What if energy production was banned on federal lands and waters? It would be devastating to the U.S. and particularly felt in states like Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico, as well as the Gulf of Mexico region.

READ FULL REPORT

This paper marks the first in a series of reports that we will be releasing this summer and fall, each taking a substantive look at what might have happened in the past – or could happen in the future – if certain energy-related ideas and policy prescriptions put forth by prominent politicians and their supporters were actually adopted. We’re calling it the Energy Accountability Series.

The Energy Accountability Series will ask the tough questions and provide quantitative, clear-eyed answers on the full impacts and implications of these policies, and it will do so irrespective of which candidates, groups or political parties happen to support or oppose them. Our hope is that these reports help promote and inform a fact-based debate of the critical energy issues facing our country. Armed with this information, voters will have the opportunity this fall to make the right choices for themselves and their families.

WHAT IF... Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands and Waters?

Potential National Consequences:

$11.3 B IN ANNUAL ROYALTIES LOST
380,000 JOBS LOST OR THREATENED
$70 B IN ANNUAL GDP LOST OR THREATENED
25% OF NATION'S OIL, NATURAL GAS AND COAL PRODUCTION LOST

Some politicians believe the nation would be better off without energy production on federal lands and waters.

But they're wrong.

"No future extraction [on federal lands].
I agree with that."

Hillary Clinton

Presidential candidate

Hillary Clinton

Download

Join Us

Sign up for updates on the energy accountability series