I agree. I think this project goes to show the Catch-22 of having an economy, and thus people's livelihoods, dependent on something we desperately need to transition away from.
Yes we have very little industry besides natural resources which then people are against developing the project like Willow, Ambler mine, or logging in the Tongas.
The problem is that nothing can really fit the void in Alaska's economy that oil and gas fills. Alaska is a very remote place with a polar climate, and that significantly limits the opportunities available to it. Just about everywhere that can support farming in Alaska already has farms because the rest of the state is simply too cold. Any manufacturing or service activity would be at a massive disadvantage because of Alaska's distance from every consumer market on the planet. Sure, tourism could grow, but it is again limited by Alaska's short summers, cold winters, and remoteness. That pretty much leaves things like fishing, hydroelectric power, and mining as the only available non-O&G economic activities, and each of those also has significant environmental impacts.
What irks me probably the most about the opposition to projects like the Willow Project is that these people tend to include many of the same who are also opposed to nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuel. In a recent video documentary by Kyle Hill on TMI it was described perfectly how 'environmental groups' had already made up their mind how this event was going to be portrayed, and by the time 1986 rolled around, the Chornobyl disaster was used as further justification to halt any and all further nuclear power constructions. That nuclear power has (limited) lethality only when something does go wrong, but that fossil fuel usage will definitely kill, cripple and pollute under normal operating conditions (let alone things like fly ash pool spills) in addition to the potential for climate change is hereby so conveniently ignored. All of this is basically why we are here today, and why the Willow Project is even being considered. When Alaskan communities are running largely off diesel generators - if they can afford this at all - it's not hard to see why something like this oil project holds so much hope for those remote, small communities.
Not to mention that the fossil fuel industry dumped a ton of money into the anti nuclear message also to keep their monopoly on power generation. Nuclear power has also progressed generations ahead of the kinds of plants used 40 or 50 years ago and are immeasurably safer and less radioactive. With new developments in the technology and safety of plants they are almost impossible to have a major accident like Chernobyl. But with all of the campaigning against it all those years ago the door got slammed shut on it and caused any discussion of it to disappear. If people actually were informed of the truth about the current situation with regards to the safety and clean energy produced in massive amounts it could help with cleaning up the energy sector in a massive way. Fortunately people are starting to talk about some of these things a bit and hopefully that gets the ball rolling because it would be a great help for climate issues and they already have designs and testing done on new reactors so we could get going almost immediately.
Thank you for explaining without just trying to get everyone riled up! I think the whole idea of "well, my hands are tied but we'll make it not as bad," is a mindset that a lot of us have. It's not a good thing though...it's a way to allow us to continue on with our lives while we harm the earth
That's a great point. The idealist in me says we can't keep using that as a crutch, but the pragmatist in me welcomes anything that's "not as bad" at this point lol. Goes to show the dire state of our environment and how badly we need to preserve it.
@@NationalParkDiaries Too often we go around in circles because we don't see outside our own dominater exploitation colonizing box. People lived on this planet for tens of thousands of year without destroying their environmental homes. Instead of listening to urban based leaders and holy books, they listened to the earth and matched their rhythms and actions to the earth. It's that simple. They were also animists, so they did not see the rest of the planet as unimportant raw materials for our whims. Our culture suffers under two delusions that make it almost impossible to get in sync with the rest of our ecosystem. We think we are above it all, and we think some dude in a cloud "gave" it all to us to use any way we want. That was the beginning of the end of our ability to harmonize with the rest of the planet.
@@PoetGorman I don’t think anyone who believes in a creator God thinks that this creator God wants them to poison the earth while extracting resources from it. That line of thinking seems incongruent with the belief that there is a natural order.
@@Yay-hovah That depends on how you define natural order, on the actual reality of the natural world or some dispensational teaching that says hierarchy and patriarchy and anthropocentrism ARE the natural order, and that animism and environmental synchronicity are blasphemous, as conservative Christians almost always say. History tells the story. We westerners didn't start destroying our own environment until Romanize Christianity took over the religious and philosophic landscape of Europe and her colonies. The pre-Christian, tribal peoples lived sustainably on the earth for tens of thousands of years without throwing it out of balance, much less bringing it to the brink of irreversible disaster. And yet they are the ones we are taught are "unsaved" "unredeemed" and bound for everylasting punishment in hell. Poison is as poison does.
@@PoetGorman Uhm… yeah, well it seems to me that it has been the industrialization of society that has lead to the destruction of our environment. For instance, I don’t think the Dupont company is a Christian based organization.
I really appreciate this video was made in a very non-biased fashion and just presenting the information. I am a geologist in the exploration industry and a lot of the times I find myself caught in the middle. I see BOTH sides almost always. There is way too much fear mongering around these subjects, and I wish we could all just talk to each other civily and find a middle ground. I too want to help our planet and not harm it, the reason I got into geology. To understand the earth better and how it works. I also see the point of view of the locals and try to put myself in their shoes. But I also see the benefits of the industry. We all need to put out differences aside and just talk.
Thank you for commenting Bridget! I too wish we could talk to each civilly on issues like Willow, but unfortunately that seems harder and harder to come by these days. It's part of the reason I made this video - I just wanted to present the information in a way that allowed others to come to their own conclusions and talk reasonably about them, which the comments (so far!!) have done. I've been really happy with the response to this video so far and it seems like its doing what it was intended to do - inform and spark a discussion! Thank you for contributing to that!
This is a very informative video. I make a lot of parts for the oil and gas industry. That being said I am not happy about drilling in more places and would be happy to find another job if it all stopped. Thank you for all the work you do in getting the information needed for your videos.
Thank you for your explanation of the project. I have worked the north slope in NPRA, been to Nuiqsit, and know the Mayor there and one other person. I have worked in the village and lived there for a short time on that project. I have lived in Alaska to 27 years and am still there in Wasilla. This is my very 1st reply to a video on youtube, and I only post this reply because of the balanced presentation that you have made for us in this video. I support the project and wish to point out that the problems in bush Alaska do not come from the development, but from the bad choices of residents that chose to change their way of life after money becomes more available to them. Money does not come with instructions, and it can harm as well as help. I do not know if you have been to NPRA or the village, but to get a better understanding of the issues, you should travel there, meet the people, and live a week or more there. You will see for yourself what is there before Willow, and then could see what happens after Willow. Oil independence is important for America, and will become less important as we transition to different forms of transportation. That is many years away yet and we as a population need to patiently and carefully make the transition. The biggest thing that I look for in a presentation like this is the reason to protest the project. NIMBY is not a reason to deny a project now, just like it was not an acceptable reason when I served on the Wasilla Planning Commission several years ago. In closing, imagine a world today if all oil production stopped. Millions would starve and die, travel would cease as we know it, and it would still be many years before we could begin to return to a normal life as we know it today. Be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it! Again, thank you for a great presentation and I support your position of opposition to Willow.
Thanks for engaging in the dialogue here - I think that goes a long way to getting to the bottom of issues like this. I would respectfully disagree that money is what caused the locals to change their way of life. I think there were forces at play they could not control and that oil and gas development was coming to these places regardless of whether or not they wanted them. Unfortunately, I think, the system thrust upon them forced them to accept that money in order to continue their way of life. Having never lived there or spoken with these communities, this is just my opinion of course. Just an observation I'm making from the outside. Overall, I think it's a pretty complicated situation with no easy answers. Thanks again for your comment.
Except the willow project will lose the state money, $1.6 billion over the 10 years. Climate change is no longer that longterm of a problem, we are looking at THE ENTIRE ARCTIC REGION to be GONE by 2050 (with drastic consequences)...I will be 48 years old. Stopping oil production IS what needs to happen, the world (especially the United States) has enough oil reserves to back us as we transition to renewable energy.
I kinda wish they wouldn’t. It’s an incredibly beautiful place up there. They are all making the wrong decision by allowing this. Thank you for your videos.
@@Chris_at_Home I did work up there for a year back in 2014. I was washing dishes in the camp kitchen 12H a day… Literally the lowest paid guy up there, but a hell of an experience for a 19yo from the south! Even got stalked by a Polar bear while “watching” a table of food that was setup in the hovercraft tent. A few workers came in asking if I heard there was a bear lurking around… Absolutely nuts to look back at now
First off I'd just like to say as always, great video! I've never heard of the Willow Project before this video, and from what I gathered and as you said, it seems like a very complex and divisive topic and I love how you approached it without any sort of bias and presenting the facts in a clear and concise way! Personally I'm torn on the subject and will definitely have to do my own research to look into it more in depth to form a more informed stance, but based on just the information you provided, I find myself in favor of it. It seems like the developers have taken all the right precautions necessary to preserve the environment as much as possible given that it is the oil industry. But the benefit of having American oil readily available and not having to rely on other countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia like you mentioned outweigh the environmental concerns in this situation, especially if it means boosting the economy by providing jobs and lowering the price of gas. And the way I look at it is that while I don't think its a bad thing to begin to move away from it where possible, oil use isn't going away anytime soon and its going to be extracted by these other countries anyways, so why should we continue to leave the ball in their court, when we can actually dictate the terms from which its extracted. Also with pipelines they are in my opinion the most environmentally friendly way to transport oil and other substances that may be harmful to the environment especially if they are buried, which might not be possible as this is the tundra we are taking about, but in other cases like the Keystone pipeline there is essentially no maintenance required with basically 0 chance of a spillage barring any natural disaster or act of God. Hopefully it doesn't disrupt the ecosystem to much although I obviously know that it will interact with it to an extent that in my opinion is almost impossible to predict with certainty. I'm interested to hear your opinion on my stance being on the "opposing side" but I truly believe the best way to bring people together on matters like this, is to have a calm discussion about it. Once again great video, I'm looking forward to the next one! (Sorry for the novel lol)
Thanks so much for a clear, calm, and concise reply! I'm glad you enjoyed the video (thanks, as always, for watching) and found it useful to inform your own opinion. I think you have a reasonable, measured argument and make some good points. As you mentioned, I don't personally fall on that side of the argument given the things that I value more highly in this situation (wildlife and landscape conservation, decarbonization, etc), but I think, as you also mentioned, that the best way to address issues like this is to have discussions about them. We're certainly alike in that regard! I think, for me, the associated infrastructure (roads, pipelines, heavy machinery, etc) and the impacts they will/have the potential to bring (localized air and water pollution, oil spills, habitat fragmentation and disturbance, impacts to subsistence lifestyles) to an incredibly fragile area and community are not worth the potential benefits. That's not to say I don't value energy independence and I certainly don't support lining the pockets of authoritarian regimes, it's just that with my own values and beliefs, I give the environmental impacts more weight. Even writing this right now, I'm thinking about how complicated it all is and can't really fault anyone for their position. Which is, again, why I'm thankful for your well thought out response and willingness to engage in a dialogue. That's how we get to the bottom of these things!
@@NationalParkDiaries Your position seems to be, we need oil, but Not In My Backyard. When there is an oil spill in Venezuela, they typically don't even attempt to clean it up and the leaks can go on for months before being fixed. The oil that gets in the waterways destroy the fishing that the locals subsist on. The existing US regulations are the strictest and some countries we get oil from essentially have no regulations at all. The state of California gets 60% of the oil it uses from foreign countries. A majority of the oil used by California used to come from Alaska but reduced productivity and no new drilling has drastically reduced supply. California is also adverse to drilling in its own state and pipelines to bring it from other states. The connection to the existing Alaska pipeline and infrastructure greatly reduces the need for new infrastructure and reduces the pollution of transportation of oil to California. I heard it said, that the ships that transport oil to California create more pollution than the whole California transportation industry. The Willow project will greatly reduce those emmisions as well as the emmisions of production in unregulated countries. I read a statistic, over a decade ago, that the 13 largest ships create more pollution than all the cars on the planet. The amount of oil produced from the Willow project is only a fraction of reduced Alaska productivity but in some respects, it will reduce global emissions. In other respects, the foreign oil California imports, will still be used elsewhere
I loved your video. I am in support of this project and appreciate that you gave complete information for both sides. We will never be away from carbon based fuels. The reason I say this is in order to generate electricity in the volumes needed for the world to continue to run we have to burn coal and oil to make the electricity for the next line of vehicles. Yes wind farms and solar fields will help, but in the long run it will not be enough. Environmentalists say put up a wind farm oh but not here because this is a bird migration area, or not here it destroys the scenery of the area. Then we are told to build more hydro plants. Once again they say not here it diverts the water from one area or another. Now we are being told solar is the way. The impact of background heat caused by solar panels has not been properly and widely discussed. We are telling people about "global warming", but they are not being told that one acre of solar panels increases the ambient air temperature by 1 to 2 degrees. That does not sound like much until we remember that is only one acre. In order to power a city which are only growing we would need multiple acres to power each city. We need to find a compromise to allow both sides of the argument to join forces and act together in stead of bickering.
Thanks for watching and for sharing your opinion! I think discussions like these are incredibly important if we want to address these complex environmental problems!
I knew the direction you were gonna lean before I watched the video. That being said you did an excellent job of unbiasedly reporting the facts of the situation and the pros and cons that lead people to supporting one side or the other. I love your channel and nature conservation but I personally am a supporter of the willow project. I wish more people on both sides of the argument thought like you and encouraged others to think critically and make their own decisions based on the facts and circumstances of a situation. Thank you for the amazing work you do and for yet another fantastic and informative video.
Thank you, I really appreciate that! I realize that a lot of the issues I talk about on this channel are pretty complicated and very rarely, if ever, are black and white. It's such a core part of my conservation philosophy that the best way to solve complex environmental problems is to help people stay informed about what these problems are and so I always try and present that information in the best way I can so that people can come to a more informed understanding. I have a great audience of people like you who I think are willing to watch and engage with the issues and come to your own conclusions, which I massively appreciate!
I like you, alot. A level headed and critical thinking person who can see arguments from MANY sides without judgement even when some of the arguments clash with your own personal desires. That being clear in your presentation and your calm delivery make you a voice of reason from any side of a debate issue. My own personal view is one of being aware of the reality and the ability to transition our energy outputs from fossil fuels to renewable. There are still way too many shortcomings and thus risks in transitioning TOO fast. The progress is highly promising, especially with the early announced scientific breakthrough involving fusion. I do think that within the next 30 to 50 years, more progress will occur and something which we are yet even aware of will begin to make the transition fast tracked. We've made tremendous strides in cleaning our outputs, I remember the golden yellow smog which CONSTANTLY covered the LA Basin in California, it's practically completely gone, and certainly is tremendously lessened from what it was in the 60's and 70's. I lived in Ca in the 1980's, saw the impacts of cleaner and cleaner industrial and personal emissions. My desire would be that if this project does go forward to it's 30 year completion, then the environmental and societal concerns can be closely monitored and adhered to regulations and verification of continued pre-cautions to the greatest extent possible. I wish you were a politician, because we need level headed critical thinkers and not sound bite driven sensationalists. Thank you. And do keep your fingers on the pulse of our progress and our missteps.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. It's a core belief of mine that if we are to make progress on these complex environmental problems we need to have people informed about them. Some of the coverage about Willow was pretty unhelpful in this regard and, based on the response to this video, I think a lot of people are happy to just get the facts and come to their own conclusion. It's always my intention, with every video I make, to make these issues accessible and understandable, but to allow people to come to their own conclusions as well. That's a really important part of what I do. Thanks for watching, and for contributing to the dialogue!
Thank you for your explanatory video, it's very helpful to better understand the issue. I don't think they should be drilling at all, I agree with your opinion that the move away from fossil fuels towards renewable and eco friendly energy sources is imperative. I can't help but think of the Texaco/Chevron disaster in the Amazon where they didn't line their toxic dumping grounds to prevent seeping toxins into the environment, and given the US and oil company's attitudes towards indigenous people and lands I worry that something similar will happen in Alaska. Not to mention the possibility of oil spills alone.
Not really very even handed pointed out all the so called negative effects it may bring and hardly any of the absolute positive effects it will bring to our stalling the whack jobs from sending us back to,the third world
This was a ver informative video. I really do appreciate that you make clear your own personal stance. Too many commentators simply speak from a limited position as if it were the "truth", rather than the result of a constructed set of assumptions and suggestions.
This was one of the things that troubled me about some of the discourse on this project. I'm not fan of the Willow Project, but I also firmly believe we all need to come to our own conclusions about it from a position of informed understanding, not overly emotional reasoning and fearmongering. For me, that's the best way to oppose projects we don't like (or support ones that we do!)
Yes , teach us to think , ive put my foot in my mouth many a times because of my simpleness and ignores. Thankyou you explained well .coments help too . Saddly this will have no end . We dont conserve what we Got , Thankyou .
An informative and helpful presentation. I knew that there was a major North Slope drilling project in the works, but had not even heard the name "Willow Project". I subscribed to this channel in hopes of more reports handled in similar ways. Thank you!
Thank you and welcome to the community! I always try and make sure my videos are as well researched and thorough as they can be, whether I'm talking about National Parks, public lands issues, or just protected areas in general. I do cover a wide range of topics, but all in service of helping people understand our beautiful protected places. Thanks for being here!
As an Alaskan resident, I fully support this project. With gasoline prices being astronomically high, we need to have this oil-producing project operational as soon as possible. I do understand the concern for environmental issues and I, too, believe in doing whatever we can to offset or even limit projects than can be detrimental to the environment. However, all the reports I have seen suggest that this project will one of the least intrusive on the environment while still providing a much-needed resource for the American public as well as providing many new jobs for our economy. What I find humorous is that one of our own senators, who complained just three months ago on Fox News how the president was dragging his feet on this project and needed to approve it ASAP, has now decided to complain that the project will be detrimental to the state because of environmental concerns despite the fact that he is already on record as opposed to any and all the White House's "worries" about environmental issues! Just another Republican hack who will oppose anything that the current administration does, even when it is good for the country--and the state he represents!
Thank you so much making this video. I fully agree with you. It helps going through all of this having someone who helping others see the effects of things like this. I personally feel so deeply about these issues. But seeing someone discuss it with critical thinking and showing both views on the matter gives me a bit more hopefully in the near future others will start to do the same.
Thanks for watching and engaging here in the comments! I started this channel with the firm belief that education and critical thought can go a long way toward addressing a lot of the conservation issues our planet is facing right now. My hope is that I can always provide people with the best information possible, which they can then use to affect positive change in the world. Might be a bit idealistic lol, but it's my own small way of helping to protect these special places!
Wait wait wait, so the federal government owns the land, leased it to this oil company, and THEY get to keep the oil? THEY get to make billions? We should be keeping the oil and making the billions. And hopefully use it to fund conservancy etc.
Oil leasing is a very common thing on America's public lands and the laws around it can be complicated. I should honestly make a video about how the whole system works.
It it the legacy that was left behind by Inuit and Netsilik ancestors for the benefit of life on earth, not some greedygut Sikuliarsijuituk bastard Oil Company to suck off...
“Once the land all becomes private property, landlords love to reap where they’ve never sowed, and demand rent for even its natural resources.” - Adam Smith
It was initially set aside for oil production and in all the history of oil production on the north slope has been good from a risk benefit standpoint.
I have never heard of this project - and am happy to find such an excellent video on this matter ... here on the other side of the pond we also alway find good reason to destroy the environment and not reduce our carbon footprint - we dig giant holes to burn coal, we ship fracking gas from the US across the Atlantic; and that in view of an already occurring climate catastrophe; it all seems so insane - that often makes me mad: I find your rational and unagitated approach to the topic all the more impressive. Very good and valuable content - thank you!
I try and take this approach with all the videos I make here on the channel as my way of helping people understand National Parks, public lands, and protected places. Thanks for watching - glad I could be of help!
@@iceman9678 > Shipping fracking gas? No idea what you're talking about. Fracking is afaik short for hydraulic fracturing - you can look it up using Google. The gas is then transformed into LNG and literally put onto ships (LNG carriers) to transport it across the ocean to Germany. We could just take the gas out of the pipelines we have with our neighbors (uh, okay - no - that we had before someone blew them up) …. russia was always reliable in this regard, even throughout the cold war. But then there were some US presidents (Trump + Biden, both; what a dream team) convinced that it would be better for the EU economy to buy US gas instead … makes so much sense to transport all that gas across the Atlantic (there was certainly no vested US interest behind it). Now we have a war in Europe ... so what? Even better for the US if you think about its defense industry! > What is the ideal temperature of earth given the impending climate catastrophe? idk … and honestly: I don’t care … I just think: burning fossils like caveman did and throwing our garbage into the ocean and giving a f about future generations is shitty behavior - and imo shitty behavior is just shitty behavior and should and definitely will have consequences ... really: no need to argue about temperature and the weather and such - what nonsense!
As an Alaskan and a lifelong conservation activist, I say bravo to this balanced presentation. While I think that climate change will doom most of humanity, what should be done about it is--well--complicated. As Oscar Wilde famously said, "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
1-- Our society is going to be dependant on fossil fuels for a while, simply because green technologies can't meet the energy demands. 2-- As long as a mining company extract minerals or oil in an *environmentally responsible* way there shouldn't be any problems. And said company should restore the wildlife area back the way they found it. 3-- If done right, this project wouldn't be a "carbon boπb", it would be both economically + environmentally beneficial.
Very well explained, I agree with you, I would not support the project but like you understand why locals would support it. However I would also point out it was set up as a strategic Navel reserve, lets say a military fuel reserve, it was not set up as a general consumer oil reserve and as such should not be used as such. For a start its likely to affect strategic oil supplies in the future and that could have serious implications. By all means set up the infrastructure so access could be obtained if required but the oil is not for sale for short term profit. But we all know what is going to happen huh. When serious $'s are involved nothing gets in the way, animals, people, land, global concerns nor communities
Thanks for watching! I will point out very quickly that once it was transferred from the Navy to Interior and those 2 laws were passed, the Reserve did technically become opened up for commercial oil leasing. Not saying I agree, just correcting for the record lol!
A fantasticly well done video. I've been doing research and trying to find nonbiased sources and you did a great job explaining both sides. I wanted to make sure I was nice and educated before I release my next song, which is a charity single that I will have all proceeds donated to Earthjustice - who are currently suing to stop the Willow Project. Anyways, thanks!😀
I think you did a commendable job creating a video explaining the pros and cons of the Willow Project. I am firmly opposed to the project and disappointed in Biden's approval of it. The Biden administration's argument against spending "taxpayer money" on legal battles is false. Biden does not want to oppose corporate oil money. There is no such thing as "taxpayer money". Taxes do not fund federal spending. Taxes are deleted upon receipt (yes, even those FICA deductions are deleted). Tax money is not recycled. The US government creates new money each time Congress passes and the president signs new spending legislation. People need to learn modern monetary theory (MMT) and they will realize that the old story that government needs to tax before spending is just a story. Spending always comes first. Thanks for another great upload! Sorry I could not make this more personal, but I forget your name.🤷♂ Almost forgot - I'm going to sign up as a Patreon patron.
Haha, thanks for watching and for sharing! My name's Cameron and I appreciate you joining the Patreon! I'm truly grateful for all the support you all give!
Well done and well balance and while my thoughts on Willow do not align with yours I do not disregard those concerns. Thinking back to the original Alaska pipeline I can remember many of the same arguments and yet decades down the line Alaska has benefited for the most part and has modernized. There were winners and losers as there always are but the essence of forward movement and progress is to address where we lose and try to do better, and I think that has been done regardless of how much I personally would love to somehow stop or turn back the hands of time and the advancement of technology. I hope that each step forward is challenged in honest and balanced ways and that we look with understanding at the failures that are inevitable. Positive expectations are more likely to yield positive results, for everyone.
Thanks for watching and for engaging in the dialogue. It's my firm belief that conversations like the ones happening on this video (for the most part lol) are how we begin to address these complex problems. Much appreciated.
@@NationalParkDiaries I just heard about it myself as a friends daughter, currently studying Arctic Ocean ecology and engineering at UAF was attending. I'm not certain if it was in Fairbanks or Anchorage but the conference drew an attendance of several hundred or so it seemed from my brief discussion and the speakers included experts in development and environmental issues as well as the political aspects which I gather, naturally with the current situation with Russia, being prominent. Willow likewise was, according to my source, a major topic.
One correction: the “just under 500 acres” that will be disturbed is incorrect. That figure does not include the hundreds of miles of roads, pipelines, air strips and other infrastructure. This same tactic was used by the oil industry and Republicans when they were attempting to gain access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They would show a map of the refuge with a tiny little square in one corner as if that was the only spot that would be developed instead of the massive web of interconnected drilling pads. Thankfully we Alaskans who knew better were able to convince several key Republican senators in 2002 and save the refuge.
Heck yea. I commented and liked it before I even got a chance to finish watching the whole thing. Lol. First time finding an episode I wanted to watch one minute after it was posted.
I think it will draw many productive people who love the outdoors to that part of Alaska, some will settle down there and that will be a good thing, much like the Alaska pipeline project in the 1970s.
100% agree with you, this definitely sucks, wish alaska would be seen as more than a giant oil field by people, need to fund renewables rather than oil
Thank you for making this video as I’ve stayed away from learning much abt it because of fear mongering, I definitely agree fear mongering is hurting conservation efforts as for this I didn’t know if it was actually bad or just more alarmism
Thanks for watching and I'm glad you found it helpful! Based on a lot of the comments so far, I'd say there were a lot of people who just wanted to understand what this project even is.
New to your channel , Thank you I have not heard of this project . We are in a pickle , we don't have the fuel we need that seid we are not conserving either . We just use more and more like lemming going over a cliff . People need to think what's important what's the real need . I do not travel anymore . Why to hard to navigate . And do I need to . No . I need to take care of my dwelling place . Be content with what I have . Learn what I need . Thank you for your thoughtful report . In salt lake city .
Our tribal ancestors lived in harmony with their own ecosystem for millions of years, not just in early small tribal groups, the size of which so many use to dismiss tribal practises to day, but well into the era of the Celtic Tribal nations that stretched from Portugal to Turkey and the Meditterranean Sea to northern Scotland at their height, and were one of the most innovative cultures in history, responsible for the development of the Iron that we use to name an era. And we, in our Greco-Roman dominated period of a mere two thousand years have brought our species to the brink of disaster and possible extinction. It does not take a genius to see that our system is insanity. We will be the ones to wipe out our millions of years of heritage if we don't change the way we think, not just the way we act. We could start by listening to the wisdom of the people indigenous to Alaska, the people who have loved and lived in harmony with that land for hundreds of thousands of years. They are the smart ones, not us. We are the spoiled toddlers breaking things and pooping our diapers for a living.
I don't know if this is news to you but the "indigenous" people of Alaska purportedly came across the Bearing Land bridge. What makes someone indigenous and why does their opinion have greater weight than anyone else with generations in the same region?
Nice job, thank you. One thing not mentioned, "man camps": "Since the oil boom, Native communities have reported increased rates of human trafficking, sex trafficking, and missing and murdered Indigenous women in their communities.[5] Workers who come to a region for well-paid oil and gas jobs often set up “man camps.”[6] Placed in largely rural areas these camps strain infrastructures in communities that already have inadequate resources to support population booms.[7] In 2015, violent crime reports increased in the Bakken oil-producing region of Montana and North Dakota, due to the socio-economic changes brought to the area with the oil boom.[8] According to one report, sexual assaults on women on the Fort Berthold reservation increased by 75%.[9] Conversely, there was no corresponding rise of violent crimes in the counties outside of the Bakken oil region. In fact, the overall crime rate decreased during this time.[10] Overall, the potential for harm from “man camps” is exacerbated when they are on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands.[11]"
First I want to say that I appreciate how informed your videos are, and that you present not just your own views, but the views of others as well. That is refreshing. The second thing I want to say though is toward the end of this video you assert that it isn't your intention to tell people what to think, but how to think (which I agree with), but then you state how to think about ways to oppose this project. Yet a couple minutes before in the video you stated that there were very good reasons to go through with it. To me it comes across as a bit of double speak to say "Both sides have very good arguments for WIllow" then turn around and say "We need to know how to think about opposing it because it needs to be opposed." That, to me, ended the video on a bit of a low note. Disclosure on my part, I fully believe in the development and promotion of alternative fuels, and would love to see us get to a point where dependence on oil is a thing of the past. At the same time though, there is no one alternative fuel that will satisfy every need. Until alternative fuels (notice the plural) are better developed, promoted, and integrated into our world, the best we can do is to do what we have been doing, but striving to be more responsible with how it's been done. I am no fan of Biden (and just before anyone accuses me I wasn't a fan of Trump, of Obama, or Bush), but scaling back the project is a step toward that responsibility.
Thanks for your comment Christopher. I appreciate your perspective and for contributing (reasonably) to this discussion lol. In regards to the end of the video, I wanted to make a clear transition from the "here are the facts" portion of the video to the "here's my opinion" portion. I made a concerted effort to present both sides of the argument before presenting my own personal thoughts on the Project. I, personally, can understand where the proponents of the Willow Project are coming from, acknowledge the merits of their argument, and still reasonably disagree with their position. That was my intention toward the end - to acknowledge the argument of the other side, disagree with that position, and put forth my own reasons why. When referencing "how to think," I was referring to the facts I presented earlier in the video, that would allow people to come to their own conclusion on Willow and I viewed that as distinct from my own position on the project (which I labeled as my opinion). Again, thanks for your comment and for engaging with me on the issues!
@@NationalParkDiaries Oh I definitely understand it is your opinion, and I would say it's very well informed and not taken strictly from one side's talking points. I hope I presented my only real objection to this video well, and I look forward to seeing more from you. I live not too far from Mammoth Cave, and the Great Smoky Mountains are also within a couple hours drive. IMO the National Park Service was the absolute best thing our federal government has ever established and I'd love to see them stay around for a long time.
@@christophercole8114 Oh, absolutely - you're criticism was well received! And I totally agree on the NPS! I visited Mammoth Cave for the first time last year as well and had an absolute blast. Going to have to make a trip back to that one.
Using fossil fuels is like a snake eating its own tail. Economically it’s supposed to bring many jobs, money for local communities, etc. So purely from an economic standpoint, it seems reasonable to extract these economically beneficial resources. However, socially and environmentally using fossil fuels, especially in the magnitude that the Willow Project is assuming, is absolutely devastating. It has future implications of not being able to meet the under 2 degrees Celsius demand for global warming, and therefore the suffering of billions of people. Why can’t humanity not be self-destructive for once?
Your explanation and analysis is a beauful example of the value of clear critical thinking. That said, one can be fair and balance in describing a controversy and still be passionate about what you think should happen. The Willow Project is a brilliant example about how the overall economic and cultural system we live in has us all trapped and all forced to compromise our deepest values, like loving the land and the critters who live here, including ourselves. Profit has become the foundation of morality in modern western culture, and if you equate "profitable" with "moral," you can do any horrific thing to anyone and anything and call it good as long as it makes a profit. Money is not the root of all evil, but the unfettered love of money is indeed the root of all evil. Valuing money and the obsessive accumulation of wealth above all else, including our neighbors and the land, is the cancer that will end us. But what does a moral person do about that when our livelihoods, our access to food and water and air and shelter and healthcare and education is all monetized, all dependent of the profit morality? Stand our ground and starve? Stand our ground and love our jobs. What we really need is a progressive long game. We need to escape and change the fundamental foundations of Western capitalism that bases every decision on money. And that is just one of the many desstructive beliefs that have become the rules of the game in this culture, and on top of that, we have been taught all of our lives that this profit-driven, hierarchical, patriarchal, militaristic, binary, nature exploiting, economically unequal, racially biases system is the way things have always been in humans, and that is patently false. This system, in fact, is a relatively new world view in human history, for us laregely beginning with Imperial Rome and the monarchies of Europe that it spawned. Social and economic organization through most of human history was tribal (not in that negative sense that the right wing promulgates to keep it down). One need only look to the indigenous peoples now being affected by the Willow Project. Or even to the quintessentiall Eurpean tribal culture of the ancient Celts (which Rome and her kingly descendants hated with a passion, by the way) Those cultures that sustained humanity relatively peacefully and sustainable for tens of thousands of years were and are, egalitarian, non-binary, gender inclusive, nature (ie: "science") honoring, largely animist, educational, sex comfortable, economically sharing (properity not profit), harmony and reciprocity seeking, and environmentally sustainable systems. We do not need to create something new. We need to remember what we forgot. Our doorway to remembering lies with the cultures that our system dismisses and vilifies most strongly, the indigenous, tribal peoples who know how to live within our own ecosystem while sustaining it as it sustains us.
I'm curious what this progressive long game is that takes everyone back to being hunter gatherers. I know the UN wants to get the world to a sustainable 400 million people, but am interested in hearing how we get there, through progress.
@@douglasjacobs882 Wow, you jumped right to the racist, xenophobic bigotry against indegenous people in record time! No one said anything about hunter gatherers, and if that is your sole context for tribal cultures, your education is behind by a few tens of thousands of years.
@@JethroBoDean And this means exactly what? Maybe you could weave an idea or two in here so we can follow your logic in drawing your conclusions. This is like giving the punch line without telling the joke. Try again.
@@PoetGorman he went out of his way to show every possible bad outcome even speculating what might or might not happen when he barely gloss's over the quantitative overwhelmingly up side to having that kind of production in our economy
If there was not a demand for it the project would not exist. Would you prefer the money go to Russia and Saudi Arabia and India (refines Russian oil) instead?
Looking at this from an economics perspective this still seems very short-sighted. Like yes, the world is still dependent on oil. But the world is very much at a crossroads when it comes to a future reduction in demand from greener, cheaper technologies. Additionally, we’ve just about reached peak oil production *now*. Unless the price of this new Alaskan oil is cheap enough to undercut oil in Saudi Arabia or Russia, America at large would still be vulnerable to authoritarian states when it comes to oil prices. Even if this oil can undercut other places (which honestly it likely will), it’s not worth it to prop up the oil industry to stifle green technologies, which will inevitably become dominant. If that happens, from a power and economic perspective, the US will fall behind other nations. So yeah, even from an economic perspective, it’s dumb, imo and this doesn’t even take into account local and global environmental effects.
It's a vicious cycle, absolutely. A project like this really shows us how dependent we are on a resource that's actively harming us and communities that are most vulnerable. A real shame, unfortunately.
@@rbran i agree the sunsetting of the nuclear plants was dumb, and them having to buy coal over the winter was incredible egg on their faces that they do deserve for that move. but also America blowing up the core pipeline infrastructure between Russia and Germany via submersibles as part of their proxy war with Russia certainly didn't help. i'm more referring to how they've built out their green energy production infrastructure for export purposes - photovoltaics specifically but also wind/hydro tech. they'll be incredibly well positioned for what's to come.
My perspective is as a political conservative and skeptic about the environmental effects of anticipated rise in CO2. Now you will wonder why I oppose the Willow project and want to see it at least scaled down as much as the politics of the situation allow. (I doubt it can be scrapped altogether but I think it can be shrunk.) The original concept of the location as being a naval petroleum reserve is puzzling. It is hard to imagine a more vulnerable location to the navies of our long-standing gadflies, Russia and China. Russia, in particular, has territory and territorial waters _much_ closer to the location than the Lower 48 has. This logistical monster has two heads: our naval forces are not helped by maintaining a fuel source in such a vulnerable location, and the commercial side would be an irresistible target in even a low level shooting conflict. A single naval and air strike could put production and storage facilities out of business for a tactically crucial interval. As a skeptic about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, I can still see that the fossil fuel phase of our industrial base is heading for a stone wall somewhere in the darkness ahead. Even with an accelerated move to alternative energy sources we are likely to experience a pinch lasting decades. That pinch can only be controlled by getting ahead of the curve. I don't know how the political side will sort out but both sides have to get their act together. My guess is money and other inducements will change hands to loosen ConocoPhillip's grip. There are not a lot of alternatives.
This project will probably be ok. But on the other hand we still need more research dollars or programs for environment friendly tech. If it's a carbon recycle program, Or one of those si fi clean energy generator that's been kept away from public so far.
Excellent overview of it! And, kudos on the name pronunciation, it's not always easy. I'm, in general, against more development of untouched wilderness, particularly for resources that will most definitely exacerbate the current environmental issues pertaining to global warming. It's a fools progress. It's like we have a credit card and we keep running up a balance on it without really acknowledging the true cost of paying off that balance, plus interest, on down the line. That being said, the Biden administration has it's hands tied. These decisions had already happened and things have been moving forward on this project for several years now. Add to that the current geo-political state of oil politics in the world, i.e. Russia's invasion of it's neighbor, Ukraine, and we have a situation that kind of forces the Biden administrations hand, despite it's attempts to stem the massive flow of CO2 into our atmosphere. I don't like it, but I understand. Things aren't always black and white. Thanks for a fantastic video!
Thanks Mike, glad I got the Alaska seal of approval lol! This was a complicated one for sure, and one of the biggest reasons I wanted to make it is that the general discussion around it seemed to push people to the extremes without really thinking critically about why it was good/bad. I'm opposed to the Willow Project as well (shocking), but I think it's only fair that we give people the information to come to their own conclusion as well!
thank you! this is really helpful i had no idea what to think about this all. i feel like maybe it would be best for alaska to decide what's best for it so if the alaska government & nearby tribal groups support we can let it be. i don't like the sound of making alaska more oil dependent or all those gravel roads and mines though, i imagine they're really ugly and stressful for anyone nearby. like the most nearby settlement that opposed the project, and with that estimate that it would only start producing in 10 years by the time i hope we are much further along transitioning away from oil i worry it won't have been worth all the damage.
Yeah, I can't really blame these communities for supporting it, but it calls attention to the fact their livelihoods and ability to feed their families is directly dependent on a form of extraction that is most threatening to them. Not a good system and one we need to transition away from as soon as possible! Thanks for watching!
Thanks for this informative video. Could you explain what is the connection between the Willow Project and the Alaska LNG project, the pipeline that would go down all the way to Nikiski? Are they related? Can you provide sources for this or do a separate video for it? Thanks!
i mean im against it because its supposed to be a RESERVE for EMERGENCIES. we arent having an emergency right now and we would never have a power emergency if we would go all in on thorium nuclear reactors.
NPR-A national petroleum reserve Alaska. Formally, Naval Petroleum Reserve #4. This is federally designated oil/gas land. This is what it's for. I say if the feds don't want to lease it then give it back to Alaska.
I'm happy it's happening. I try not to take it personal, but it gets really old when folks outside of Alaska cheer and dance when a project gets canned. They are dancing on the poverty of folks and communities that have been projects pulled out from under them every time a president changes.
what about people who can do cause and effect and see how climate change impoverishes the whole world? also the methane fueled heat-death of the species, but yknow not high stakes or anything....wouldnt want some rural scrub to have to reconsider that they live in a society or anything where things interlink and might have to actually take actions dependent on these very obvious facts.
Wildlife and local scale environmental damages that this will cause aside, we need to be lowering our emissions by yesterday. This the equivalent of throwing gas on a fire that we should be trying desperately to put out. I am personally already seeing the climate in my area become more and more unstable over the few years alone.
The more money someone has does have a direct benefit of conservation its the hierarchy of needs , and just like people animals can adapt and overcome if we put thought into how we develop things. But the faster we can get to space to do all our dirty industrial prosses the better this planet will be
Closing this will force off shore drilling and continued coal. You think closing coal fired plants stops coal . Chine is still building new coal plants.
Bro, he's a liar. Everyone running cover for this clown is also a clown. Appreciate the calm and unbiased explanation. Young people need to learn to never trust a politician. Esp if they fly your flag and chant ur mantras
This is an excellent overview. The only piece missing is a forecast of energy needs over the next twenty years. I wish we could just stop burning fossil fuels. Just fast forward to the Great Simplification. Unfortunately the Big Crunch will come first. On our way to simplicity and permaculture we’ll still need to run hospitals and other big things, including the military. Oh, and NASA. Oil production has peaked - horrifyingly. We’re on the worst case IPCC scenario towards increasing heat, sea level, and climate mayhem. The transition to whatever climate regime awaits us will be less traumatic and able to preserve more lives (human) if we have the strength to run heavy equipment, provide warmth and manufacture steel. I hope the oil profile from Willow will produce diesel. I hope the caribou and salmon adapt.
This isn’t Bakersfield, our oil fields are nothing like those in the lower 48. The environmental regulations of Alaska are higher than anywhere else in the U.S. Which are higher than anywhere else in the world. Willow will be less destructive to the environment than the alternatives of foreign oil. Compare this to the current “green energy” project taking place here. 500 acres for willow or the 1500 acre solar farm which will only produce electricity 6 months out of the year, will involve clear cutting forested land and then be fenced off. In comparison Willow is way better for the environment.
You get it. If you really want to see an environmental tragedy look at how much hydrocarbons the NSF has put into the ice above Lake Vostok in Antarctica. In the Alaska Arctic this wouldn't even pass the smell test. But hey, trust the science and trust the NSF.
As an Alaskan resident I've been saying the following on project willow (aka a long term investment in oil). Want to decrease dependency on foreign oil? How about decrease dependance on oil period. Oh it will increase jobs? ANY government project or investments create jobs; why not invest in renewable energy to solve both problems, while simultaneously, decrease carbon emissions, and save the state and it's CITIZENS money (sorry this may not be profitable for oil CEO's). The Willow project from a historical perspective is the dumbest most desperate oil project attempts we have ever seen. THE WILLOW PROJECT (due to the states tax system on oil companies) WILL LOSE THE STATE MONEY!!! EXPERTS THINK IT COULD BE UP TO $1.6 BILLION OVER THE 10 YEARS! There is literally zero benefit (except to already rich oil CEO's) of this project and it will simultaneously destroy the the most beautiful ecosystem in the world.
The video stated it will make money for the feds, state and local people. You must be using financial gymnastics to make a claim that it will cost the state $1.6 billion. If the residents make $1.6 billion from oil royalties, that is a cost to the state? Likewise, if they don't build the project, it will "cost" the state many more billions. It will also cost the residents to build a runway, port, school, medical center, all weather roads, satellite dishes and electrical generators to equip all of those services that the oil company is providing. Solar would be worthless all winter, especially the month that there is no daylight. Wind would need the port and all weather road to get the infrastructure in. The wind generators blades would ice up in the winter and require an alternate energy source to de-ice. The natives cannot afford to install the generators, and even they could, without jobs and equipment, they would be unable to pay for the electricity or maintenance. The state could spend the money they don't collect from the project but instead the oil company will spend their own money to build all the infrastructure and get the required equipment to the area. In other words, the Willow project will enable the residents to build renewables in the area. The money never produced cannot be spent and they will never have access to renewables.
@@douglasjacobs882 The Willow project will only generate money come 2030 (earliest oil company projections used to be 2040). In the meantime the state will be losing revenue (the billion dallors I was referring too) also its assuming it will be profitable based on their future oil price predictions, which if the country and others are switching to renewable energy (as they should be) then oil will be less valuable by the time Willow is drilled and ready for selling. thealaskacurrent.com/2023/03/24/how-much-will-the-willow-project-cost-alaska-it-really-depends/ Solar projects have already happened and they work, they are powering entire villages. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ak_hughes_solar_storage_project.aspx
@@kalebcallahan5793 If I own a shoe factory and decide to expand it, I can write off the business expense of the construction and lower my tax payments, or you could consider it a lose of revenue to the state. When the construction is complete, my revenue will go up and so will the states. If I do not expand the state revenue and my revenue stay the same. The oil revenues have been decreasing for decades. Without new drilling they will disappear in the near term. With new drilling the revenue will go up in the future. The tribe that installed PV-Diesel system is 600 miles south of where the willow project is located. The tribe location might go a month with no daylight, whereas the Willow project area might go 3 months without daylight. I assume that they would need a larger investment in renewables, IF they want electricity. I also assume that it costs more money to get diesel to the Willow project area than the tribe in your linked article. IF there was no more diesel produced in Alaska and it had to be imported from a foreign country, I assume that it would cost even more. The PV-diesel project cost a fifth of what the Willow project but only supplies enough energy to reduce one villages diesel consumption by 25%. To eliminate the usage in the one village would cost as much as the willow project, but of course most of that funding comes from taxpayers, not future profits from a private company. The state could spend a billion dollars per village to allow them to have renewable energy or they can lose a billion dollars in revenue but be able to tax wages, assets and products when the project is completed and receive much more than the lost revenues. The state of California used to get a majority of the oil they use from Alaska but due to the decline in production in Alaska, they now get 60% of the oil they use from foreign countries. Without new drilling in Alaska (and California), the existing wells will be depleted, and California would have to get over 90% of its oil from foreign countries. The ships that transport foreign oil to California create more pollution than the entire transportation industry in California. The transition to EV will reduce the dependance on oil but at the same time increase the dependence on energy from other states. If the other states reduce their usage of fossil fuels like California does, California will have an energy shortage. The US military is the biggest user of energy, more than most countries. Much of our imports come to the US by ships and planes. Do you foresee ships and civilian and military planes, as well as farm equipment transitioning to electricity generated by wind and solar? Will all the materials needed to make wind and solar be transported by renewable energy? From an article I read 5-10 years ago, the 13 largest ships generate more pollution than all the cars on the planet. Some countries, like Germany, have invested heavily in renewable, the result is that their emissions and energy costs have actually increased. The US is one of the few countries that are meeting their goals, by switching from coal to natural gas. For every reduction the US has made, China has added several times over. Many developing countries are increasing the usage of fossil fuels so that they to can have access to clean water and sanitary sewer. The usage of fossil fuels will exist long after 2030.
While I’m not for pollution, the way I see it is: theoretically we go to war maybe even with someone we get a lot of our resources (like oil) if it’s a long term war than we’re screw without the fuel. If we lose a war whoever is in charge may approve willow anyway and be more careless with it. Again that’s all theoretical and maybe an extreme example but the main point is that America needs to be independent. I’m open to be corrected but that’s the way I see it right now
Something is really creepy about progressives being in bed with entities like the oil industry. I wish all countries that operate nuclear reactors including China, North Korea, and Saudis were to set a standard for 4th gen nuclear reactor design and build hundreds of new locations globally with old nuclear power plants being upgraded from 2nd gen to 4th gen. What the French did right was pick a design and build many power plants of the same design to achieve what China did with their high speed rail network. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build because they're largely one-off designs like coach building. If All of the countries were to standardize equipment such as power substations, cooling towers, Office administration building,spent fuel rods, cooling pools, spent fuel storage casks, and steam turbines then costs would dramatically come down. If coal power plant sites are extremely contaminated with pollution then why not convert them from to nuclear power such as reusing the steam cooling towers of coal power plants for nuclear? There has been discussions about the idea with lots of support from the locals who don't want their communities to die off as they know their power plants are getting to become too old. Rather than to subsidize the oil industry such as ethanol corn subsidies why not subsidize spent fuel reprocessing? It's going to be disgusting that when we do have fusion power plants people will try to use 80 year old nuclear accident to try to stop the Fusion power industry from taking off.
We need more people like yourself that can think critical and not shy away from counter arguments. This is very well put together. Thank you.
Much appreciated, thanks for watching!
I think the biggest takeaway from this is how badly Alaska needs to supplement its economy with something other than the Petroleum Industry.
I agree. I think this project goes to show the Catch-22 of having an economy, and thus people's livelihoods, dependent on something we desperately need to transition away from.
Yes we have very little industry besides natural resources which then people are against developing the project like Willow, Ambler mine, or logging in the Tongas.
The problem is that nothing can really fit the void in Alaska's economy that oil and gas fills. Alaska is a very remote place with a polar climate, and that significantly limits the opportunities available to it. Just about everywhere that can support farming in Alaska already has farms because the rest of the state is simply too cold. Any manufacturing or service activity would be at a massive disadvantage because of Alaska's distance from every consumer market on the planet. Sure, tourism could grow, but it is again limited by Alaska's short summers, cold winters, and remoteness. That pretty much leaves things like fishing, hydroelectric power, and mining as the only available non-O&G economic activities, and each of those also has significant environmental impacts.
Like what fishing? Then you nutjobs would complain about that
biden is starting to act like trump.
finally he is is acting smart
What irks me probably the most about the opposition to projects like the Willow Project is that these people tend to include many of the same who are also opposed to nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuel. In a recent video documentary by Kyle Hill on TMI it was described perfectly how 'environmental groups' had already made up their mind how this event was going to be portrayed, and by the time 1986 rolled around, the Chornobyl disaster was used as further justification to halt any and all further nuclear power constructions.
That nuclear power has (limited) lethality only when something does go wrong, but that fossil fuel usage will definitely kill, cripple and pollute under normal operating conditions (let alone things like fly ash pool spills) in addition to the potential for climate change is hereby so conveniently ignored. All of this is basically why we are here today, and why the Willow Project is even being considered. When Alaskan communities are running largely off diesel generators - if they can afford this at all - it's not hard to see why something like this oil project holds so much hope for those remote, small communities.
Not to mention that the fossil fuel industry dumped a ton of money into the anti nuclear message also to keep their monopoly on power generation. Nuclear power has also progressed generations ahead of the kinds of plants used 40 or 50 years ago and are immeasurably safer and less radioactive. With new developments in the technology and safety of plants they are almost impossible to have a major accident like Chernobyl. But with all of the campaigning against it all those years ago the door got slammed shut on it and caused any discussion of it to disappear. If people actually were informed of the truth about the current situation with regards to the safety and clean energy produced in massive amounts it could help with cleaning up the energy sector in a massive way. Fortunately people are starting to talk about some of these things a bit and hopefully that gets the ball rolling because it would be a great help for climate issues and they already have designs and testing done on new reactors so we could get going almost immediately.
Thank you for explaining without just trying to get everyone riled up! I think the whole idea of "well, my hands are tied but we'll make it not as bad," is a mindset that a lot of us have. It's not a good thing though...it's a way to allow us to continue on with our lives while we harm the earth
That's a great point. The idealist in me says we can't keep using that as a crutch, but the pragmatist in me welcomes anything that's "not as bad" at this point lol. Goes to show the dire state of our environment and how badly we need to preserve it.
@@NationalParkDiaries Too often we go around in circles because we don't see outside our own dominater exploitation colonizing box. People lived on this planet for tens of thousands of year without destroying their environmental homes. Instead of listening to urban based leaders and holy books, they listened to the earth and matched their rhythms and actions to the earth. It's that simple. They were also animists, so they did not see the rest of the planet as unimportant raw materials for our whims. Our culture suffers under two delusions that make it almost impossible to get in sync with the rest of our ecosystem. We think we are above it all, and we think some dude in a cloud "gave" it all to us to use any way we want. That was the beginning of the end of our ability to harmonize with the rest of the planet.
@@PoetGorman I don’t think anyone who believes in a creator God thinks that this creator God wants them to poison the earth while extracting resources from it. That line of thinking seems incongruent with the belief that there is a natural order.
@@Yay-hovah That depends on how you define natural order, on the actual reality of the natural world or some dispensational teaching that says hierarchy and patriarchy and anthropocentrism ARE the natural order, and that animism and environmental synchronicity are blasphemous, as conservative Christians almost always say. History tells the story. We westerners didn't start destroying our own environment until Romanize Christianity took over the religious and philosophic landscape of Europe and her colonies. The pre-Christian, tribal peoples lived sustainably on the earth for tens of thousands of years without throwing it out of balance, much less bringing it to the brink of irreversible disaster. And yet they are the ones we are taught are "unsaved" "unredeemed" and bound for everylasting punishment in hell.
Poison is as poison does.
@@PoetGorman Uhm… yeah, well it seems to me that it has been the industrialization of society that has lead to the destruction of our environment. For instance, I don’t think the Dupont company is a Christian based organization.
I really appreciate this video was made in a very non-biased fashion and just presenting the information. I am a geologist in the exploration industry and a lot of the times I find myself caught in the middle. I see BOTH sides almost always. There is way too much fear mongering around these subjects, and I wish we could all just talk to each other civily and find a middle ground. I too want to help our planet and not harm it, the reason I got into geology. To understand the earth better and how it works. I also see the point of view of the locals and try to put myself in their shoes. But I also see the benefits of the industry. We all need to put out differences aside and just talk.
Also, why do we always have to pick a side? I see both, so I'm staying neutral.
Thank you for commenting Bridget! I too wish we could talk to each civilly on issues like Willow, but unfortunately that seems harder and harder to come by these days. It's part of the reason I made this video - I just wanted to present the information in a way that allowed others to come to their own conclusions and talk reasonably about them, which the comments (so far!!) have done. I've been really happy with the response to this video so far and it seems like its doing what it was intended to do - inform and spark a discussion! Thank you for contributing to that!
Resource development is staight out parasite behavior... live by the law of the minimum, them We'll accept you as equals, and human.
quit your job
Amen
You are an honorable man. You made you points, discussed opposing views and ended with a call to reason. Good luck to you in all your endeavors.
Thanks so much and thank you for watching!
This is a very informative video. I make a lot of parts for the oil and gas industry. That being said I am not happy about drilling in more places and would be happy to find another job if it all stopped. Thank you for all the work you do in getting the information needed for your videos.
Thank you for watching them! I'm glad I have an audience who is interested in these sorts of things lol!
Thank you for your explanation of the project. I have worked the north slope in NPRA, been to Nuiqsit, and know the Mayor there and one other person. I have worked in the village and lived there for a short time on that project. I have lived in Alaska to 27 years and am still there in Wasilla. This is my very 1st reply to a video on youtube, and I only post this reply because of the balanced presentation that you have made for us in this video. I support the project and wish to point out that the problems in bush Alaska do not come from the development, but from the bad choices of residents that chose to change their way of life after money becomes more available to them. Money does not come with instructions, and it can harm as well as help. I do not know if you have been to NPRA or the village, but to get a better understanding of the issues, you should travel there, meet the people, and live a week or more there. You will see for yourself what is there before Willow, and then could see what happens after Willow. Oil independence is important for America, and will become less important as we transition to different forms of transportation. That is many years away yet and we as a population need to patiently and carefully make the transition. The biggest thing that I look for in a presentation like this is the reason to protest the project. NIMBY is not a reason to deny a project now, just like it was not an acceptable reason when I served on the Wasilla Planning Commission several years ago. In closing, imagine a world today if all oil production stopped. Millions would starve and die, travel would cease as we know it, and it would still be many years before we could begin to return to a normal life as we know it today. Be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it! Again, thank you for a great presentation and I support your position of opposition to Willow.
Thanks for engaging in the dialogue here - I think that goes a long way to getting to the bottom of issues like this. I would respectfully disagree that money is what caused the locals to change their way of life. I think there were forces at play they could not control and that oil and gas development was coming to these places regardless of whether or not they wanted them. Unfortunately, I think, the system thrust upon them forced them to accept that money in order to continue their way of life. Having never lived there or spoken with these communities, this is just my opinion of course. Just an observation I'm making from the outside. Overall, I think it's a pretty complicated situation with no easy answers. Thanks again for your comment.
Except the willow project will lose the state money, $1.6 billion over the 10 years. Climate change is no longer that longterm of a problem, we are looking at THE ENTIRE ARCTIC REGION to be GONE by 2050 (with drastic consequences)...I will be 48 years old. Stopping oil production IS what needs to happen, the world (especially the United States) has enough oil reserves to back us as we transition to renewable energy.
That explanation is simply where many fellow humans consciousness currently is at.
Do you have any idea when they will be a demand for Frac sand haulers for this project? Thank you for the comment as well.
Great, comprehensive video. Thank you for making it.
Thank you for watching it!
I kinda wish they wouldn’t. It’s an incredibly beautiful place up there. They are all making the wrong decision by allowing this. Thank you for your videos.
Yes, it is far more beautiful than Saudi Arabia, so we should just tanker oil across the ocean. Leave the US alone. Trash other nations.
Thank you for watching, your support means a lot!
So I take it you have been there a bunch.
@@Chris_at_Home I did work up there for a year back in 2014. I was washing dishes in the camp kitchen 12H a day… Literally the lowest paid guy up there, but a hell of an experience for a 19yo from the south! Even got stalked by a Polar bear while “watching” a table of food that was setup in the hovercraft tent. A few workers came in asking if I heard there was a bear lurking around… Absolutely nuts to look back at now
Are you being serious? I worked on alaskas north slope for 10 years. Its nothing even close to beautiful.
Awesome to find someone who gives both sides of a story and who encourages people to do their own research.
Thanks for watching, much appreciated.
First off I'd just like to say as always, great video! I've never heard of the Willow Project before this video, and from what I gathered and as you said, it seems like a very complex and divisive topic and I love how you approached it without any sort of bias and presenting the facts in a clear and concise way! Personally I'm torn on the subject and will definitely have to do my own research to look into it more in depth to form a more informed stance, but based on just the information you provided, I find myself in favor of it.
It seems like the developers have taken all the right precautions necessary to preserve the environment as much as possible given that it is the oil industry. But the benefit of having American oil readily available and not having to rely on other countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia like you mentioned outweigh the environmental concerns in this situation, especially if it means boosting the economy by providing jobs and lowering the price of gas. And the way I look at it is that while I don't think its a bad thing to begin to move away from it where possible, oil use isn't going away anytime soon and its going to be extracted by these other countries anyways, so why should we continue to leave the ball in their court, when we can actually dictate the terms from which its extracted.
Also with pipelines they are in my opinion the most environmentally friendly way to transport oil and other substances that may be harmful to the environment especially if they are buried, which might not be possible as this is the tundra we are taking about, but in other cases like the Keystone pipeline there is essentially no maintenance required with basically 0 chance of a spillage barring any natural disaster or act of God. Hopefully it doesn't disrupt the ecosystem to much although I obviously know that it will interact with it to an extent that in my opinion is almost impossible to predict with certainty.
I'm interested to hear your opinion on my stance being on the "opposing side" but I truly believe the best way to bring people together on matters like this, is to have a calm discussion about it. Once again great video, I'm looking forward to the next one! (Sorry for the novel lol)
Thanks so much for a clear, calm, and concise reply! I'm glad you enjoyed the video (thanks, as always, for watching) and found it useful to inform your own opinion. I think you have a reasonable, measured argument and make some good points. As you mentioned, I don't personally fall on that side of the argument given the things that I value more highly in this situation (wildlife and landscape conservation, decarbonization, etc), but I think, as you also mentioned, that the best way to address issues like this is to have discussions about them. We're certainly alike in that regard! I think, for me, the associated infrastructure (roads, pipelines, heavy machinery, etc) and the impacts they will/have the potential to bring (localized air and water pollution, oil spills, habitat fragmentation and disturbance, impacts to subsistence lifestyles) to an incredibly fragile area and community are not worth the potential benefits. That's not to say I don't value energy independence and I certainly don't support lining the pockets of authoritarian regimes, it's just that with my own values and beliefs, I give the environmental impacts more weight. Even writing this right now, I'm thinking about how complicated it all is and can't really fault anyone for their position. Which is, again, why I'm thankful for your well thought out response and willingness to engage in a dialogue. That's how we get to the bottom of these things!
@@NationalParkDiaries
Your position seems to be, we need oil, but Not In My Backyard.
When there is an oil spill in Venezuela, they typically don't even attempt to clean it up and the leaks can go on for months before being fixed. The oil that gets in the waterways destroy the fishing that the locals subsist on. The existing US regulations are the strictest and some countries we get oil from essentially have no regulations at all.
The state of California gets 60% of the oil it uses from foreign countries. A majority of the oil used by California used to come from Alaska but reduced productivity and no new drilling has drastically reduced supply. California is also adverse to drilling in its own state and pipelines to bring it from other states.
The connection to the existing Alaska pipeline and infrastructure greatly reduces the need for new infrastructure and reduces the pollution of transportation of oil to California. I heard it said, that the ships that transport oil to California create more pollution than the whole California transportation industry. The Willow project will greatly reduce those emmisions as well as the emmisions of production in unregulated countries.
I read a statistic, over a decade ago, that the 13 largest ships create more pollution than all the cars on the planet.
The amount of oil produced from the Willow project is only a fraction of reduced Alaska productivity but in some respects, it will reduce global emissions. In other respects, the foreign oil California imports, will still be used elsewhere
You are fantastic educator and the world is better off with you and your videos in it. Keep at it man, you're crushing it.
Thank you so much, that means a lot! I'll keep making them if you all keep watching them!
I loved your video. I am in support of this project and appreciate that you gave complete information for both sides. We will never be away from carbon based fuels. The reason I say this is in order to generate electricity in the volumes needed for the world to continue to run we have to burn coal and oil to make the electricity for the next line of vehicles. Yes wind farms and solar fields will help, but in the long run it will not be enough. Environmentalists say put up a wind farm oh but not here because this is a bird migration area, or not here it destroys the scenery of the area. Then we are told to build more hydro plants. Once again they say not here it diverts the water from one area or another. Now we are being told solar is the way. The impact of background heat caused by solar panels has not been properly and widely discussed. We are telling people about "global warming", but they are not being told that one acre of solar panels increases the ambient air temperature by 1 to 2 degrees. That does not sound like much until we remember that is only one acre. In order to power a city which are only growing we would need multiple acres to power each city. We need to find a compromise to allow both sides of the argument to join forces and act together in stead of bickering.
Thanks for watching and for sharing your opinion! I think discussions like these are incredibly important if we want to address these complex environmental problems!
I knew the direction you were gonna lean before I watched the video. That being said you did an excellent job of unbiasedly reporting the facts of the situation and the pros and cons that lead people to supporting one side or the other. I love your channel and nature conservation but I personally am a supporter of the willow project. I wish more people on both sides of the argument thought like you and encouraged others to think critically and make their own decisions based on the facts and circumstances of a situation. Thank you for the amazing work you do and for yet another fantastic and informative video.
Thank you, I really appreciate that! I realize that a lot of the issues I talk about on this channel are pretty complicated and very rarely, if ever, are black and white. It's such a core part of my conservation philosophy that the best way to solve complex environmental problems is to help people stay informed about what these problems are and so I always try and present that information in the best way I can so that people can come to a more informed understanding. I have a great audience of people like you who I think are willing to watch and engage with the issues and come to your own conclusions, which I massively appreciate!
I like you, alot. A level headed and critical thinking person who can see arguments from MANY sides without judgement even when some of the arguments clash with your own personal desires. That being clear in your presentation and your calm delivery make you a voice of reason from any side of a debate issue. My own personal view is one of being aware of the reality and the ability to transition our energy outputs from fossil fuels to renewable. There are still way too many shortcomings and thus risks in transitioning TOO fast. The progress is highly promising, especially with the early announced scientific breakthrough involving fusion. I do think that within the next 30 to 50 years, more progress will occur and something which we are yet even aware of will begin to make the transition fast tracked. We've made tremendous strides in cleaning our outputs, I remember the golden yellow smog which CONSTANTLY covered the LA Basin in California, it's practically completely gone, and certainly is tremendously lessened from what it was in the 60's and 70's. I lived in Ca in the 1980's, saw the impacts of cleaner and cleaner industrial and personal emissions. My desire would be that if this project does go forward to it's 30 year completion, then the environmental and societal concerns can be closely monitored and adhered to regulations and verification of continued pre-cautions to the greatest extent possible. I wish you were a politician, because we need level headed critical thinkers and not sound bite driven sensationalists. Thank you. And do keep your fingers on the pulse of our progress and our missteps.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. It's a core belief of mine that if we are to make progress on these complex environmental problems we need to have people informed about them. Some of the coverage about Willow was pretty unhelpful in this regard and, based on the response to this video, I think a lot of people are happy to just get the facts and come to their own conclusion. It's always my intention, with every video I make, to make these issues accessible and understandable, but to allow people to come to their own conclusions as well. That's a really important part of what I do. Thanks for watching, and for contributing to the dialogue!
Thank you for your explanatory video, it's very helpful to better understand the issue. I don't think they should be drilling at all, I agree with your opinion that the move away from fossil fuels towards renewable and eco friendly energy sources is imperative. I can't help but think of the Texaco/Chevron disaster in the Amazon where they didn't line their toxic dumping grounds to prevent seeping toxins into the environment, and given the US and oil company's attitudes towards indigenous people and lands I worry that something similar will happen in Alaska. Not to mention the possibility of oil spills alone.
I'm glad you found it helpful and thanks for watching!
Surprisingly evenhanded for an environmentalist
I look forward to seeing this project go forward
Not really very even handed pointed out all the so called negative effects it may bring and hardly any of the absolute positive effects it will bring to our stalling the whack jobs from sending us back to,the third world
thank you for the video. Me and Laura hav jused it so gud for avr englis exam
@@antonperticai4747 jea i luv thæ video and tank you so motch #stayswag
@@Laurakondrup National park diarreah🤣🤣🤣🤣
fanks for de riplys gays, aim so tankfål
Very sober and informative analysis, always appreciate your well created videos.
Thank you so much!
The way you present this information makes everything so clear. Thank you.
Glad I could help - thank you for watching!
This was a ver informative video. I really do appreciate that you make clear your own personal stance. Too many commentators simply speak from a limited position as if it were the "truth", rather than the result of a constructed set of assumptions and suggestions.
This was one of the things that troubled me about some of the discourse on this project. I'm not fan of the Willow Project, but I also firmly believe we all need to come to our own conclusions about it from a position of informed understanding, not overly emotional reasoning and fearmongering. For me, that's the best way to oppose projects we don't like (or support ones that we do!)
Thankyou for educating us❤
Thanks for watching!
Money isn't everything. It means nothing if we get wiped off a dying planet
👆
Yes , teach us to think , ive put my foot in my mouth many a times because of my simpleness and ignores.
Thankyou you explained well .coments help too .
Saddly this will have no end .
We dont conserve what we Got ,
Thankyou .
An informative and helpful presentation. I knew that there was a major North Slope drilling project in the works, but had not even heard the name "Willow Project". I subscribed to this channel in hopes of more reports handled in similar ways. Thank you!
Thank you and welcome to the community! I always try and make sure my videos are as well researched and thorough as they can be, whether I'm talking about National Parks, public lands issues, or just protected areas in general. I do cover a wide range of topics, but all in service of helping people understand our beautiful protected places. Thanks for being here!
As an Alaskan resident, I fully support this project. With gasoline prices being astronomically high, we need to have this oil-producing project operational as soon as possible. I do understand the concern for environmental issues and I, too, believe in doing whatever we can to offset or even limit projects than can be detrimental to the environment. However, all the reports I have seen suggest that this project will one of the least intrusive on the environment while still providing a much-needed resource for the American public as well as providing many new jobs for our economy.
What I find humorous is that one of our own senators, who complained just three months ago on Fox News how the president was dragging his feet on this project and needed to approve it ASAP, has now decided to complain that the project will be detrimental to the state because of environmental concerns despite the fact that he is already on record as opposed to any and all the White House's "worries" about environmental issues! Just another Republican hack who will oppose anything that the current administration does, even when it is good for the country--and the state he represents!
Thank you for this segment.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much making this video. I fully agree with you. It helps going through all of this having someone who helping others see the effects of things like this. I personally feel so deeply about these issues. But seeing someone discuss it with critical thinking and showing both views on the matter gives me a bit more hopefully in the near future others will start to do the same.
Thanks for watching and engaging here in the comments! I started this channel with the firm belief that education and critical thought can go a long way toward addressing a lot of the conservation issues our planet is facing right now. My hope is that I can always provide people with the best information possible, which they can then use to affect positive change in the world. Might be a bit idealistic lol, but it's my own small way of helping to protect these special places!
Best Ted talk I've ever seen
Hahaha, thank you!
Wait wait wait, so the federal government owns the land, leased it to this oil company, and THEY get to keep the oil? THEY get to make billions? We should be keeping the oil and making the billions. And hopefully use it to fund conservancy etc.
Oil leasing is a very common thing on America's public lands and the laws around it can be complicated. I should honestly make a video about how the whole system works.
It it the legacy that was left behind by Inuit and Netsilik ancestors for the benefit of life on earth, not some greedygut Sikuliarsijuituk bastard Oil Company to suck off...
“Once the land all becomes private property, landlords love to reap where they’ve never sowed, and demand rent for even its natural resources.” - Adam Smith
It was initially set aside for oil production and in all the history of oil production on the north slope has been good from a risk benefit standpoint.
I have never heard of this project - and am happy to find such an excellent video on this matter ... here on the other side of the pond we also alway find good reason to destroy the environment and not reduce our carbon footprint - we dig giant holes to burn coal, we ship fracking gas from the US across the Atlantic; and that in view of an already occurring climate catastrophe; it all seems so insane - that often makes me mad: I find your rational and unagitated approach to the topic all the more impressive. Very good and valuable content - thank you!
I try and take this approach with all the videos I make here on the channel as my way of helping people understand National Parks, public lands, and protected places. Thanks for watching - glad I could be of help!
Shipping fracking gas? No idea what you're talking about.
What is the ideal temperature of earth given the impending climate catastrophe?
@@iceman9678
> Shipping fracking gas? No idea what you're talking about.
Fracking is afaik short for hydraulic fracturing - you can look it up using Google. The gas is then transformed into LNG and literally put onto ships (LNG carriers) to transport it across the ocean to Germany. We could just take the gas out of the pipelines we have with our neighbors (uh, okay - no - that we had before someone blew them up) …. russia was always reliable in this regard, even throughout the cold war. But then there were some US presidents (Trump + Biden, both; what a dream team) convinced that it would be better for the EU economy to buy US gas instead … makes so much sense to transport all that gas across the Atlantic (there was certainly no vested US interest behind it). Now we have a war in Europe ... so what? Even better for the US if you think about its defense industry!
> What is the ideal temperature of earth given the impending climate catastrophe?
idk … and honestly: I don’t care … I just think: burning fossils like caveman did and throwing our garbage into the ocean and giving a f about future generations is shitty behavior - and imo shitty behavior is just shitty behavior and should and definitely will have consequences ... really: no need to argue about temperature and the weather and such - what nonsense!
Thank you. This was really great.
WOW, thank you!!
Thank you for the detail and facts..
Thank you for watching!
As an Alaskan and a lifelong conservation activist, I say bravo to this balanced presentation. While I think that climate change will doom most of humanity, what should be done about it is--well--complicated. As Oscar Wilde famously said, "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
Thanks for watching, and glad you found it helpful! Totally agreed on the "complicated" part. Complicated problems require complicated solutions!
What is the ideal temperature of earth? If you believe there's impending doom, where should we be?
1-- Our society is going to be dependant on fossil fuels for a while, simply because green technologies can't meet the energy demands.
2-- As long as a mining company extract minerals or oil in an *environmentally responsible* way there shouldn't be any problems. And said company should restore the wildlife area back the way they found it.
3-- If done right, this project wouldn't be a "carbon boπb", it would be both economically + environmentally beneficial.
Very well explained, I agree with you, I would not support the project but like you understand why locals would support it. However I would also point out it was set up as a strategic Navel reserve, lets say a military fuel reserve, it was not set up as a general consumer oil reserve and as such should not be used as such. For a start its likely to affect strategic oil supplies in the future and that could have serious implications. By all means set up the infrastructure so access could be obtained if required but the oil is not for sale for short term profit. But we all know what is going to happen huh. When serious $'s are involved nothing gets in the way, animals, people, land, global concerns nor communities
Thanks for watching! I will point out very quickly that once it was transferred from the Navy to Interior and those 2 laws were passed, the Reserve did technically become opened up for commercial oil leasing. Not saying I agree, just correcting for the record lol!
A fantasticly well done video. I've been doing research and trying to find nonbiased sources and you did a great job explaining both sides. I wanted to make sure I was nice and educated before I release my next song, which is a charity single that I will have all proceeds donated to Earthjustice - who are currently suing to stop the Willow Project. Anyways, thanks!😀
Thanks so much for watching, glad I could help!
I think you did a commendable job creating a video explaining the pros and cons of the Willow Project. I am firmly opposed to the project and disappointed in Biden's approval of it. The Biden administration's argument against spending "taxpayer money" on legal battles is false. Biden does not want to oppose corporate oil money. There is no such thing as "taxpayer money". Taxes do not fund federal spending. Taxes are deleted upon receipt (yes, even those FICA deductions are deleted). Tax money is not recycled. The US government creates new money each time Congress passes and the president signs new spending legislation. People need to learn modern monetary theory (MMT) and they will realize that the old story that government needs to tax before spending is just a story. Spending always comes first.
Thanks for another great upload! Sorry I could not make this more personal, but I forget your name.🤷♂
Almost forgot - I'm going to sign up as a Patreon patron.
Haha, thanks for watching and for sharing! My name's Cameron and I appreciate you joining the Patreon! I'm truly grateful for all the support you all give!
If it means cheaper gasoline here in Detroit I vote Yes
spoiler: it does not. oil is sold on international markets. just as the keystone XL was designed to export fossil fuels to China.
Yes and no. Look into the Jones Act. Alaska oil must go to the lower 48.
Great analysis! Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
Great video. If anyone reading asks... "how can I protest this as an individual citizen? " --- buy an EV ... stop buying huge oversized suv.
Thanks for watching!
Well done and well balance and while my thoughts on Willow do not align with yours I do not disregard those concerns. Thinking back to the original Alaska pipeline I can remember many of the same arguments and yet decades down the line Alaska has benefited for the most part and has modernized. There were winners and losers as there always are but the essence of forward movement and progress is to address where we lose and try to do better, and I think that has been done regardless of how much I personally would love to somehow stop or turn back the hands of time and the advancement of technology. I hope that each step forward is challenged in honest and balanced ways and that we look with understanding at the failures that are inevitable. Positive expectations are more likely to yield positive results, for everyone.
Thanks for watching and for engaging in the dialogue. It's my firm belief that conversations like the ones happening on this video (for the most part lol) are how we begin to address these complex problems. Much appreciated.
@@NationalParkDiaries thanks for your response to my comment. Just curious; were you in attendance at the recent Arctic Encounters forum?
@@416dl I was not. I haven't heard of it. Could you provide me with some more info?
@@NationalParkDiaries I just heard about it myself as a friends daughter, currently studying Arctic Ocean ecology and engineering at UAF was attending. I'm not certain if it was in Fairbanks or Anchorage but the conference drew an attendance of several hundred or so it seemed from my brief discussion and the speakers included experts in development and environmental issues as well as the political aspects which I gather, naturally with the current situation with Russia, being prominent. Willow likewise was, according to my source, a major topic.
One correction: the “just under 500 acres” that will be disturbed is incorrect. That figure does not include the hundreds of miles of roads, pipelines, air strips and other infrastructure. This same tactic was used by the oil industry and Republicans when they were attempting to gain access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They would show a map of the refuge with a tiny little square in one corner as if that was the only spot that would be developed instead of the massive web of interconnected drilling pads. Thankfully we Alaskans who knew better were able to convince several key Republican senators in 2002 and save the refuge.
Dang. I had to watch the end and you had to tell me your position for me to know you were against it. That's refreshing.
Thank you for doing this!
Thank you for watching!
Heck yea. I commented and liked it before I even got a chance to finish watching the whole thing. Lol. First time finding an episode I wanted to watch one minute after it was posted.
@@kimberchick8527 Haha, I'm glad!
Excellent analysis.
Thank you!
I think it will draw many productive people who love the outdoors to that part of Alaska, some will settle down there and that will be a good thing, much like the Alaska pipeline project in the 1970s.
My village Nuiqsut yeah keep it going west nothing wrong with rings outside my village
Well said! Thanks for explaining this so well.
Thank you!!
Thanks for the video. God bless 🙏
Appreciate it, thanks for watching!
What a fantastic video
Thank you!
100% agree with you, this definitely sucks, wish alaska would be seen as more than a giant oil field by people, need to fund renewables rather than oil
Alaska is definitely not just an oilfield. It is also a giant resource for gold and seafood.
Thank you for making this video as I’ve stayed away from learning much abt it because of fear mongering, I definitely agree fear mongering is hurting conservation efforts as for this I didn’t know if it was actually bad or just more alarmism
Thanks for watching and I'm glad you found it helpful! Based on a lot of the comments so far, I'd say there were a lot of people who just wanted to understand what this project even is.
I just noticed the Dune books on your shelf. Mad respect 😎
Great series. Got so weird the longer it went on but I loved it lol
@@NationalParkDiaries Completely agree lol
New to your channel ,
Thank you I have not heard of this project .
We are in a pickle , we don't have the fuel we need that seid we are not conserving either .
We just use more and more like lemming going over a cliff .
People need to think what's important what's the real need .
I do not travel anymore . Why to hard to navigate . And do I need to .
No . I need to take care of my dwelling place .
Be content with what I have . Learn what I need .
Thank you for your thoughtful report .
In salt lake city .
Beautifully argued
Thank you!
Thanks for the awesome content and great video!!!
Thank you for watching!
GREAT JOB...
Thanks!
Our tribal ancestors lived in harmony with their own ecosystem for millions of years, not just in early small tribal groups, the size of which so many use to dismiss tribal practises to day, but well into the era of the Celtic Tribal nations that stretched from Portugal to Turkey and the Meditterranean Sea to northern Scotland at their height, and were one of the most innovative cultures in history, responsible for the development of the Iron that we use to name an era. And we, in our Greco-Roman dominated period of a mere two thousand years have brought our species to the brink of disaster and possible extinction. It does not take a genius to see that our system is insanity. We will be the ones to wipe out our millions of years of heritage if we don't change the way we think, not just the way we act. We could start by listening to the wisdom of the people indigenous to Alaska, the people who have loved and lived in harmony with that land for hundreds of thousands of years. They are the smart ones, not us. We are the spoiled toddlers breaking things and pooping our diapers for a living.
I don't know if this is news to you but the "indigenous" people of Alaska purportedly came across the Bearing Land bridge.
What makes someone indigenous and why does their opinion have greater weight than anyone else with generations in the same region?
Nice job, thank you.
One thing not mentioned, "man camps":
"Since the oil boom, Native communities have reported increased rates of human trafficking, sex trafficking, and missing and murdered Indigenous women in their communities.[5] Workers who come to a region for well-paid oil and gas jobs often set up “man camps.”[6] Placed in largely rural areas these camps strain infrastructures in communities that already have inadequate resources to support population booms.[7] In 2015, violent crime reports increased in the Bakken oil-producing region of Montana and North Dakota, due to the socio-economic changes brought to the area with the oil boom.[8] According to one report, sexual assaults on women on the Fort Berthold reservation increased by 75%.[9] Conversely, there was no corresponding rise of violent crimes in the counties outside of the Bakken oil region. In fact, the overall crime rate decreased during this time.[10] Overall, the potential for harm from “man camps” is exacerbated when they are on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands.[11]"
What do you know about Alaska "man camps" and Alaska villages?
Nice copy pasta.
First I want to say that I appreciate how informed your videos are, and that you present not just your own views, but the views of others as well. That is refreshing. The second thing I want to say though is toward the end of this video you assert that it isn't your intention to tell people what to think, but how to think (which I agree with), but then you state how to think about ways to oppose this project. Yet a couple minutes before in the video you stated that there were very good reasons to go through with it. To me it comes across as a bit of double speak to say "Both sides have very good arguments for WIllow" then turn around and say "We need to know how to think about opposing it because it needs to be opposed." That, to me, ended the video on a bit of a low note. Disclosure on my part, I fully believe in the development and promotion of alternative fuels, and would love to see us get to a point where dependence on oil is a thing of the past. At the same time though, there is no one alternative fuel that will satisfy every need. Until alternative fuels (notice the plural) are better developed, promoted, and integrated into our world, the best we can do is to do what we have been doing, but striving to be more responsible with how it's been done. I am no fan of Biden (and just before anyone accuses me I wasn't a fan of Trump, of Obama, or Bush), but scaling back the project is a step toward that responsibility.
Thanks for your comment Christopher. I appreciate your perspective and for contributing (reasonably) to this discussion lol. In regards to the end of the video, I wanted to make a clear transition from the "here are the facts" portion of the video to the "here's my opinion" portion. I made a concerted effort to present both sides of the argument before presenting my own personal thoughts on the Project. I, personally, can understand where the proponents of the Willow Project are coming from, acknowledge the merits of their argument, and still reasonably disagree with their position. That was my intention toward the end - to acknowledge the argument of the other side, disagree with that position, and put forth my own reasons why. When referencing "how to think," I was referring to the facts I presented earlier in the video, that would allow people to come to their own conclusion on Willow and I viewed that as distinct from my own position on the project (which I labeled as my opinion). Again, thanks for your comment and for engaging with me on the issues!
@@NationalParkDiaries Oh I definitely understand it is your opinion, and I would say it's very well informed and not taken strictly from one side's talking points. I hope I presented my only real objection to this video well, and I look forward to seeing more from you. I live not too far from Mammoth Cave, and the Great Smoky Mountains are also within a couple hours drive. IMO the National Park Service was the absolute best thing our federal government has ever established and I'd love to see them stay around for a long time.
@@christophercole8114 Oh, absolutely - you're criticism was well received! And I totally agree on the NPS! I visited Mammoth Cave for the first time last year as well and had an absolute blast. Going to have to make a trip back to that one.
great video, thank you
Thanks for watching!
Using fossil fuels is like a snake eating its own tail. Economically it’s supposed to bring many jobs, money for local communities, etc. So purely from an economic standpoint, it seems reasonable to extract these economically beneficial resources. However, socially and environmentally using fossil fuels, especially in the magnitude that the Willow Project is assuming, is absolutely devastating. It has future implications of not being able to meet the under 2 degrees Celsius demand for global warming, and therefore the suffering of billions of people.
Why can’t humanity not be self-destructive for once?
Your explanation and analysis is a beauful example of the value of clear critical thinking. That said, one can be fair and balance in describing a controversy and still be passionate about what you think should happen. The Willow Project is a brilliant example about how the overall economic and cultural system we live in has us all trapped and all forced to compromise our deepest values, like loving the land and the critters who live here, including ourselves. Profit has become the foundation of morality in modern western culture, and if you equate "profitable" with "moral," you can do any horrific thing to anyone and anything and call it good as long as it makes a profit. Money is not the root of all evil, but the unfettered love of money is indeed the root of all evil. Valuing money and the obsessive accumulation of wealth above all else, including our neighbors and the land, is the cancer that will end us. But what does a moral person do about that when our livelihoods, our access to food and water and air and shelter and healthcare and education is all monetized, all dependent of the profit morality? Stand our ground and starve? Stand our ground and love our jobs. What we really need is a progressive long game. We need to escape and change the fundamental foundations of Western capitalism that bases every decision on money. And that is just one of the many desstructive beliefs that have become the rules of the game in this culture, and on top of that, we have been taught all of our lives that this profit-driven, hierarchical, patriarchal, militaristic, binary, nature exploiting, economically unequal, racially biases system is the way things have always been in humans, and that is patently false. This system, in fact, is a relatively new world view in human history, for us laregely beginning with Imperial Rome and the monarchies of Europe that it spawned. Social and economic organization through most of human history was tribal (not in that negative sense that the right wing promulgates to keep it down). One need only look to the indigenous peoples now being affected by the Willow Project. Or even to the quintessentiall Eurpean tribal culture of the ancient Celts (which Rome and her kingly descendants hated with a passion, by the way) Those cultures that sustained humanity relatively peacefully and sustainable for tens of thousands of years were and are, egalitarian, non-binary, gender inclusive, nature (ie: "science") honoring, largely animist, educational, sex comfortable, economically sharing (properity not profit), harmony and reciprocity seeking, and environmentally sustainable systems. We do not need to create something new. We need to remember what we forgot. Our doorway to remembering lies with the cultures that our system dismisses and vilifies most strongly, the indigenous, tribal peoples who know how to live within our own ecosystem while sustaining it as it sustains us.
I'm curious what this progressive long game is that takes everyone back to being hunter gatherers.
I know the UN wants to get the world to a sustainable 400 million people, but am interested in hearing how we get there, through progress.
Fair and balanced my ass
@@douglasjacobs882 Wow, you jumped right to the racist, xenophobic bigotry against indegenous people in record time! No one said anything about hunter gatherers, and if that is your sole context for tribal cultures, your education is behind by a few tens of thousands of years.
@@JethroBoDean And this means exactly what? Maybe you could weave an idea or two in here so we can follow your logic in drawing your conclusions. This is like giving the punch line without telling the joke. Try again.
@@PoetGorman he went out of his way to show every possible bad outcome even speculating what might or might not happen when he barely gloss's over the quantitative overwhelmingly up side to having that kind of production in our economy
If there was not a demand for it the project would not exist. Would you prefer the money go to Russia and Saudi Arabia and India (refines Russian oil) instead?
Looking at this from an economics perspective this still seems very short-sighted. Like yes, the world is still dependent on oil. But the world is very much at a crossroads when it comes to a future reduction in demand from greener, cheaper technologies. Additionally, we’ve just about reached peak oil production *now*. Unless the price of this new Alaskan oil is cheap enough to undercut oil in Saudi Arabia or Russia, America at large would still be vulnerable to authoritarian states when it comes to oil prices. Even if this oil can undercut other places (which honestly it likely will), it’s not worth it to prop up the oil industry to stifle green technologies, which will inevitably become dominant. If that happens, from a power and economic perspective, the US will fall behind other nations. So yeah, even from an economic perspective, it’s dumb, imo and this doesn’t even take into account local and global environmental effects.
It's a vicious cycle, absolutely. A project like this really shows us how dependent we are on a resource that's actively harming us and communities that are most vulnerable. A real shame, unfortunately.
absolutely idiotic that the USA let China and Germany scoop them completely on renewables. the opportunity cost is virtually immeasurable.
@@haplon33 I think Germany is honestly a very bad example, especially with them sunsetting nuclear power and focusing more on coal and gas power.
@@rbran i agree the sunsetting of the nuclear plants was dumb, and them having to buy coal over the winter was incredible egg on their faces that they do deserve for that move. but also America blowing up the core pipeline infrastructure between Russia and Germany via submersibles as part of their proxy war with Russia certainly didn't help. i'm more referring to how they've built out their green energy production infrastructure for export purposes - photovoltaics specifically but also wind/hydro tech. they'll be incredibly well positioned for what's to come.
It was kind of Timothy Chalomet to explain Willow in front of his Dune series of books. 😆 8:38
I 100% endorse this celebrity look alike 😂
My perspective is as a political conservative and skeptic about the environmental effects of anticipated rise in CO2.
Now you will wonder why I oppose the Willow project and want to see it at least scaled down as much as the politics of the situation allow. (I doubt it can be scrapped altogether but I think it can be shrunk.)
The original concept of the location as being a naval petroleum reserve is puzzling. It is hard to imagine a more vulnerable location to the navies of our long-standing gadflies, Russia and China. Russia, in particular, has territory and territorial waters _much_ closer to the location than the Lower 48 has. This logistical monster has two heads: our naval forces are not helped by maintaining a fuel source in such a vulnerable location, and the commercial side would be an irresistible target in even a low level shooting conflict. A single naval and air strike could put production and storage facilities out of business for a tactically crucial interval.
As a skeptic about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, I can still see that the fossil fuel phase of our industrial base is heading for a stone wall somewhere in the darkness ahead. Even with an accelerated move to alternative energy sources we are likely to experience a pinch lasting decades. That pinch can only be controlled by getting ahead of the curve.
I don't know how the political side will sort out but both sides have to get their act together. My guess is money and other inducements will change hands to loosen ConocoPhillip's grip. There are not a lot of alternatives.
Read about ANCSA. There's many answers there for you.
This project will probably be ok. But on the other hand we still need more research dollars or programs for environment friendly tech.
If it's a carbon recycle program,
Or one of those si fi clean energy generator that's been kept away from public so far.
Excellent overview of it! And, kudos on the name pronunciation, it's not always easy. I'm, in general, against more development of untouched wilderness, particularly for resources that will most definitely exacerbate the current environmental issues pertaining to global warming. It's a fools progress. It's like we have a credit card and we keep running up a balance on it without really acknowledging the true cost of paying off that balance, plus interest, on down the line. That being said, the Biden administration has it's hands tied. These decisions had already happened and things have been moving forward on this project for several years now. Add to that the current geo-political state of oil politics in the world, i.e. Russia's invasion of it's neighbor, Ukraine, and we have a situation that kind of forces the Biden administrations hand, despite it's attempts to stem the massive flow of CO2 into our atmosphere. I don't like it, but I understand. Things aren't always black and white. Thanks for a fantastic video!
Thanks Mike, glad I got the Alaska seal of approval lol! This was a complicated one for sure, and one of the biggest reasons I wanted to make it is that the general discussion around it seemed to push people to the extremes without really thinking critically about why it was good/bad. I'm opposed to the Willow Project as well (shocking), but I think it's only fair that we give people the information to come to their own conclusion as well!
thank you! this is really helpful i had no idea what to think about this all. i feel like maybe it would be best for alaska to decide what's best for it so if the alaska government & nearby tribal groups support we can let it be. i don't like the sound of making alaska more oil dependent or all those gravel roads and mines though, i imagine they're really ugly and stressful for anyone nearby. like the most nearby settlement that opposed the project, and with that estimate that it would only start producing in 10 years by the time i hope we are much further along transitioning away from oil i worry it won't have been worth all the damage.
Yeah, I can't really blame these communities for supporting it, but it calls attention to the fact their livelihoods and ability to feed their families is directly dependent on a form of extraction that is most threatening to them. Not a good system and one we need to transition away from as soon as possible! Thanks for watching!
Thanks for this informative video. Could you explain what is the connection between the Willow Project and the Alaska LNG project, the pipeline that would go down all the way to Nikiski? Are they related? Can you provide sources for this or do a separate video for it? Thanks!
There is no LNG project. It isn't economical viable.
I just wanna know when the need for sand haulers will be needed so I can get a piece of that pie.
i mean im against it because its supposed to be a RESERVE for EMERGENCIES. we arent having an emergency right now and we would never have a power emergency if we would go all in on thorium nuclear reactors.
NPR-A national petroleum reserve Alaska. Formally, Naval Petroleum Reserve #4. This is federally designated oil/gas land. This is what it's for. I say if the feds don't want to lease it then give it back to Alaska.
its terrible he approved this. gas prices arent going down from this either.
Know we aren't peaceably assembled. I come to the garden alone.
Thankyou ,
I'm happy it's happening.
I try not to take it personal, but it gets really old when folks outside of Alaska cheer and dance when a project gets canned.
They are dancing on the poverty of folks and communities that have been projects pulled out from under them every time a president changes.
what about people who can do cause and effect and see how climate change impoverishes the whole world? also the methane fueled heat-death of the species, but yknow not high stakes or anything....wouldnt want some rural scrub to have to reconsider that they live in a society or anything where things interlink and might have to actually take actions dependent on these very obvious facts.
How is climate change bad? In other words, what is the idea temperature of earth? Colder? I'd so how much?
Wildlife and local scale environmental damages that this will cause aside, we need to be lowering our emissions by yesterday. This the equivalent of throwing gas on a fire that we should be trying desperately to put out. I am personally already seeing the climate in my area become more and more unstable over the few years alone.
How is it unstable? Asking for a friend.
The more money someone has does have a direct benefit of conservation its the hierarchy of needs , and just like people animals can adapt and overcome if we put thought into how we develop things. But the faster we can get to space to do all our dirty industrial prosses the better this planet will be
This is the most informative and unbiased segment I've seen on this issue.
Unbiased my ass
Thank you!
Closing this will force off shore drilling and continued coal. You think closing coal fired plants stops coal . Chine is still building new coal plants.
What's a small village in rural Alaska going to with $1B? NYCs annual budget is $100B
Bro, he's a liar. Everyone running cover for this clown is also a clown. Appreciate the calm and unbiased explanation. Young people need to learn to never trust a politician. Esp if they fly your flag and chant ur mantras
This is an excellent overview. The only piece missing is a forecast of energy needs over the next twenty years. I wish we could just stop burning fossil fuels. Just fast forward to the Great Simplification. Unfortunately the Big Crunch will come first. On our way to simplicity and permaculture we’ll still need to run hospitals and other big things, including the military. Oh, and NASA. Oil production has peaked - horrifyingly. We’re on the worst case IPCC scenario towards increasing heat, sea level, and climate mayhem. The transition to whatever climate regime awaits us will be less traumatic and able to preserve more lives (human) if we have the strength to run heavy equipment, provide warmth and manufacture steel. I hope the oil profile from Willow will produce diesel. I hope the caribou and salmon adapt.
What major salmon bearing streams on the north slope are you referring to?
This isn’t Bakersfield, our oil fields are nothing like those in the lower 48. The environmental regulations of Alaska are higher than anywhere else in the U.S. Which are higher than anywhere else in the world. Willow will be less destructive to the environment than the alternatives of foreign oil. Compare this to the current “green energy” project taking place here. 500 acres for willow or the 1500 acre solar farm which will only produce electricity 6 months out of the year, will involve clear cutting forested land and then be fenced off. In comparison Willow is way better for the environment.
You get it. If you really want to see an environmental tragedy look at how much hydrocarbons the NSF has put into the ice above Lake Vostok in Antarctica. In the Alaska Arctic this wouldn't even pass the smell test. But hey, trust the science and trust the NSF.
As an Alaskan resident I've been saying the following on project willow (aka a long term investment in oil). Want to decrease dependency on foreign oil? How about decrease dependance on oil period. Oh it will increase jobs? ANY government project or investments create jobs; why not invest in renewable energy to solve both problems, while simultaneously, decrease carbon emissions, and save the state and it's CITIZENS money (sorry this may not be profitable for oil CEO's). The Willow project from a historical perspective is the dumbest most desperate oil project attempts we have ever seen.
THE WILLOW PROJECT (due to the states tax system on oil companies) WILL LOSE THE STATE MONEY!!! EXPERTS THINK IT COULD BE UP TO $1.6 BILLION OVER THE 10 YEARS! There is literally zero benefit (except to already rich oil CEO's) of this project and it will simultaneously destroy the the most beautiful ecosystem in the world.
The video stated it will make money for the feds, state and local people. You must be using financial gymnastics to make a claim that it will cost the state $1.6 billion. If the residents make $1.6 billion from oil royalties, that is a cost to the state? Likewise, if they don't build the project, it will "cost" the state many more billions. It will also cost the residents to build a runway, port, school, medical center, all weather roads, satellite dishes and electrical generators to equip all of those services that the oil company is providing.
Solar would be worthless all winter, especially the month that there is no daylight. Wind would need the port and all weather road to get the infrastructure in. The wind generators blades would ice up in the winter and require an alternate energy source to de-ice. The natives cannot afford to install the generators, and even they could, without jobs and equipment, they would be unable to pay for the electricity or maintenance.
The state could spend the money they don't collect from the project but instead the oil company will spend their own money to build all the infrastructure and get the required equipment to the area.
In other words, the Willow project will enable the residents to build renewables in the area. The money never produced cannot be spent and they will never have access to renewables.
@@douglasjacobs882 The Willow project will only generate money come 2030 (earliest oil company projections used to be 2040). In the meantime the state will be losing revenue (the billion dallors I was referring too) also its assuming it will be profitable based on their future oil price predictions, which if the country and others are switching to renewable energy (as they should be) then oil will be less valuable by the time Willow is drilled and ready for selling.
thealaskacurrent.com/2023/03/24/how-much-will-the-willow-project-cost-alaska-it-really-depends/
Solar projects have already happened and they work, they are powering entire villages.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ak_hughes_solar_storage_project.aspx
@@kalebcallahan5793
If I own a shoe factory and decide to expand it, I can write off the business expense of the construction and lower my tax payments, or you could consider it a lose of revenue to the state. When the construction is complete, my revenue will go up and so will the states. If I do not expand the state revenue and my revenue stay the same.
The oil revenues have been decreasing for decades. Without new drilling they will disappear in the near term. With new drilling the revenue will go up in the future.
The tribe that installed PV-Diesel system is 600 miles south of where the willow project is located. The tribe location might go a month with no daylight, whereas the Willow project area might go 3 months without daylight. I assume that they would need a larger investment in renewables, IF they want electricity. I also assume that it costs more money to get diesel to the Willow project area than the tribe in your linked article. IF there was no more diesel produced in Alaska and it had to be imported from a foreign country, I assume that it would cost even more.
The PV-diesel project cost a fifth of what the Willow project but only supplies enough energy to reduce one villages diesel consumption by 25%. To eliminate the usage in the one village would cost as much as the willow project, but of course most of that funding comes from taxpayers, not future profits from a private company. The state could spend a billion dollars per village to allow them to have renewable energy or they can lose a billion dollars in revenue but be able to tax wages, assets and products when the project is completed and receive much more than the lost revenues.
The state of California used to get a majority of the oil they use from Alaska but due to the decline in production in Alaska, they now get 60% of the oil they use from foreign countries. Without new drilling in Alaska (and California), the existing wells will be depleted, and California would have to get over 90% of its oil from foreign countries. The ships that transport foreign oil to California create more pollution than the entire transportation industry in California. The transition to EV will reduce the dependance on oil but at the same time increase the dependence on energy from other states. If the other states reduce their usage of fossil fuels like California does, California will have an energy shortage.
The US military is the biggest user of energy, more than most countries. Much of our imports come to the US by ships and planes. Do you foresee ships and civilian and military planes, as well as farm equipment transitioning to electricity generated by wind and solar? Will all the materials needed to make wind and solar be transported by renewable energy?
From an article I read 5-10 years ago, the 13 largest ships generate more pollution than all the cars on the planet.
Some countries, like Germany, have invested heavily in renewable, the result is that their emissions and energy costs have actually increased. The US is one of the few countries that are meeting their goals, by switching from coal to natural gas. For every reduction the US has made, China has added several times over. Many developing countries are increasing the usage of fossil fuels so that they to can have access to clean water and sanitary sewer. The usage of fossil fuels will exist long after 2030.
God tier propaganda. Nice job. What should one do on designated oil/gas lease land?
While I’m not for pollution, the way I see it is: theoretically we go to war maybe even with someone we get a lot of our resources (like oil) if it’s a long term war than we’re screw without the fuel. If we lose a war whoever is in charge may approve willow anyway and be more careless with it. Again that’s all theoretical and maybe an extreme example but the main point is that America needs to be independent.
I’m open to be corrected but that’s the way I see it right now
If you want to protect the wildlife and the land, buy it and restrict its use.
I was 1000th to like
do you have merch?
Not right now. Planning on it eventually though!
Guys where is the polar bear 2026 original video
You want to help save the plant then tackle the issue of geo engineeering. This is the issue threatening our entire way of life.
i'm for it.
climate change is not pollution.... even though the government loves interchanging the words...
Something is really creepy about progressives being in bed with entities like the oil industry.
I wish all countries that operate nuclear reactors including China, North Korea, and Saudis were to set a standard for 4th gen nuclear reactor design and build hundreds of new locations globally with old nuclear power plants being upgraded from 2nd gen to 4th gen.
What the French did right was pick a design and build many power plants of the same design to achieve what China did with their high speed rail network. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build because they're largely one-off designs like coach building.
If All of the countries were to standardize equipment such as power substations, cooling towers, Office administration building,spent fuel rods, cooling pools, spent fuel storage casks, and steam turbines then costs would dramatically come down.
If coal power plant sites are extremely contaminated with pollution then why not convert them from to nuclear power such as reusing the steam cooling towers of coal power plants for nuclear? There has been discussions about the idea with lots of support from the locals who don't want their communities to die off as they know their power plants are getting to become too old.
Rather than to subsidize the oil industry such as ethanol corn subsidies why not subsidize spent fuel reprocessing?
It's going to be disgusting that when we do have fusion power plants people will try to use 80 year old nuclear accident to try to stop the Fusion power industry from taking off.
The fact that the increased restrictions on drilling could be undone by the next president is a problem.
Agree. Give Alaska and all States back their land.
flexing his dune collection xDDD
💪💪💪
The 14th?