The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

How climate activists badly missed the mark on Willow drilling project

FILE – This 2019 aerial photo provided by ConocoPhillips shows an exploratory drilling camp at the proposed site of the Willow oil project on Alaska’s North Slope. The Biden administration is weighing approval of a major oil project on Alaska’s petroleum-rich North Slope that supporters say represents an economic lifeline for Indigenous communities in the region but environmentalists say is counter to Biden’s climate goals. A decision on ConocoPhillips Alaska’s Willow project, in a federal oil reserve roughly the size of Indiana, could come by early March 2023. (ConocoPhillips via AP, File)

On March 12, the Biden administration banned all future oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean and blocked leases on more than half of the National Petroleum Reserve, a massive step in reducing potential future carbon emissions from the world’s second-highest emitting country.

But many climate activists seemed not to care because their energy was singularly devoted to #StopWillow. In what became a viral TikTok sensation, over 3.7 million people signed a Change.org petition urging the Biden administration to block Willow, a proposed drilling project in the North Slope of Alaska by ConocoPhillips expected to release 287 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over a 30-year period.

Although activists and TikTokers from the lower 48 fiercely opposed Willow, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R), Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R) and Dan Sullivan (R), Rep. Mary Peltola (D) and the entire state legislature unanimously backed the project, and the majority of neighboring Alaska Native communities expressed support as well. Ultimately, the administration approved a scaled-down version of Willow on March 13, and the previous day’s announcement fell on deaf ears.

If climate advocates claim to value local knowledge, indigenous communities or even basic math, calling these back-to-back announcements anything other than a win is pure hypocrisy.

Willow presents an unquestionably serious concern. Some 287 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions is equivalent to the annual emissions of Taiwan — the 21st highest emitting country in the world. Moreover, the Willow project would bulldoze through the habitats of caribou, moose, birds and more, diverting their migration paths and reducing food availability for the Nuiqsut people, who rely on subsistence hunting and have opposed Willow from the start (though most of their neighbors disagree).

Willow could also cost the Alaska state government $1.6 billion over the first decade. It would take several years for locals to see any money from royalties, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management found that Willow’s emissions could drive as much as $18 billion in climate damages.

But when locals – indigenous locals – say the pros outweigh the cons, who can legitimately protest?

Even with my degree in environmental analysis and policy, I recognize that North Slope Alaskans know significantly more about their environment than I ever will. A 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report found that while environmental decline is accelerating in many indigenous communities, it has been “less severe” than in other parts of the world. Indigenous communities carry centuries of traditional knowledge about their land and, in many cases, embody cultures that view nature as sacred. It’s no wonder climate leaders have begun looking to Indigenous communities for guidance, welcoming more than 300 members of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus to last year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Egypt.

Of course, Alaska Natives are no stranger to climate-induced sea ice melt, permafrost thaw and coastal erosion. But most have expressed that the economic opportunity of Willow is too lucrative to decline. Last year, U.S. News & World Report ranked Alaska’s economy as the worst among all U.S. states, putting it at number 47 for affordability,  number 49 for employment and 50th for growth. Though Alaska’s state government would receive no oil royalties from Willow, local governments in the North Slope could receive royalties in the range of $150 million per year. They badly need the economic boost, and ConocoPhillips has offered to provide it.

Perhaps other industries could have offered cleaner, less volatile economic solutions to North Slope communities. In the energy sector, for example, Alaska already generates large amounts of electricity through hydropower, was one of the first states to explore geothermal and has significant wind resources along its vast coastlines. If Alaska’s government were to instead invest the $1.6 billion they’re set to lose on Willow into expanding their clean energy industry, training in-state workers to receive those well-paying jobs and setting up storage technology and infrastructure to transport that energy, perhaps they could become an energy powerhouse without the environmental and health cost. 

But that wasn’t the economic opportunity that fell in their lap. Willow was. Anyone can understand why they embraced that.

In the lower 48, some climate advocates have chosen to ignore or cherry-pick local and indigenous knowledge, insisting the global climate is doomed if Willow happens in any form. Not only is that incorrect, but Willow unwittingly helped inspire a big win for the planet too.

Some activists have wrongly referred to Willow as a “carbon bomb,” but that nickname is more commonly and accurately reserved for fossil fuel projects that would emit over a billion tons of carbon dioxide. The United States is home to 22 such projects in the oil and gas sector, three of which reside in Alaska: Alaska’s entire North Slope (2.04 billion tons), the Chukchi Sea to Alaska’s northwest (2.54 billion tons) and the Beaufort Sea to Alaska’s northeast (1.25 billion tons).

Wanting to deliver some positive climate action in light of Willow, the Biden administration banned Arctic oil and gas exploration and blocked leases in over half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska’s North Slope, essentially crossing over two and a half carbon bombs off the list. It’s best to view that glass as 80 percent full, not 20 percent empty.

I report on carbon bombs all the time, and when indigenous communities are involved, they are usually united in strongly opposing these megaprojects. If North Slope Alaskans defend Willow, let’s listen to them, understand why and appreciate that even with the approval of a scaled-down Willow, the “new conservation measures” buried in every news story amount to a monumental climate victory.

Ethan Brown, a writer and commentator for Young Voices, is the creator and host of The Sweaty Penguin, an award-winning comedy climate program presented by PBS/WNET’s national climate initiative “Peril and Promise.” Follow him on Twitter @ethanbrown5151.

Tags biden administration Climate change Indigenous people Joe Biden Lisa Murkowski Mary Peltola Mike Dunleavy National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska Willow Project

Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Regular the hill posts

Main Area Top ↴
Main Area Bottom ↴

Most Popular

Load more