Going Green or Getting the Green? 

Amidst the various arguments that can be made for or against the Willow Project, this recent approval pursues a question of morality in which many people are left to wonder: is the economy or the environment more important? While the idea of a self-sufficient economy may benefit U.S. citizens, the severe environmental costs that come with the Willow Project only grow larger as the Earth continues to be depleted of natural and finite resources. While 1 billion dollars is being spent on just the early stages of the project, that much money is taken away from potentially finding cleaner energy resources. Because of this, while the economic benefits can seem grand, the project’s long-term environmental consequences cause a much more impactful and long-lasting effect. 

“When we talk about environmental degradation, if you’re talking about digging up oil, there is a big cost associated that’s not part of the initial price tag. If you think about the damage that’s caused by climate change, if you think about the damage that’s done to the ecosystem [and] to biodiversity — if you were to put monetary values on all those things, the true cost of digging in Alaska would be far higher than just the literal economic cost of going there and drilling. We’re going to have to eventually pay the true cost when we have to deal with the environmental issues,” Hage said. “That’s how we should view almost any environmental problem: what is the true cost of what we’re doing?”

To counter the extent of damage already done, the World Bank estimated $90 trillion to spend on the climate effort by 2030. Compared to the $8 to $17 billion that is estimated to be earned from the Willow Project, the environmental cost is overwhelming. 

“There are going to be more long-term costs associated with climate change than the short-term possible benefits of reduced gas prices. The economic benefit will [not] outweigh the long-term cost of environmental damage that we’re causing,” Gillies said.  

Even the economic benefits of the Willow Project and the fantasy of a self-sufficient and energy-independent U.S. comes with multiple risks. For example, the hypothesized decrease in gas prices as a result of the Willow Project has a limited chance of execution due to a number of factors, including the six years of production required for gasoline from the Willow Reserve to be utilized. Instead, the money from the Willow Project has a greater chance of benefiting the ConocoPhillips oil company than the general population. Additionally, the theoretical energy independence of the U.S. could not be all that it seems, considering its possible effect on international relations.

“This project will ultimately help us become [less] reliant on the Middle East’s oil, which could start more tensions,” sophomore Amelia Geistler said. 

Overall, it is evident that the cost of the only Earth we have is greater than that of a finite amount of crude oil. The effects of the Willow Project’s approval will echo across generations in the future when the Earth becomes unmanageable and unsolvable in its environmental degradation. 

“The negatives [of the Willow Project] outweigh the benefits because if there is [no] Earth, there is no us. We are setting up the younger generations for failure. The whole world needs to be practical about the long-term effects. The Willow Project will affect young generations, and it’s up to us to be the change,” Geistler said.