Biden Approved New Drilling in the Arctic. I Have Some Thoughts.
Biden Approved New Drilling in the Arctic. I Have Some Thoughts.
“Sometimes your leaders let you down.” President Clinton signed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. President Obama never closed Guantanamo. And now, President Biden has approved the Willow oil project.
Sometimes your leaders let you down. I had to remind myself of this as I scanned the headlines with dismay and dove more deeply into how such a thing happened, especially after all the progress and all the campaign promises of Biden being the “climate president.” Reactions from progressives and activists have ranged from disappointment to outrage, with myself somewhere along that spectrum.
When I went looking for the usual suspects—big oil lobbyists, right wing bullies, big money—they were there, of course. But this time—and here is what makes the decision doubly hard to stomach—I also found reasonable folks in the center and to the slight left, and some even to the very left, who ultimately signed off on Willow. Some fought hard for and others reluctantly greenlit the $6 billion drilling project in what is the largest and possibly last pristine area of wilderness within our borders. The project will dump huge amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere right when we should be moving sharply away from fossil fuel development. I helped raise money for some of those Congressional and administration leaders who ended up supporting the oil project, and I had championed their election victories as big steps forward for the country.
Sometimes your leaders let you down.
Today, hard as it is sometimes to do, I want to set aside my instinctive recoil and anger, and at least attempt to fairly set out the best arguments from the two sides in this conflict. I’ll then share my own further thoughts on the decision in my concluding words.
The case to deny the Willow project
The project is led by a giant oil company, ConocoPhillips, and it could wind up producing more than 600 million barrels of crude oil over the next 30 years. Assuming all of that will be burned for human use, that means a total of 280 million metric tons of carbon emissions, or around 9.2 million metric tons a year. Activists point out that this is the same as adding two million cars to our roads each year. The science is clear, and experts including even the International Energy Agency agree: To avoid catastrophic climate change, governments need to stop approving new oil, gas and coal projects.
Environmental activists and the Native communities most likely to be impacted by the three new drill sites have fought against it for many years. They had even scored court victories stopping the Trump administration’s plans to move forward with Willow. And the Biden administration’s own environmental analysis had raised “substantial concerns” about the project’s potential not just to raise emissions but to pollute water sources and threaten wildlife that call the area home, including migratory birds, caribou and whales.
“The true cost of the Willow project is to the land and to animals and people forced to breathe polluted air and drink polluted water,” read a statement from Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, an Indigenous grassroots group. “While out-of-state executives take in record profits, local residents are left to contend with the detrimental impacts of being surrounded by massive drilling operations.”
For the Biden Administration to approve it now is not just a betrayal of a specific campaign pledge he made for “no new drilling on federal lands, period.” It is a slap in the face, progressives argue, to all who have worked so hard to stop this project under a far more hostile regime.
It is also bad politics. The Gen Z voters who have stuck by Biden and made the electoral margin differences in key swing states in 2020 and 2022 waged an impressive online campaign against Willow, with over 650 million views across social media platforms like TikTok, spotlighting the concerns of their generation, which will bear the brunt of our actions today. The approval of the project confirmed to many in that generation of voters that their concerns are not taken seriously by the White House. It will be hard to win back trust and dispel the cynicism that will result.
The case to approve the Willow project
Proponents acknowledge that it’s a terrible thing to put 9.2 million metric tons more each year into the atmosphere. But first and foremost, proponents don’t believe that they are on solid legal ground to stop the project. ConocoPhillips has already leased the land, and the Trump administration had already approved the drilling. If Biden reversed that, the company would sue and almost certainly win, with potential fines and fees in the billions. On appeal, the case would hit up against the conservative majority in SCOTUS, which would like nothing more than to send another Biden move down to defeat while using the opportunity to create new law further diminishing the authority and tying the hands of the White House and federal agencies.
In the larger scheme of emissions reductions, 9.2 million metric tons, while substantial, comprises a relatively small amount compared to the 5.6 billion—that’s 5,600 million compared to 9.2 million—metric tons the U.S. currently emits each year. And, they argue, we can extract the oil more cleanly with less risk to the environment than developing nations, who would otherwise be left picking up the supply to meet demand. The West certainly needs to wean itself off of oil dependence and move toward a carbon zero future, but it can’t do so overnight, at least not realistically.
Although they approved the project, the Biden Administration did pair it with an announcement of broad new restrictions on offshore oil leasing in the Arctic Ocean and the North Slope of Alaska. That is intended to form a “firewall” against future leases in the area. The approval and back-and-forth with the company shrank the number of drill sites from five down to three, protecting the critical coastal wetland area of Teshekpuk Lake. As part of the approval, ConocoPhillips agreed to return 68,000 acres of existing leases to the government, something officials believe will prevent it from being able to expand drilling beyond the Willow project area.
Despite local opposition, the project is supported by the vast majority of Alaskan Native tribes as well as all three members of the state’s Congressional delegation, including moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and newly-elected, statewide House member, Rep. Mary Pertola (D-AK), who is herself a Native Alaskan and a champion for indigenous rights and recognition. And the first Native American Interior Secretary, Deb Haaland, ultimately signed off on the project as well, albeit with some apparent misgivings. The primary reason is economic: The project is expected to bring 2,500 new jobs to the region and produce $17 billion in federal tax receipts.
This is not over
Construction on the Willow project can start immediately, but oil isn’t expected to flow for another six years. It is already clear that environmental activists will seek to sue to stop, or at least delay, the project.
A lot can happen in six years.
As a pragmatic progressive, I often find myself having to accept less than what I want in order to make a bit of progress, to move the ball forward even if just by a bit. When it comes to the climate, however, this calculation becomes very dicey. We only have so much time left, and incremental solutions aren’t going to save us. It’s one of the few areas (along with Ukraine and the debt ceiling) where I believe compromise and walking away from principled positions get us into bigger trouble than before. It creates openings that bad faith actors can exploit.
Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, for which he already had to compromise on some fossil fuel issues, was heralded for taking huge steps toward reducing our carbon emissions. But his approval of Willow moves us backwards because he is seeking to have it both ways for the U.S. We can’t say we support a carbon zero future when we move forward with such a huge fossil fuel project. It’s hypocrisy, and it will have knock-on effects.
With the U.S. approving a massive new oil drilling project, for example, what moral authority will America now have to urge other nations to stop their drilling and stop building coal plants? The project is the equivalent of green-lighting 70 new coal burning plants. It is akin to setting off a “carbon bomb” right when we should be leading by example.
I would have preferred to see the Biden administration stick to its pledge and force the courts to stop the Willow oil project. This would at least show the administration’s commitment and that it honors its promises. Within the White House, however, there may be a waning appetite to be bludgeoned constantly by the High Court, as we have just seen with the student debt relief effort. And with the right recently scoring political points on sky-high gas prices, this may have been a political battle that the White House decided it didn’t have the strength to fight.
From a litigation standpoint, I do agree that it’s probably far better for the likely plaintiffs to be environmental groups and activists instead of a big oil company. That’s because where the case gets filed and how it gets framed matter a great deal. Any case on appeal will be built upon the factual record developed by the district court, the location for which the plaintiff gets to have the first say. To my mind, it’s likely that many inside the White House, including Interior Secretary Haaland, understood that litigation was coming either way, and would rather be silently cheering on the plaintiffs than playing defense against the oil industry.
One thing is clear: This decision did not come easily, and it was a no-win one. My respect for what the Biden administration is trying to do with climate or other critical issues doesn’t evaporate overnight because I disagree, even strongly, with its decision on this. But the fight isn’t over, and we have a window of opportunity to press the White House hard for more action—on gun safety, abortion rights, LGBTQ+ protections and yes, climate change—to win back the trust of progressive voters.
It sucks hard. But I think we need to be very very very clear that if Biden had not approved this, the oil company would have sued, and they would have won. The government could have appealed, and they would have lost to the Supreme Court. Again. We have to point this out. Every time. What we really really need to do is work on a House and a Senate that will nuke the filibuster and modify the courts. We are so close to that in 2024, with 51 and replacing Sinema.
President Biden needs to explain this clearly to the American people. If he phrases it like you have, I think most people will understand. He can also make the case for taking back control of the House, increasing our margin in the Senate and for expanding SCOTUS. Most people are keenly aware the the current court is packed with right wing people, some of whom have no business being on the court to begin with. Leaders will constantly disappoint us. It's a matter of degrees that the progressive caucus needs to wrap their heads around. Nobody ever gets everything they want. When campaign promises run into walls in Congress, there's not a lot that can be done. We just have to hope that those times are few and far between. So far, with President Biden, they have been.