The Willow Project

Sophia Canabal | Lifestyles Editor

Atthe beginning of his term, president Joe Biden allocated $15 billion to establish a Solar Manufacturing Accelerator to meet the administration’s domestic solar energy goals. Now, less than three years later, more than two-thirds of that amount is being spent on developing yet another oil drilling venture.

On March 13, the Biden administration approved ConocoPhillip’s Willow Project, an $8 billion oil drilling site in the middle of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Originally shut down during the Trump administration by a lawsuit that accused the project of violations against environmental acts, a proposed alternative has made a return, and Biden claims that it is significantly less impactful than the previous one.

The revision came after nationwide discontent for the project, including protests from the organizations like the Sienna Club and Greenpeace, as well as a social media campaign under the tag #stopwillow. While the revision is obviously an attempt to make the project more acceptable, it does not mediate its risks.

According to the Bureau of Land Management, the project is estimated to release around 6,000 metric tons of carbon gas every year. While the department estimates that this only slightly adds to current emissions nationwide, its effects on the surrounding area are extreme and irreversible. Black carbon that lands on the ground will absorb sunlight and raise ground temperatures even further.

During the project’s 30 year span, over 20,000 tons of toxic chemicals like nitrous oxide will be released into the atmosphere. Nearby Nuiqsut and Utqiaġvik communities are at risk as well; infrastructure that will surround the oil drilling site will impact the caribou populations that make up a large part of indigenous subsistence farming. No, another oil rig will not end the world, but it will destroy ecosystems that are already vulnerable to rising temperatures.

Despite their statistics, BLM continues to release memos on how Biden has “protected more lands and waters than any president since John F. Kennedy.” The decision also doubles back on the slew of promises he made at the beginning of his term. Government officials have never taken clean energy seriously, and Biden’s case is no exception.

casualties grows any more.

States of its resources, but this is clearly not the case.

If someone was dying in front of you, and you could save them, would you?

Now, would that change if instead of being right before your eyes, they were somewhere across the ocean?

This is the question that the United States has always faced, and while some have been wasting their days debating over whether someone’s life is worth saving when they are not directly in front of them, it is already too late for many who are actually living in countries experiencing a crisis. It is time for the U.S. to take action, and the sooner the better.

The “not my fight” rationale is what many countries used to justify their actions (or, more accurately, lack thereof) at the beginning of World War II. The United States refused to provide refuge to some displaced by the war, or join the fight until it showed up on their doorstep anyway.

It has been a common sentiment that a country should fight its own battles while other nations avoid the conflict by ignoring them, however, this is unrealistic in the modern world. Major issues will inevitably spread, and it is better to end them before the number of

When one country is destabilized, many others also become weaker, especially with the amount of global interconnectedness today. For the sake of the many countries who depend on each other, the United States needs to get involved in difficult situations worldwide, even if it causes frustration or discontent among the few who do not benefit.

When people are suffering or dying, it goes beyond political boundaries, and the U.S. should provide as much help as possible. It would be a different story if sending aid to countries in crisis would deplete the United

Additionally, many tend to lose track of the fact that those living through the current global crises are real people, and that the death toll is more than just a statistic. Consider how the number of casualties from the war in Ukraine is continuing to climb. Many who were lost were uninvolved civilians, and every single one of them devastated those who cared about their family member or friend or classmate or colleague.

Finally, sending aid to countries in crisis can strengthen the United States’ relationship with them, and ultimately benefit the U.S. as well. In refusing to get involved in anything messy, the United States may also be throwing away the possibility of a powerful ally once they recover from their crisis.

When one country is in crisis, the others should try to provide much support.