Oil pipelines stretch across the landscape outside Nuiqsut, AK where ConocoPhillips operates the Alpine Field on May 28, 2019. (Photo: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-07-12/willow-project-eis-alaska-oil-…
Jul 12, 2022
The bitter end of the fossil fuel era is playing out in one of the world's wildest remaining places: Alaska's North Slope. And it's not pretty.
They could artificially freeze the melting soil in order to extract more petroleum, which, when it burns, will raise the temperature even higher. If you want a snapshot of our insanity, this is it.
On Friday, the Interior Department released a draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the Willow project, an oil development on Alaska's North Slope that Interior says would release as much as 284 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over its 30-year lifetime, and perhaps more. The Biden administration seems to be leaning toward permitting this carbon bomb, which would mock its campaign commitments to ease off on new oil leases--and in fact would represent a continuation of Trump-era efforts to drill big in the far northern tundra.
Trump, you may recall, made drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a priority. But after a fierce campaign by Gwich'in Natives and environmentalists, no big oil companies were willing to bid for leases on that land. Perhaps they were beginning to see the writing on the wall: With the cost of renewables plummeting, it no longer made sense to go to the ends of the world in search of more hydrocarbons.
But Alaska's congressional delegation--especially Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski--never gave up on expanding oil development. She's moved her efforts a couple of hundred miles west to what would be a massive extraction: ConocoPhillips's Willow project, near the village of Nuiqsut and in the National Petroleum Reserve.
This time Murkowski appears to have team Biden in her corner, even though the development plan has all the usual horrors: a Texas-based corporation turning Northern Alaska into another industrial sacrifice zone, jeopardizing Indigenous food security (particularly by threatening the Teshekpuk caribou herd), surrounding the people of Nuiqsut with light, noise and chemical pollution, and of course, locking in decades of fossil fuel extraction when scientists tell us we must be doing precisely the opposite. Willow is the biggest oil and gas project pending on U.S. public lands, and that's using the Biden administration's estimate of what it would produce, about 600 million barrels of crude oil. Privately, according to the Washington Post, ConocoPhillips is telling investors that its new Arctic "hub" could eventually unlock five times as much: 3 billion barrels.
Though ConocoPhillips may use this year's high gas prices or the energy disruptions caused by the Ukraine war to push the project, those are just industry talking points. By the time the project comes online, modelers are predicting 33% of vehicle sales will be electric. And the current round of climate crises will only be growing. Already more of Alaska has burned so far this year than at this point in time in the last 80 years.
Local officials, including native communities, are split: Oil always means money, even if a lot of it goes out of state. But scientists are not split: The International Energy Agency said last year that if we had any hope of meeting the targets the world set in Paris in 2015, there could be no further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure.
On his very first day in office, Biden rejoined those accords; in Glasgow last year for the follow-up U.N. conference he talked about our "overwhelming obligations" to the poorer countries decimated by climate change. But that's ink on paper and words through microphones. There's nothing abstract about the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil that the Willow project would produce, nor the guaranteed rise in temperature.
You know who can see that future coming? ConocoPhillips. To sustain hundreds of miles of new ice roads and pipelines proposed for the project, ConocoPhillips may have to artificially chill the melting tundra.
Read that again: They could artificially freeze the melting soil in order to extract more petroleum, which, when it burns, will raise the temperature even higher. If you want a snapshot of our insanity, this is it.
The administration's environmental impact statement says that it prefers development but it does include another option: "no action." If we want to adopt that plan--if we want, that is, to leave the carbon in the ground where it can do no damage--we have to let the administration know.
The Interior Department is taking comments on its Willow project environmental impact statement for 45 days. Here's what to tell officials: Donald Trump wanted to drill Alaska until science and common sense put a crimp in his plans. Why on (a heating) Earth would we want to start it up again?
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 Los Angeles Times
Bill Mckibben
Bill McKibben is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org and ThirdAct.org. His most recent book is "Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?." He also authored "The End of Nature," "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet," and "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future."
Zach Brown
Zach Brown is a climate scientist in his native Gustavus, Alaska, where he is co-director of the Tidelines Institute.
The bitter end of the fossil fuel era is playing out in one of the world's wildest remaining places: Alaska's North Slope. And it's not pretty.
They could artificially freeze the melting soil in order to extract more petroleum, which, when it burns, will raise the temperature even higher. If you want a snapshot of our insanity, this is it.
On Friday, the Interior Department released a draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the Willow project, an oil development on Alaska's North Slope that Interior says would release as much as 284 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over its 30-year lifetime, and perhaps more. The Biden administration seems to be leaning toward permitting this carbon bomb, which would mock its campaign commitments to ease off on new oil leases--and in fact would represent a continuation of Trump-era efforts to drill big in the far northern tundra.
Trump, you may recall, made drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a priority. But after a fierce campaign by Gwich'in Natives and environmentalists, no big oil companies were willing to bid for leases on that land. Perhaps they were beginning to see the writing on the wall: With the cost of renewables plummeting, it no longer made sense to go to the ends of the world in search of more hydrocarbons.
But Alaska's congressional delegation--especially Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski--never gave up on expanding oil development. She's moved her efforts a couple of hundred miles west to what would be a massive extraction: ConocoPhillips's Willow project, near the village of Nuiqsut and in the National Petroleum Reserve.
This time Murkowski appears to have team Biden in her corner, even though the development plan has all the usual horrors: a Texas-based corporation turning Northern Alaska into another industrial sacrifice zone, jeopardizing Indigenous food security (particularly by threatening the Teshekpuk caribou herd), surrounding the people of Nuiqsut with light, noise and chemical pollution, and of course, locking in decades of fossil fuel extraction when scientists tell us we must be doing precisely the opposite. Willow is the biggest oil and gas project pending on U.S. public lands, and that's using the Biden administration's estimate of what it would produce, about 600 million barrels of crude oil. Privately, according to the Washington Post, ConocoPhillips is telling investors that its new Arctic "hub" could eventually unlock five times as much: 3 billion barrels.
Though ConocoPhillips may use this year's high gas prices or the energy disruptions caused by the Ukraine war to push the project, those are just industry talking points. By the time the project comes online, modelers are predicting 33% of vehicle sales will be electric. And the current round of climate crises will only be growing. Already more of Alaska has burned so far this year than at this point in time in the last 80 years.
Local officials, including native communities, are split: Oil always means money, even if a lot of it goes out of state. But scientists are not split: The International Energy Agency said last year that if we had any hope of meeting the targets the world set in Paris in 2015, there could be no further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure.
On his very first day in office, Biden rejoined those accords; in Glasgow last year for the follow-up U.N. conference he talked about our "overwhelming obligations" to the poorer countries decimated by climate change. But that's ink on paper and words through microphones. There's nothing abstract about the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil that the Willow project would produce, nor the guaranteed rise in temperature.
You know who can see that future coming? ConocoPhillips. To sustain hundreds of miles of new ice roads and pipelines proposed for the project, ConocoPhillips may have to artificially chill the melting tundra.
Read that again: They could artificially freeze the melting soil in order to extract more petroleum, which, when it burns, will raise the temperature even higher. If you want a snapshot of our insanity, this is it.
The administration's environmental impact statement says that it prefers development but it does include another option: "no action." If we want to adopt that plan--if we want, that is, to leave the carbon in the ground where it can do no damage--we have to let the administration know.
The Interior Department is taking comments on its Willow project environmental impact statement for 45 days. Here's what to tell officials: Donald Trump wanted to drill Alaska until science and common sense put a crimp in his plans. Why on (a heating) Earth would we want to start it up again?
Bill Mckibben
Bill McKibben is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org and ThirdAct.org. His most recent book is "Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?." He also authored "The End of Nature," "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet," and "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future."
Zach Brown
Zach Brown is a climate scientist in his native Gustavus, Alaska, where he is co-director of the Tidelines Institute.
The bitter end of the fossil fuel era is playing out in one of the world's wildest remaining places: Alaska's North Slope. And it's not pretty.
They could artificially freeze the melting soil in order to extract more petroleum, which, when it burns, will raise the temperature even higher. If you want a snapshot of our insanity, this is it.
On Friday, the Interior Department released a draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the Willow project, an oil development on Alaska's North Slope that Interior says would release as much as 284 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over its 30-year lifetime, and perhaps more. The Biden administration seems to be leaning toward permitting this carbon bomb, which would mock its campaign commitments to ease off on new oil leases--and in fact would represent a continuation of Trump-era efforts to drill big in the far northern tundra.
Trump, you may recall, made drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a priority. But after a fierce campaign by Gwich'in Natives and environmentalists, no big oil companies were willing to bid for leases on that land. Perhaps they were beginning to see the writing on the wall: With the cost of renewables plummeting, it no longer made sense to go to the ends of the world in search of more hydrocarbons.
But Alaska's congressional delegation--especially Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski--never gave up on expanding oil development. She's moved her efforts a couple of hundred miles west to what would be a massive extraction: ConocoPhillips's Willow project, near the village of Nuiqsut and in the National Petroleum Reserve.
This time Murkowski appears to have team Biden in her corner, even though the development plan has all the usual horrors: a Texas-based corporation turning Northern Alaska into another industrial sacrifice zone, jeopardizing Indigenous food security (particularly by threatening the Teshekpuk caribou herd), surrounding the people of Nuiqsut with light, noise and chemical pollution, and of course, locking in decades of fossil fuel extraction when scientists tell us we must be doing precisely the opposite. Willow is the biggest oil and gas project pending on U.S. public lands, and that's using the Biden administration's estimate of what it would produce, about 600 million barrels of crude oil. Privately, according to the Washington Post, ConocoPhillips is telling investors that its new Arctic "hub" could eventually unlock five times as much: 3 billion barrels.
Though ConocoPhillips may use this year's high gas prices or the energy disruptions caused by the Ukraine war to push the project, those are just industry talking points. By the time the project comes online, modelers are predicting 33% of vehicle sales will be electric. And the current round of climate crises will only be growing. Already more of Alaska has burned so far this year than at this point in time in the last 80 years.
Local officials, including native communities, are split: Oil always means money, even if a lot of it goes out of state. But scientists are not split: The International Energy Agency said last year that if we had any hope of meeting the targets the world set in Paris in 2015, there could be no further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure.
On his very first day in office, Biden rejoined those accords; in Glasgow last year for the follow-up U.N. conference he talked about our "overwhelming obligations" to the poorer countries decimated by climate change. But that's ink on paper and words through microphones. There's nothing abstract about the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil that the Willow project would produce, nor the guaranteed rise in temperature.
You know who can see that future coming? ConocoPhillips. To sustain hundreds of miles of new ice roads and pipelines proposed for the project, ConocoPhillips may have to artificially chill the melting tundra.
Read that again: They could artificially freeze the melting soil in order to extract more petroleum, which, when it burns, will raise the temperature even higher. If you want a snapshot of our insanity, this is it.
The administration's environmental impact statement says that it prefers development but it does include another option: "no action." If we want to adopt that plan--if we want, that is, to leave the carbon in the ground where it can do no damage--we have to let the administration know.
The Interior Department is taking comments on its Willow project environmental impact statement for 45 days. Here's what to tell officials: Donald Trump wanted to drill Alaska until science and common sense put a crimp in his plans. Why on (a heating) Earth would we want to start it up again?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.