There's never been a point at which, after petroleum was first produced, that the US hasn't produced a lot of it.  And not just in the West, like we sometimes like to think, but also in regions of the East, Pacific Coast, and the South.  

The perception of an oil shortage, which came on strong in the US following the 1973 Oil Embargo, wasn't due to a lack of supply, but a gigantic demand.  After World War Two, and up until then, the US was the dominant economy of the world in an unprecedented way.  The Second World War left Europe and Asia's economies completely wrecked and they really didn't recover for a couple of decades thereafter.  It wasn't until the 1960s that European economies began to resemble what they had been, and it wasn't until the 1970s that Asian economies really entered the scene.

In that gap, the US economy went wild with expansion. At the same time, we became the free world's guardian or the world's policeman, depending upon your view.  At any rate, we kept producing a lot of oil but we also were consuming huge amounts at the same time.  We crept into being an oil importer without really realizing it and without doing anything to attempt to address it.  Cars that got 12 mpg were no big deal to us as the price of gasoline were pretty consistently low.

The 73 Oil Embargo changed all of that. There was a dual front effort to address the situation.  One was to expand our production of petroleum, and another was to reduce our consumption.

In expansion, if you lived in Wyoming in the 1970s, you knew that was going on. Drilling was going on like crazy.  And that's when the  concept of a Trans Alaska Pipeline came on.

That petroleum existed under Alaska's North Slope had been proven, but there was no way to get it to market. The pipeline was pushed as a way to address that.  It was controversial even at the time, as the Environmental movement already existed, but backed by a nation suffering from high petroleum prices and rampaging inflation, and Alaska's politicians boosting it as a way to open coffers of money to the state, it was amazingly rapidly built.  Even while the controversy went on, it was heralded as a technological achievement of historical proportions. As a kid in grade school at the time I recall it being compared to the Transcontinental Railroad as an achievement.

The expectation that the pipeline would transform Alaska was completely correct.  Oil booms, like booms of any kind, transform a region wherever they occur.  For Alaska, the impact was profound.

Prudhoe Bay, 1971.

Alaska became a petroleum producing state prior to the pipeline.  The first oil discovery was in 1902, so in some ways it's economy mirrors Wyoming's in this respect, but only slightly.  There was a 55 year gap in oil discoveries in Alaska after that, and the industry really took off in 1957.  That's long ago enough, however, and prior to statehood, such that one study notes that employment in Alaska's "traditional" economy, which includes fishing and logging, as well as petroleum extraction, hasn't changed since its 1959 statehood.  

Be that as it may, Alaska's oil fields presented all sorts of challenges that Wyoming's, Colorado's, California's, North Dakota's, Texas', etc., do not, and transportation was one of them.  Oil was produced in Alaska's large North Slope fields prior to the mid 1970s, but it had to be shipped out literally by ship, with that really being a seasonal endeavor. The pipeline changed all that.

This left Wyoming and Alaska in similar positions in the 1970s.  A massive oil boom in states with vast distances (with Alaska's obviously being much more vast) and economies that were in need of cash.  Wyoming had been relying on petroleum production for a large part of its economy going back to at least the 1910s, and World War One greatly expanded that.  Alaska hadn't really relied upon it until the 1960s, but it rapidly acclimated to it.  By the late 1970s both states had economies that depended enormously on petroleum production.  Wyoming had augmented its original prime industry, agriculture, with petroleum, and then coal, up to the point where they largely supplanted agriculture as economic drivers.  Alaska had started off with fishing and logging, which remain, like Wyoming's agriculture, but with petroleum being the main economic driver.

So where are we now?

Now we can hardly imagine a world that works differently.  Do we have to start to?

That's difficult to tell, in terms of the complete story, but at least Wyoming's example would suggest the answer is yes.  Wyoming, unlike Alaska, never relied completely on petroleum, although it relied heavily on it.  It had coal too.  Now that's rapidly passing away and the state is in deep economic trouble.  New petroleum booms have come on since 1990, fueled in part by massive technological advances in petroleum extraction, but they've tended to be natural gas centered, something that has oddly not been noticed outside of the industry. This is actually a good thing for the industry in Wyoming, however, as gas seems to be an up and coming fuel.  It's a bad thing in that the price has been pretty depressed recently, but that may be a temporary thing.

Which leads us to where are now.

That probably should start with the state of the industry.

Which is actually pretty hard to flesh out.

At the time of my writing this, there are four oil rigs that are working in Wyoming.  There are five working in Alaska, half as many as were working last year.  In August 2019  the rig count in Wyoming was 37.  So things are not going great.

There's a lot that went into causing that situation to occur.  One of them was geopolitical.  Saudi Arabia and Russia got into a price war and the prices went down and down. During that time, there was speculation that the Saudis were intentionally depressing the price in order to attack the American industry, which had been hugely successful in the prior decade but which also now relies enormously on horizontal drilling and fracing.  This means U.S. drilling is comparatively expensive.  Saudi production is cheap, but they depressed their prices so low that they weren't making money on it, leading to legitimate questioning about how wise their engaging in a game of oil chicken was.  Whatever their logic, the price of oil has never returned to a break even place for them.  Indeed, all the benchmarks remain below $60.00 bbl today.

Recently there's been some real efforts on the part of the Saudis to get their act together, raise prices, and return to some sort of normalcy in the market.  That briefly boosted prices, although it didn't stick. The resolve is there, however.  If they stick to it, they can manage to dry up the current petroleum surplus and slowly rise out of the current situation. The problem is that they really need to, as prices have fallen so low that petrostates are now no longer able to balance their budgets. That oddly doesn't seem to be a problem with wester nations that never do, but with nothing to fall back on, it is a problem.

Indeed, it's a problem for Wyoming and Alaska, for the same exact reason, except we didn't bring this on ourselves through starting a price war.

That's part of the reason that the price of oil is low, but another has to do with a transition that's occurring away from petroleum.  It was subtle at first, but now electric cars are coming on strong.  And added to that, quite a few younger people are simply eschewing driving.  It's somehow lost its allure.

That means that demand is actually fallen.  And as it fell, technology entered the picture and is increasingly changing the market.

Environmental concerns have been impacting automobile manufacturing since the 1970s, but within the last 20 years it was clear that electric cars would be on the scene in the near future.  In Wyoming, and I'd guess Alaska, there are still a fair number of people who are steadfastly obstinate in their rejection of the concept of electric cars, but the fact of the matter is that the pace of electric car technology is accelerating dramatically.  "They'll never make a pickup that can take you into the sticks" is still heard here, but it isn't true. They will, and soon.  Ford  and General Motors are introducing full sized standard electric 1/2 ton pickups  Chrysler hasn't, but it's holding back to see where things are going.  It will very soon.  Harley Davidson has an electric motorcycle. Chrysler's subsidiary has an electric Jeep.  

Within a decade, just on the current trend line, it's safe to assume that more electric automobiles will be sold than petroleum fueled ones.  With the accelerating pace of technology in the industry, that's all the more certain.  While people will deny it even now, we're in the end stage of the gasoline engine automobile.

And now new technologies are being explored for aircraft as well.  Boeing is going to be introducing aircraft that fly on biofuel.  Airbus is going to be introducing hydrogen fueled aircraft which would be even "greener" than that.  We're not only in the end of the era of fossil fuel ground automobiles, but in the end stage of fossil fueled aircraft as well, although that will take longer.

The only thing left, after that, are railroads, currently the most efficient, and greenest, means of transportation that there is.  The technological evolution there is obvious and has been for decades. The longest railway in the world, the Trans Siberian Railway, is electric.  American railways could be as well, but for the fact that fossil fuels have been so cheap.  

All of this leads, we'd note, to the topic of "green" electricity generation. And its been a big topic.  Ironically, its been something that's boosted the petroleum industry in the past couple of decades as coal has faded.  Environmental concerns on the part of consumers, and the inefficiency of coal in comparison to natural gas, has lead to a shift over to gas, which is cleaner.  It's not as clean, however, as wind and solar, which have really come on in the past couple of decades.

What would really put the bullet in all things fossil fuel would be nuclear power.  Bizarrely, and stupidly, the western world public just can't get around to grasping t hat.  It actually is the energy solution.  Having used nuclear energy first for a field deployed weapon has arguably put us decades behind deploying it for power.

The point of all of this is that Wyoming, and Alaska, the two states most heavily dependent on petroleum production, are frankly facing a pretty uncertain future in regard to them.  Pretty soon, electric cars will be the norm everywhere.  Pretty soon, aircraft will be using alternative fuels.  Pretty soon, maybe. . . . railroads will be electric, again maybe.

It's not that this would mean there's be no need for oil. There still would. Petrochemicals are a really big deal.  But the need would be dramatically reduced.  Where would we then be?

That's pretty hard to tell, actually.

It's hard in part because humans are notoriously inaccurate in predicting the future, and tend to block out things they don't like about what they can in fact predict.

Having said that, one thing that is clear is that "alternative energy" is going to be a big thing.  It already is.  But the number of people it employs is another thing.  One of the ironies about wind and solar is that not only are they greener in power generation, they're low overhead in terms of employees. The real work associated with them is in turnarounds, when infrastructure is replaced. But like turnarounds at refineries, that's not work that goes to locals.  Indeed, in a further irony, it tends, just like petroleum facility turnarounds to go to companies located in Texas and Oklahoma.  Those companies travel all over, and their employees are based somewhere else.

That leaves us with what we can see, which isn't necessarily what will be.  And that is those portions of the economy, or as I'm dealing with two, the economies, that predated the oil in the form it became.  And those were land based industries.  Agriculture, silviculture, and in Alaska's case, commercial fishing.  Those industries have been there the whole time.

But can you build a modern economy, if that's what we currently have, on those?

The evidence would be yes, but it'll require some thinking outside of the box.

We've dealt with this before, but the thing that Wyoming has been poor at it.  We'll pick that back up where we left off with it last time.

 Agriculture


 Oats

Agriculture is the great ignored industry in Wyoming.

This will being the hackles up on some, because agriculture in Wyoming is generally conceived of as ranching, and ranching has some real opponents in the modern U.S., even though in the West, contrary to the anti's views, its darned near environmentally neutral.  In fact, truth be known, it's environmentally positive if objectively views. That's right, that's what I'm saying as that's the truth. An environmentalist, if they're realistic, ought to thank a rancher every time he sees one (and ought to be for nuclear power also, but that's another topic).

 
Laramie Range hayfield.

Agriculture is an economic constant in Wyoming. While there was some economic activity, even national economic activity, if we consider that courier du bois  and trappers were in fact part of an international industry, it's agriculture that really created the state and made it what it was, and is.

Agriculture made its appearance in a recognizable form in Wyoming as early as the 1840s when New Mexican laborers brought up to work on Adobe buildings at Ft. Laramie stayed on and started small vegetable farms on the "Mexican Hills" near there.  This gave them in an income in that the produce was available to sell both to soldiers at Ft. Laramie as well as to travelers on the Oregon Trail, who by that time no doubt were pretty darned ready for something green and fresh.  Unfortunately, while the area remains a farming area, as far as I know there aren't any farms in the area that are descendant from the original ones.

Cattle, of course, is what we think of in terms of Wyoming agriculture, although it was really farming that made its the first appearance and it certainly continues on in a big way.  Crop farming continues on in southeastern Wyoming which has a climate and soil much like Nebraska's, and hence is part of the giant corn and wheat belt that stretches all the way into the Mid West and which is a massive part of the economy in many such states.  It also exists in Fremont County as well, and in Big Horn and Washakie Counties.  Hay crop production exists in many places, as long as there's water to support it.

 
Porta-vet box of a large animal veterinarian.  A common ranch site in some times of the year.

Where there isn't sufficient water, which is most of the state we have cattle and sheep, although now days mostly cattle.  And Wyoming cattle live out on the range.  They're fed in the winter, but on the range.  Really, they're making use of the ground that in earlier eras buffalo made use of and in the same way, save for the fact that buffalo tended to crowd into Cottonwood groves in the winter and destroy them.

It's cattle and sheep that keep Wyoming wild.  This use of the land keeps the land open and natural. When that stops, you get houses and "ranchettes", something that environmentalist should keep in mind.  A strong cattle industry makes for a strong wild Wyoming.

Given this, and that it's so much a part of the background of the state, you'd think that this is an industry the state would seek to support in some ways.  But it doesn't.  Stockmen and other agriculturalist are largely on their own in all sorts of ways.  There is the leased ground, a very misunderstood public asset, but even this is under attack, unfortunately by agriculturalist as well as others.  At any rate, agriculture is an industry which, in spite of the slams against it, just keeps on keeping on by itself under its own steam, ignored by the state and by Wyoming communities.

It should and must be noted that employment in this industry has really changed over the years.  In the early days Wyoming ranches large and small employed a fair number of people directly.  That was due tot he nature of the operations, and even though a very significant amount of the labor on ranches remains the same now as it was in 1890, not nearly as many people are directly employed in the industry as once were.  There are a lot of reasons for this.

 

One reason is that barbed wire changed the nature of ranching and accelerated the change to smaller, in relative terms, family operations.  When that occurred large numbers of year around employees were not needed and to some extent those employees were members of the immediate family.  As this evolution took place family run operations relied on neighbors and friends for additional labor support during those times of the years which, at one time, caused large numbers of seasonal cowhands to be employed.

Another big factor was the 4x4 truck.  Up until World War Two ranches had to rely on cowhands stationed at the edges of their lands for winter feeding in many instances. The truck stopped that, and it reduced the need for labor as well.  Ranchers that once would employ several hands on remote areas of their ranches could now simply drive their with a 4x4 truck.  Such trucks were first available immediately after the war, and it was the war that really brought them on in strength and proved their utility.  So now many ranches, even large ones, employ no individual cowhands at all, although there are still quite a few that do.

 Army truck manufacture (Dodge). Army officers attending the school conducted by the Chrysler Corporation to assist our fighting forces in the job training men to operate the thousands of trucks required by today's streamlined division are given actual practice in driving the trucks in a testing field. Above is an Army officer putting one of these trucks through its paces in a heavy mud wallow which is just one of the many tests to which the driver and vehicle are subjected

The demise of the sheep industry also really played a large role in the number of direct employees.  There are still Sheepmen in Wyoming, but not like they once were. And this is because, in part, due to the fact that that sheep production was in fact one of the rare areas where there was government involvement, as up until the late 1980s the Federal Government supported the price of wool due to the Defense Wool program.  That program came in during the Korean War when the military had to purchase heavy woolen clothing in large quantities and found that there wasn't a sufficient supply of it. The wool program was therefore brought in but it carried on well after it probably should not have.  Even defending the program it has to be admitted that ending it in the late 1980s made sense, keeping in mind that we hadn't fought a cold weather war since 1954 (we would again in the 2000s) and the technology of winter clothing had changed a lot in that 30 year period.

 Sheep in Natrona County, Wyoming, 1940s.  This photo could have been taken at any point in the 20th Century up into the 1990s.

Also related to it, however, is that the United Kingdom joined the European Community which in turn caused the UK to dump the market policies that favored its former Dominions.  During the late Empire stage of the UK the UK had a policy of developing agricultural production in its Dominions but finishing the products in the UK. So Australian, New Zealand and Canadian wool all went to fine British wool mills for a finished product.  When the UK became part of the EC, however, that violated the EC's policies and the British stopped doing that, focusing on local markets instead.  Indeed, the EC has sort of a bizarre semi autarkic economic policy that heavily impacts agriculture in a negative way in some instances and which explains some odd things, such as a constant EU effort at serious beef production, which it really doesn't have an agricultural landmass to support properly.

When that occurred the Australians dumped their wool in the United States and an already ailing American wool industry was really hurt. So we see few sheep now, although they've come back a bit.

The sheep industry supported an infrastructure that was immediate and obvious, which brings us to the next part of this story.  While Wyoming has lost direct employment in agriculture, it's really lost the infrastructure over the years in a major way.

Early on, there was no infrastructure and everything produced here was shipped out for processing in some fashion.  We've almost completely returned to that.  Turning first to wool, when the sheep industry massively contracted all the supporting wool buyers and shearers, an immediate support industry, were hurt.  But its in other areas where the change has been more dramatic in some ways.  Wyoming once had a very large number of stockyards. Every city had them, and they were mostly associated with railroads.  Those are almost all gone, and that's due to the fact that commercial trucking has completely taken over that role from the railroads, although as late as the 1990s the railroads were still attempting to get back into this for sheep.  Perhaps nothing can be done about that and it was inevitable.

Less inevitable, however has been the end of the local meat processing operations on a large scale. There are still some, but they're really small custom houses.  It was this industry that brought my father's family to Wyoming, as we owned a packing plant here in Casper. Today there is no packing plant in Casper, or anywhere in Wyoming for that matter, of that type.  The plant produced not only meat for sale to stores, but other products as well.  Now, you will not find that in Wyoming.  The cattle are all here, but they are shipped out of state for finishing and processing.

 Closed packing plant, Omaha Nebraska.

You'll also not find much in the way of dairy production, although the Starr Valley in western Wyoming hands on in this area, producing cheese on a commercial basis. At one time most larger towns had a creamery that processed milk, and indeed my family had one for a time here in Casper. That meant that there were dairy cows nearby, which there were, and where you have dairy cows, you have to have a large quantity of high quality hay for them, which was also produced locally.

 

Now all of this is gone.  National consolidation of these things is the reason why.  The situation in the meat packing industry is legendary and is the source of steady complaints from both ranchers and consumers.  Indeed, ti's slowly spawned a direct buy movement, which is now pretty common, where families will purchase a cow, i.e., a "beef", for a half beef, for slaughter.

Having said all of this, the direct economic impact of agriculture remains quite large in Wyoming, it's just not very well noted by anyone. Independent truckers, local feeds stores, professional services, and even local manufacturing all rely on it pretty heavily.  Seemingly nobody notices.  Indeed, in some instances, local governments can be a bit hostile to agriculture when some sorts of support facilities are proposed.

Before I depart from this topic, I'm going to note one thing that seems self evident but for some reason is never treated that way.  Silviculture, the raising of trees for harvest, is agriculture. That makes logging part of agriculture.  Indeed in Wyoming, all logging, to the extent any remains, and it isn't much, takes place on land that cattle are normally on.  Logging is an industry that's really been hurt in the US over the last thirty years and this may actually be one area where environmental concerns have hurt agriculture, although ironically here too its something that environmentalist should reconsider.  Growing trees are carbon sinks.  Full grown trees much less so.
 
 Cattle sharing ground with camping fisherman.

And, in the same thread:

So where do we go?

So then, what to make of this?

Well, usually when we go through a crash, we start to talk about diversification.  We also usually start to take about cutting back government spending.  And we're going to have to talk about a new government revenue sources, or having a state government that matches the money we take in.  It's probably time for all of that.
Maybe its' time to talk about building upon what we have, and actually realizing what that is.  And, as we can see from the above, in terms of private industry, that's agriculture, tourism and mineral extraction.  And, like it philosophically or not, we have a lot of government employment in this state and government entities that are pretty darned involved in some sectors of the economy, particularly oil and gas, already.

So, what do we have to build with?  Let's start with mineral extraction.

Mineral extraction?  Perhaps you're thinking "why I thought you were arguing against relying on that?"  No, I'm really not. I'm arguing that we have to be smart and realistic about that.

The boom and bust nature of much of the mineral industry is a feature of it that is pretty fixed, long established by history, and that's all largely beyond our control.  We have to accept that.  But these industries aren't going completely away.  Even coal, which is in real trouble, isn't going completely away and indeed even right now there's an effort by one coal company to start a mine near Sheridan.

The thing we can do, therefore, is to be smart in our planning on these industries.  And that would have to accept that they're going to have rocky periods.

We may also want to be very careful, and we very rarely are, about thinking that when times are good that they're going to go on forever.  There are those who will act that way and they nearly take any suggestion to the contrary as a hostile comment.  Planning for the crash ought to go on during the boom, rather than waiting until it occurs, and that's just smart.

It's also smart to recognize long term trends, none of which are hugely favorable towards the fossil fuel industry.  Recognizing that isn't being hostile, once again, it's just recognizing it.

And perhaps we also ought to at least ponder that, like the oil exporting nations of the Middle East, we really don't do much with the raw product anymore.  We did at one time with petroleum oil, in that we did refine it here, but we no longer do that.  Natural gas, because of its nature, is "refined", or rather processed here, and that will go on.  We ought to consider all of that, however.  We never processed the iron we mined, for example, even though we had all the things necessary to do it (except, perhaps, the large scale shipping necessary for that).

Now, at this point in time, I may have to admit that the ship has sailed on all of these things.  Down to a handful of refineries, I don't see that industry coming back.  There's a reason that super sized refineries are all located on the Gulf Coast.  But if we're not going to process our raw products here, maybe taxing slightly what we export would be a good idea.  Nothing radical, but to add a little bit of a tax in addition to the existing ones for what is departing would not impact the price and might help us out quite a bit in lean times, particularly based upon how the funds were earmarked.  And who knows, maybe that would encourage a little processing here as well.

All of which might do nothing at all, I'll concede.

Okay then, what about agriculture the one we ignore?

Well, here's something I think we can do a fair amount about.

Agriculture in the state has weathered all the storms. Everything we've ever raised or grown here we still do, we just don't do it in the same proportions as some prior eras, but that's not surprising. What we don't do is to process hardly anything here.  We don't pack any of the meat on a large scale.  We don't process any wool into woolens.  We don't mill any flour.  We don't do any of that.

Indeed, the only processing we do, and its a return to something we hadn't done in a long time, is to brew beer and bottle it and (and this is new) to distill grain and bottle that.

Maybe it's time to sit back and have one of those beers and ponder that.

There's a lot we can do here, but in some ways we have to be a bit bold and buck some trends.  There's a large multi-state industry devoted to processing remotely here, and to suggest we ought to do it locally means having to deal with that.

But it can be dealt with.

Let's start with the toughest aspect of that, the beef cattle industry.

At one time, Wyoming had at least one packing plant, indeed right here in Casper.  There was another just outside of the state in Scottsbluff, right over the border, and yet another in Denver.  There were probably others, including perhaps some in the state, but now there are none and all of those which I have mentioned are gone, although one remains in Greeley Colorado.

 February 1922 Casper Packing Company advertisement.

Now, they are gone because the meat packing industry has become amazingly consolidated and the profit margins in packing are, or at least were, low. But if the packing industry could be revived, it would be a natural for Wyoming.  We have everything it requires, at least in certain localities, that being cattle, agriculture for hay and feed corn, sufficient water, good roads and land.

The situation is similar when we consider sheep.  While the sheep industry has really taken a hit, it's slowly somewhat revived over the years and we do have sheep.  Sheep, as an agricultural animal, are interesting in that their primary crop is really wool, with meat being a secondary one.  The meat aspect of this is already addressed by the comments on beef above, but the wool part isn't.

Wool itself used to contribute quite a bit to the Wyoming economy in that there were wool buyers, sorters, and shearers, all in addition to the sheep ranchers, who employed themselves and their herders.  What we never had, however, was a woolen mill, to process raw wool into anything.  We could, but we don't.

This is also true of the milling industry; i.e., flour milling.


Wyoming grows a fair amount of grain, and grows it all over, even though we often do not seem to realize it.  Major agricultural areas can be found in southeastern Wyoming, west central Wyoming, northeastern Wyoming and northern Wyoming.  We grow a fair amount of wheat and corn and if milling facilities were here, we could go the next step.  We don't, however.

We've done better with sugar. We do have some sugar facilities serving, in particular, the Big Horn Basin. Those, it should be noted, are owned by co-ops that formed to operate them with the sugar companies pulled out of that area.  Elsewhere we haven't done as well with that.

Probably the one area that we've done well at recently that might point the way forward a bit is in the category of alcohol.  


I addressed the introduction of a local bourbon some time ago, indeed quite some time ago, on a thread that was once one of the most popular here on this page, that being The Rebirth Of Rye Whiskey And Nostalgia For 'The Good Stuff' & Beer and Prohibition.  That thread also addressed, a bit, the history of local beers.  On the whiskey, I noted; 


This trend has really continued since then, and there's apparently some sort of distillery in Teton County now as well, and there is one that is distilling a couple of different types of hard alcohol here in Natrona County.  I can't opine on the Teton County one at all, and I'm only aware of it as the state government recently turned down the request of an Idaho distiller for a grant to help relocate its headquarters over into the county, as another distiller opposed it.  For that matter, my experience with the local Natrona County distiller is limited to having had a single shot of its vodka, given to me by a friend as proof that not all vodka is bad.  While my position on vodka remains that the difference between the best vodka and the worst is the price, I have to say that I was impressed because . . . well, it didn't taste like vodka.

It's not only hard alcohol that's making inroads into Wyoming and processing the state's agricultural produce. Beer has made an amazing return in these regards.


Snake River Brewery in Jackson Wyoming.

I've commented on this before, but here too the trend has really developed.  And to an amazing extent.  There are now breweries in quite a few Wyoming towns putting out a really high quality product.  This industry has gone from one which, a few years ago, would have required a person to hunt for a Wyoming beer (and a few years before that there were none) to one in which a person could easily buy beer on any occasional and always find a high quality Wyoming beer of any type.  It's really amazing.  

Indeed, Wyoming beer is even canned now.  That may not seem so amazing, but a brewery has to put out quite a bit of beer before they begin canning it.  But that's now going on.  Indeed, beer is the Distributist Economic champion of Wyoming.

This revival, it should be noted, represents a return of an industry that once was all over and very local.  Casper, which recently saw local beer return at The Wonder Bar, an bar that dates back forever in Casper's history, once had a regional brewer in the form of Hillcrest Brewery.  

Bottles from Hillcrest Lager Beer, a beer that was once brewed locally but is no more. Casper doesn't bottle any beer anymore, but it does brew it once again.

There are even a couple of wineries in Wyoming. I don't know anything about them, other than that they exist, but this is additional evidence that at least in terms of processing a local agricultural product into a finished one, alcohol leads the way.

Okay, its one thing to point all of these things out, but what of it.  We don't have packing plants, mills, etc.  What, a person might ask, do you propose?

Well, I'd propose something that Wyomingites hate, state assistance for private enterprise, or even direct involvement in it.

Now, before people have their hackles up too much, let me point out that we only oppose this to a limited degree.  We're actually okay, based on our track records, of supporting start ups with grants.  We're also okay with investing in doubtful technologies, if they relate to the mineral industry.  Witness there all the money the state is sinking into Clean Coal Technology.  I'm not opposed to that by any means, but we must admit that the chances of it ever paying off are remote.

So, before we get too much further, let us consider North Dakota Mill and Elevator.

Eh?

Postcard of the North Dakota State Mill, 1915.

While nearly a neighboring state (it doesn't border us, but you can sprint across the corner of South Dakota and be there in no time at all), North Dakota, which we will return to when we discuss education, has a really different cultural history compared to Wyoming.  With a heavily Scandinavian immigrant population from early in the 20th Century, North Dakota had and still has a political culture that, quite frankly, was occasionally sympathetic to socialism.

Now, let me be frank, I'm not terribly sympathetic with socialism, but we can take a page out of an example of something that works, if it works.  And here's something that has worked for North Dakota.

It's a state owned operation, formed to address problems that farmers were experiencing, but it doesn't receive a subsidy from the state and its self supporting.  

This is the same model used by the other Dakota, South Dakota, for South Dakota Cement, an operation so successful that it has expanded even recently and markets its product in every state bordering South Dakota.  It even had a plant, at one time, here in Casper.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we need state run or owned industries everywhere.  But perhaps we can take an example where there isn't a private industry.  Critics would say, and they should be listened to, that if a private industry isn't operating it's for a good reason. But, we also have to admit that there are a fair number of industries that get their start from some sort of government support.  Indeed, the entire transcontinental railroad was such an example, getting state support in the form of massive land grants, which is essentially the same as a massive infusion of capital.  There's no reason to pretend otherwise.

So, where we don't have a local industry, perhaps we should consider if the state should help. The state's already helping the coal and petroleum industries via various studies at the University of Wyoming, including clean coal.  The very day I wrote this part of this entry, Governor Mead was appearing on the front page of the Tribune at a state funded facility studying clean coal.  And let's not forget the pile of administrative entities that help business one way or another, from the Farmers Home Administration to the Small Business Administration.

So, suing the North and South Dakota models, could the state infest in the infrastructure for milling, packing and wool processing?  Perhaps it could. And, after an initial start up, perhaps it could require those industries to run on a self-sufficient basis.

We could make a shift of this type, but as noted, it's going to take some outside the box thinking.  One thing it would also take is some inside the state, state investment.   And we have to do that now, like Frank Pantangeli has it in The Godfather Part II, "while we have the muscle".

What that would mean is that we actually do some thing that we claim we've been going to do forever, and diversify the economy, but in a way that we can actually do it, rather than on some wild hypothetical.

And we do have the cash, i.e., the economic muscle, right now.

Part of the evidence of that is that the state has been wasting money on long shot lawsuits to try to bend Montana and Washington to our will in order to ship coal to a coal shipping port yet to be built and which never will be.  That appears likely to come to an end here soon, as even Trump Administration didn't support Wyoming in the case pending in front of the Supreme Court (the Biden Administration may very well oppose Wyoming at that level, if it can).  And that's not the only place Wyoming is applying case even in an era in which we are stripping money from everything we can.  Wyoming gets the concept of strategic spending, but it's not strategically spending for a new economy, but in attempts to preserve the old one which has such an uncertain future.  Packing plants to process the state's livestock, grain mills to process the state's grains, wool mills to process wool, and other modern agricultural sector investments should be made right now.

People will look at this and thing "oh no, that's old fashioned", but the truth is that agriculture is the economic base of some states that do at least as well as we do.  And we have to build with what we have and, more importantly perhaps, what people want.  Right now the signs are there that people aren't going to be wanting petroleum the way they once did, and they don't want coal anymore at all.

Nuclear power would offer another opportunity to Wyoming as well, if only we could overcome the bizarre negative mindset about it, which we've also addressed  here before.

The POWER Interview: Technology Can Solve Problem of Nuclear Waste

The POWER Interview: Technology Can Solve Problem of Nuclear Waste: Debate continues about nuclear power's role in electricity production, particularly as it revolves around climate change. As a zero-emissions source of

Interesting article on this topic.

Nuclear power should be something that Greens, particularly radical Greens, should be screaming for night and day.  Indeed, any really scientific thought on energy that was designed to address safe, sustainable, and clean energy, would be based on nuclear power.  Opposition to it is so unscientific as to make Godzilla movies look like actual paleontology.  

Suggesting the state build a nuclear power plant is really going big, so to speak, but perhaps we really need to ponder the state getting into that somehow.  I can't see the state building one, although just a few months ago we were read to invest in the checkerboard lands to an extent that would have exceeded building a nuclear power plant.  Perhaps we should ponder it.  We should at least ponder backing one, and backing one or more in locations where others have just shut down.

And yes, I can hear the cries "Socialist!"

Now, granted, this is a species of socialism, albeit of an odd type that differs from the classic economy destroying the government owns everything variety.  The concept would only be, on sort of  Distributist basis, to form those entities aiding major Wyoming industries where we aren't able to finish the product ourselves on an reasonably economic level.  We can't, for example, create refineries and have them compete.  Nor power plants. But packing plants are another matter, and mills are a demonstrated different matter.  This wouldn't bring in an economic miracle by any means, but it would allow us to further make use of the resources that we do have, right here. And there would be a market for the product, including a small market right here, in that the state is already in the lunch business for kids up to age 19.  Moreover, tags like "Wyoming beef" do have a local price and maybe even a regional one that could be useful for a product grown and finished here, and that is already the case.

M'eh

We're going to have to do something, and do something with what we've got the resources to do that something on.  Doing nothing is never an option unless failure is.  

So what about Alaska?

Well, it seems its challenge is similar, but with different resources. The way out seems about the same.

Assuming it is a way out. But it seems to me it is.  Working in a flour mill or packing plant no doubt wouldn't be as lucrative as working on a rig, but its work.  Right now, with four rigs, it isn't as if there's that much work in that sector.  And a successful economy builds on itself.

So, we could do something about where we are heading, which is to focus on what we have, and where the future seems headed.  But will we?

I sort of doubt it.  

In today's Tribune there's an interesting op ed by Mike Leman, the Catholic legislative liaison in Wyoming, which had this interesting quote.

For decades, many who follow the legislature have quipped that Wyoming is the most conservative socialist state in the country. How so? Because we Wyomingites have never been averse to true benefits that come from government programs, but we have preferred to let the oil and coal industries pay for them, rather than reaching deeper into our own pockets. Due to declining revenue from mineral severance tax, local government agencies have been cutting services and putting in place hiring freezes for years. Last November, Governor Gordon announced an additional $500 million in cuts, which include layoffs.

The quote is amusing in that there's more than an element of truth to it.  Proud of our independence and conservative values, we sometimes fail to appreciate that we've had it good, except when we had it bad, because of the extractive industries upon which we've nearly solely relied for everything.  Even those who don't work for those industries do in some fashion, one way or another, as everything is dependent upon them.  We're getting a clear warning that we're going to now have to look elsewhere, and even if Leman doesn't really have the definition of subsidiarity really right, in my view, the principal is there and now its applicable to us in spades.

But that will require an overhaul of our thinking.  And that would require us to face grim reality that things are pretty rapidly changing.  There's no sign whatsoever that coal will "come back" and blaming that on the government or pinning hopes on a lawsuit pending at the Supreme Court level is hoping against hope.  The energy economy is rapidly evolving and with it transportation technology is rapidly evolving as well.  

We have, however, other resources upon which we rely.  We could build on those.

My prediction is, however, we won't.  Instead, we're going to hear, in this bizarrely polarized era, how the Federal Government must give the Federal lands the state forever eschewed when it became a state, to the state, based on strained theories. And we're going to hear railing against the Biden Administration, which is going to be blamed for everything.  The GOP will either unite in the state on those points or rip itself apart as some harbor the fantasy that there was some way that Trump could have received another term, if "only if", in spite of the rejection by over half the electorate, a half that has no sympathy whatsoever with Wyoming's economic woes.  We won't be building packing plants when we could, or flour mills.  And we'll continue to tolerate a situation in which agricultural land is needlessly busted up into patches that don't raise a single cow, and the passing of large ranches to out of state owners who hold them as playgrounds.

At some point, we'll ask the satirical question, "is this why we can't have nice things?", when in fact we have them, if only we had the vision to see that we do.

*Which is a reason, I'd note, that people who claim to speak for "Wyoming values" ought to be given a second glance, as often they don't have all that stout of connection with the state.

Related threads:

There are a lot of threads on the economy of Wyoming on this blog.  Here's a few, however, that are closely related to what we posted on here.

The Wyoming Economy. Looking at it in a different way.


Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1. The Economy



Looking at the nature of Wyoming's economy again


January 27, 1941. Storm Warnings.

 

U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew.

TOKYO, January 27, 1941-6 p.m. [Received January 27-6: 38 a.m.]  125. A member of the Embassy was told by my ------- colleague that from many quarters, including a Japanese one, he had heard that a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor was planned by the Japanese military forces, in case of "trouble"between Japan and the United States; that the attack would involve the use of all the Japanese military facilities. My colleague said that he was prompted to pass this on because it had come to him from many sources, although the plan seemed fantastic.  GREW

On the same day, French government officials and teachers were required to swear a loyalty oath to Marshal Petain.  More on that here:  

Today in World War II History—January 27, 1941

More on what was going on in World War Two can be found here:

Day 515 January 27, 1941