The Biden Administration recently passed the Willow Project, an oil drilling operation in Alaska. ConocoPhillips, the company leading this project, plans to establish three drilling sites on federal land in Alaska. This project is predicted to produce 576 million barrels of oil over thirty years while emitting around 280 million tons a year of greenhouse gasses. Arguments persist over this complex decision debating whether or not Biden's decision can be justified.
The Biden Administration has defended the harsh critiques of many environmental activists, claiming that their decision to approve the project prevented the situation from escalating and landing in a courtroom. It is important to note that the original proposal from ConocoPhillips included five drill pads, yet the administration negotiated it down to three. While the impact on the climate remains harmful, this negotiation might have ended differently had the Biden Administration refused the project's passage.
Those opposing this approval include environmentalists and indigenous communities in Alaska, as they will face the harsh consequences of this project. The Mayor of Nuiqsut, Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, describes how this development would directly impact her community. According to PBS, "[Ahtuangaruak] is worried about impacts on caribou and her residents' subsistence lifestyles." Many communities rely on the resources found in the surrounding areas of the development; therefore, they will experience a dramatic shift in lifestyle once this project begins. Alternatively, it is argued by those in support of this project that Alaska will benefit economically. The Washington Post states, "Willow is estimated to produce billions of dollars of economic activity and tax revenue in Alaska…". Additionally, this project will produce a consistent energy supply that will benefit U.S. citizens.
This project has many complex layers that produce both positive and negative reactions. It is difficult to say whether or not Biden's decision was the right choice, given the substantial impact this project will have on the environment. While the Alaskan economy will benefit from this development, many surrounding communities will suffer.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-is-the-controversy-behind-the-alaska-willow-oil-project
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/13/biden-administration-approved-willow-alaska-oil-00086746
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/13/politics/willow-project-alaska-oil-biden-approval-climate/index.html
5 comments:
While the approval of the oil drilling operation is certainly disappointing news, I understand the predicament of the Biden Administration. They don't want to lose a court battle or risk just having the next presidential administration approve the project with all 5 drilling areas. I feel terrible for the communities and wildlife in Alaska who will feel the detrimental effects of the project. Their inability to stop the operation makes me question whether or not we should have additional tools for communities to fight harmful oil operations.
The approval of this operation is sad and frustrating, but I also agree with Logan that there were not really any good paths for the Biden administration to take. I do think the Willow project is an interesting example of how social media can or cannot influence policymaking, as there was a huge push on various social media sites advocating against the project prior to its approval. It's interesting to see that the effects of social media, which so many seem to see as the entire future of marketing and inter-societal communication, can have its limits. Putting this failure next to everything social media has been able to accomplish in the past few years with the BLM movement is a little bit of a head scratcher, and I wonder how advocates will move forward and use the Willow project as a lesson for future "campaigns". In terms of the project itself, I think it is important to note that the Biden administration was able to lower the number of stations down to three instead of five. However, I think the apparent inability of the government to, on the most basic level, say no to ConocoPhillips is frankly alarming, and I will be extremely surprised if we don't see a new push for big-business regulation as a result.
I agree that the Biden administration faced a difficult, complex issue when they made the decision to allow drilling as a trade-off between the overall economy and the environment/local communities. However, in the face of ongoing and on-the-horizon environmental disasters, it is important to note that this project will span decades. It is reasonable to obtain oil for temporary economic relief, but the continued use of nonrenewable energy for decades into the future is certainly ill advised and untimely. What would be timely is shifting the energy economy and investing in renewable energy, which statistically would generate new jobs while helping us reach our environmental goals.
Given the complex circumstances of the Willow Project, it seems evident that this could have been the best decision the Biden administration was able to make; however, I think it is crucial that the administration keep in mind the drastic negative results that will come from this. While three oil drills are better than five, I think it is still sad to see just how many people are failing to see the climate crisis we are in and how projects like this will only make it worse. While it is great that Alaska will benefit economically, I can't help but wonder who will really be reaping these benefits. Indigenous groups have already been pushed aside for so long, and I also can't help but feel like they won't be properly compensated or aided by the Biden administration.
I think it’s good that the Biden Administration was able to negotiate the number of drill pads down, though I don’t agree with them accepting the project. I get that they were put in a corner, but I feel like it would be more beneficial for the US to focus on introducing more clean energy methods in the future, instead of drilling oil that puts both communities and the environment at risk.
Post a Comment