What is the controversial Willow project, the source of oil that can save Alaska and sink the Arctic

The administration of Joe Biden has in his possession a important environmental decision who could define the fate of Arctic in the next 30 years.

It is willow projectwhich aims to install a major oil development by ConocoPhillips on the north side of Alaska. The scheme is the bulk of it so far in Biden’s tenure and was designated as “carbon bomb” by environmental groups.

If the green light is given, the activity will be centered on the National Petroleum Reservein Alaska, which is the size of the state of Indiana and so rich in resources that it could support the production of 180,000 barrels of oil per day and close to 600 million in three decades expected life of the agreement.

This initiative would also generate 8 and 17 billion dollars in federal revenue, which is a more than attractive proposition for the White House.

However, it would not only be the American crates that would increase considerably, since this production would lead to the release of 278 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in the air. This scenario, which is equivalent to the impact of the circulation of 2 million carscould considerably aggravate the situation in the Arctic According to a study published in the journal Nature, it melts almost four times faster than the rest of the world.

The project has a large group of promoters who argue that thanks to it many posts job – around 2,000 are estimated to be under construction and some 300 permanent – and will bring prosperity to the place and the communities that live there. In turn, they guarantee that the environmental impact of extracting oil there will be less than it would be if that hydrocarbon were to be imported from other countries.

Furthermore, after the tensions generated last year following the sanctions imposed on Russian crude oil due to the invasion of Ukraine, which forced countries to race against the clock for an alternative for their electrical continuity, they hope this will allow build a better energy base.

“We believe Willow will benefit local communities and improve America’s energy security, while producing oil in an environmentally and socially responsible way.”said some time ago in a statement Erec S. Isaacsonpresident of ConocoPhillips Alaska.

Added to this is the argument of some defenders of the project who maintain that the Environmental standards respected by the United States are much stricter than in the rest of the world. However, this was denied by a federal judge who, in 2021, warned against inconsistencies regarding the impacts of the project and the lack of protections in this environmentally sensitive area, and submitted it for review.

This episode, dating from the time Assetforced the Land Administration Office to give rise to this objection – the main obstacle to its implementation – and the project was partially retired. instead of offering five extraction siteshas been reduced to only three -Mark of ‘assurance’– although experts have warned that this change reduces the total effects by only 2%.

In other words, the US government prefers a scaled-down version of the project – and its benefits – to eliminating it altogether.

Another of the strong voices that supported the initiative was that of the Democratic Congressman from Alaska Marie Peltola who, with the support of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, a local indigenous society, and the Arctic Slope Iñupiat community, ensured that there is “a great consensus in the region that this project is good” and that the community will greatly benefit from the taxes generated by Willow, with whom he will invest in Infrastructure there public services.

However, the proposal raised a strong rejection in a sector which, from the beginning, has devoted all its efforts to not gaining his approval.

One of the main detractors is the community closest to the reservethat of the city of Nuiqsutwho raised his voice and warned of both short-term and long-term effects.

“Many would like to say that everyone in Alaska supports oil and gas development, but for our people, this development is in the wrong area…We oppose it”condemned the mayor of the city, Rosemary Ahtuangaruak.

Environmental groups cited as some of the project’s most harmful problems replacement of green areas with roads and asphaltFinally alterations in animal migration rhythms and patternsand the species habitat erosion.

“Approving a new oil and gas development project would be inconsistent with your administration’s historic achievements in environmental and climate justice”lamented some lawmakers in a letter to President Biden in which they believed in $19.8 billion the damage it would cause to the climate there.

The issue has gained great relevance in social networks where multiple campaigns have been promoted under the slogans #StopTheWillowProject there #StopWillowwho have made more than 150 and 148 million reproductions In ICT Tac -respectively- and within days it became one of the top 10 most discussed topics online.

From people explaining the conflict in a practical and simple way to compiled with images of the melting Arctic and users raising awareness through jokes, many of these videos have gone viral and allowed for discussion of the project even among people who do not frequent the question .

With the support of the networks, the White House received hundreds of thousands of cards asking not to advance on the agreement with ConocoPhillips and created requests on the Change.org website with more than 3 million signatures.

While waiting for the case to be defined, many have pointed out that Biden being so close to clearing his endorsement is odd since this position is not in line with your environmental initiative.

And it is that, during his campaign, the president had promised stop new drilling on public lands and had proposed ambitious goals in the matter. In this sense, after his arrival at the Ring, he had declared that “Facing this moment is about more than preserving our planet. It is about providing a better future for all of us..

Even in the Climate Summit 2021was committed to halve greenhouse gas emissions of his country by 2030 – with a view to achieving neutrality by 2050 -, and had decreed that “we must move, we must act quickly”.

Now, under the pressure of energy emergencies, he could change his plans, even if his decision angers some of his voters and puts the future of the Arctic in even greater danger.

Continue reading: