President Biden’s decision to halt new offshore drilling across 625 million acres of U.S. waters has sparked passionate debate, and rightly so. This sweeping executive order raises critical questions about the balance between environmental stewardship, energy independence, and economic stability. While this ban is framed as a climate victory, its broader implications deserve a closer examination, particularly through the lens of common sense, compassion, and responsibility.

Stewardship vs. Symbolism

As Christians, we are entrusted with the stewardship of God’s creation (Genesis 1:28). This responsibility calls us to protect the environment while also ensuring the well-being of the people who depend on its resources. President Biden’s decision to protect vast stretches of coastal waters seems to align with the value of stewardship. After all, no one wants to relive the devastation of disasters like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, which left lasting scars on marine ecosystems and local economies.

However, effective stewardship requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands actions that provide measurable benefits without unnecessary harm. Biden’s own acknowledgment that these banned waters have “relatively minimal fossil fuel potential” raises concerns. Is this ban truly about addressing an imminent environmental threat, or is it more about political symbolism? Protecting the environment is noble, but not if it risks undermining energy independence, destabilizing coastal economies, and jeopardizing the livelihoods of hardworking Americans.

True stewardship is about balance—caring for creation while honoring the needs of the people God has called us to serve. Sweeping measures that prioritize optics over practical outcomes often lead to unintended consequences that hurt those already struggling the most.

The Symbolism Problem

President Biden’s acknowledgment of the limited fossil fuel potential in the banned areas reveals an uncomfortable truth: this decision may be more about optics than substance. While symbolism can inspire and set priorities, it becomes problematic when it carries real-world consequences like job losses, increased energy prices, and greater dependence on foreign oil.

The energy sector supports countless families, many of whom live in the very coastal communities impacted by this ban. Jobs in offshore drilling aren’t just numbers on an economic report—they are the livelihoods of people who rely on this work to support their families and sustain their local economies. By sidelining offshore drilling in these areas, the government risks signaling that these workers’ futures are secondary to political goals.

Even symbolic actions can have ripple effects. Restricting domestic production, however minimal the fossil fuel potential, places greater pressure on global supply chains, especially during periods of volatility. It also increases America’s reliance on foreign oil suppliers, many of whom have poor environmental standards and adversarial geopolitical agendas. The result? A weakened energy sector at home and a compromised position on the global stage.

Energy Independence and National Security

America’s energy independence has been one of the most significant achievements of the past decade. Becoming the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas has strengthened our economy and bolstered national security. Energy independence means more than low gas prices—it represents freedom from reliance on foreign powers, many of which are openly hostile to U.S. interests.

Biden’s drilling ban excludes major production areas like the central and western Gulf of Mexico, but it sends a clear message: the administration views fossil fuels as an industry in decline. This raises critical questions about the practicality of sidelining domestic production at a time when global energy demand continues to rise.

Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are promising, but they currently represent a fraction of the world’s energy mix. Fossil fuels remain essential for powering transportation, manufacturing, and electricity. Reducing domestic production won’t lower demand—it will simply shift it to foreign suppliers, often at a higher environmental and moral cost.

Energy independence is about resilience in times of crisis. Reducing reliance on domestic resources leaves the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, natural disasters, and geopolitical instability. A balanced approach—investing in cleaner technologies while maintaining robust domestic production—protects our national security and economic stability.

A Tale of Two Standards

The Biden administration’s approach to energy policy reveals a troubling inconsistency. While touting this ban as a bold step for the environment, the president recently approved the Willow Project, an $8 billion oil development in Alaska. This dual approach raises questions: Are we phasing out fossil fuels, or doubling down where politically convenient?

The offshore drilling ban primarily affects areas where environmental groups and coastal Democrats hold significant sway, while the Willow Project appeases oil-dependent regions. This piecemeal strategy lacks coherence and creates confusion about the administration’s long-term goals.

Leadership demands clarity and consistency. Without a clear and balanced energy policy, industries, workers, and communities are left in a state of limbo. True progress requires thoughtful, unified action—not a patchwork of decisions that cater to political bases.

Jobs, Communities, and Real Risks

Environmental policies often have significant human costs, and this ban is no exception. While fishing and tourism industries may celebrate the move, oil and gas workers face uncertainty. These aren’t just jobs—they are lifelines for families and communities. Sweeping changes that dismiss these workers as collateral damage risk deepening economic divides.

A truly just energy transition must include comprehensive retraining programs, targeted investments in affected regions, and clear pathways to new opportunities. Without these measures, displaced workers are left to bear the brunt of changes they had no hand in shaping.

The Bible calls us to care for our neighbors and uphold justice (Micah 6:8). Policies that protect the environment at the expense of vulnerable communities fail to meet this standard. A balanced approach honors both the planet and the people who depend on its resources.

A Balanced Path Forward

Energy policy should reflect stewardship, compassion, and common sense. Here are three guiding principles for a balanced approach:

1. Invest in Innovation: Foster cleaner technologies like carbon capture and advanced nuclear energy to reduce emissions without dismantling current energy infrastructure.
2. Protect Communities: Ensure displaced workers have access to retraining programs and new job opportunities, preserving livelihoods as we transition to cleaner energy.
3. Prioritize National Security: Maintain robust domestic energy production to safeguard against foreign dependence and ensure resilience in times of crisis.

Conclusion

President Biden’s offshore drilling ban may win praise from environmentalists, but it risks alienating hardworking Americans and compromising our energy independence. The Bible reminds us to carefully count the cost of our decisions (Luke 14:28). This decision touches not only the environment but also the lives of families and the strategic security of our nation.

Meaningful progress doesn’t come from symbolic gestures or abrupt shifts—it comes from thoughtful, collaborative solutions that honor God’s creation while providing for His people. Let us pray for wisdom and courage in our leaders as they navigate these complex challenges. A balanced path forward can unite environmental responsibility with economic stability, paving the way for a sustainable and prosperous future.