Environmentalists criticize Trump administration push for new oil and gas drilling in Alaska
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Top Trump administration officials — fresh off touring one of the country's largest oil fields in the Alaska Arctic — headlined an energy conference led by the state's Republican governor on Tuesday that environmentalists criticized as promoting new oil and gas drilling and turning away from the climate crisis.
Several dozen protesters were outside Gov. Mike Dunleavy's annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in Anchorage, where U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin were featured speakers. The federal officials were continuing a multiday trip aimed at highlighting President Donald Trump's push to expand oil and gas drilling, mining and logging in the state.
The trip has included meetings with pro-drilling groups and officials, including some Alaska Native leaders on the petroleum-rich North Slope, and a visit to the Prudhoe Bay oil field near the Arctic Ocean that featured selfies near the 800-mile (1,287-kilometer) trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
Calls for additional oil and gas drilling — including Trump's renewed focus on getting a massive liquefied natural gas project built — are 'false solutions' to energy needs and climate concerns, protester Sarah Furman said outside the Anchorage convention hall, as people carried signs with slogans such as 'Alaska is Not for Sale' and 'Protect our Public Lands.'
'We find it really disingenuous that they're hosting this conference and not talking about real solutions,' she said.
Topics at the conference, which runs through Thursday, also include mining, carbon management, nuclear energy, renewables and hydrogen. Oil has been Alaska's economic lifeblood for decades, and Dunleavy has continued to embrace fossil fuels even as he has touted other energy opportunities in the state.
Another protester, Rochelle Adams, who is Gwich'in, raised concerns about the ongoing push to allow oil and gas drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Gwich'in leaders have said they consider the coastal plain sacred, as caribou they rely on calve there. Leaders of the Iñupiaq community of Kaktovik, which is within the refuge, support drilling as economically vital and have joined Alaska political leaders in welcoming Trump's interest in reviving a leasing program there.
'When these people come from outside to take and take and take, we are going to be left with the aftereffects,' Adams said, adding later: 'It's our health that will be impacted. It's our wellness, our ways of life.'
Zeldin, during a friendly question-and-answer period led by Dunleavy, said wildlife he saw while on the North Slope didn't appear 'to be victims of their surroundings' and seemed 'happy.'
Burgum, addressing a move toward additional drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, said wildlife and development can coexist. His agency during the Alaska trip announced plans to repeal Biden-era restrictions on future leasing and industrial development in portions of the petroleum preserve that are designated as special for their wildlife, subsistence or other values.
Wright bristled at the idea of policy 'in the name of climate change' that he said would have no impact on climate change. Stopping oil production in Alaska doesn't change demand for oil, he said.
'You know, we hear terms like clean energy and renewable energy. These are inaccurate marketing terms,' he said. 'There is no energy source that does not take significant materials, land and impact on the environment to produce. Zero.'
Officials court Asian countries to support gas project
Joining for part of the U.S. officials' trip were representatives from Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and United Arab Emirates. Asian countries are being courted to sign onto the Alaska gas project, which has floundered for years to gain traction amid cost and other concerns. The project, as proposed, would include a nearly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would funnel gas from the North Slope to port, with an eye largely on exports of liquefied natural gas.
Wright told reporters a goal in inviting them to the Prudhoe Bay stop was for them to see the oil pipeline infrastructure and environment and meet with residents and business leaders.
Glenfarne Alaska LNG LLC, which has taken a lead in advancing the project, on Tuesday announced expressions of interest from a number of 'potential partners.' Costs surrounding the project — which have been pegged around $44 billion for the pipeline and other infrastructure — are in the process of being refined before a decision is made on whether to move forward.
___
Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘gold standard' politicizes federal science
The first time Donald Trump was president, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a regulation known as the 'science transparency' rule. The administration liked to call it the 'secret science' rule. 'Transparency' sounds positive, but this rule instead prevented the EPA from using some of the best available science to protect human health. For example, it required the EPA to ignore or downplay studies that established links between exposure to chemicals and health damage if those studies were based on confidential patient information that could not be released to the public. The problem: Many health studies, including those underpinning many U.S. pollution rules, rely on confidential patient information. A U.S. District Court struck down the rule on procedural grounds a few weeks after it was issued. But now, the idea is back. Trump's so-called Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order of May 23, 2025, resurrects many features of the EPA's vacated rule, but it applies them to all federal agencies. To many readers, the executive order might sound reasonable. It mentions 'transparency,' 'reproducibility' and 'uncertainty.' However, the devil is in the details. 'Transparency' implies that scientists should adequately explain all elements of their work, including hypotheses, methods, results and conclusions in a way that helps others see how those conclusions were reached. 'Data transparency' is an expectation that scientists should share all data used in the study so other scientists can recalculate the results. This is also known as 'reproducibility.' Trump's executive order focuses on reproducibility. If there are errors in the data or methods of the original study, then being able to reproduce its results may ensure consistency but not scientific rigor. More important to scientific rigor is 'replicability.' Replicability means different scientists, working with different data and different methods, can arrive at consistent findings. For example, studies of human exposure to a set of pollutants at different locations, and with different populations, that consistently find relationships to health effects, such as illness and premature death, can increase confidence in the findings. Replicability doesn't require releasing confidential health data, as reproducibility would. Instead, it looks for the same results broadly from other sources. The science transparency rule in the first Trump administration was intended to limit the EPA's ability to consider epidemiologic studies like those that established the health harms from exposure to secondhand smoke and to fine particles called PM2.5 in the air. These attempts to create barriers to using valid science echoed tactics used by the tobacco industry from the 1960s well into the 1990s to deny that tobacco use harmed human health. Many large-scale studies that assess how exposure to pollution can harm human health are based on personal data collected according to strict protocols to ensure privacy. Preventing policymakers from considering those findings means they are left to make important decisions about pollution and chemicals without crucial evidence about the health risks. Trump's new executive order also emphasizes 'uncertainty.' In the first Trump administration, the EPA administrator and his hand-picked science advisers, none of whom were epidemiologists, focused on 'uncertainty' in epidemiological studies used to inform decisions on air quality standards. The EPA's scientific integrity policy requires that policymakers 'shall not knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty associated with policy decisions.' That might sound reasonable. However, in the final 2020 rule for the nation's PM2.5 air quality standard, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated that 'limitations in the science lead to considerable uncertainty' to justify not lowering the standard, the level considered unhealthy. PM2.5 comes largely from fossil fuel combustion in cars, power plants and factories. In contrast, an independent external group of scientific experts, which I was part of as an environmental engineer and former EPA adviser, reviewed the same evidence and came to a very different conclusion. We found clear scientific evidence supporting a more stringent standard for PM2.5. The executive order also requires that science be conducted in a manner that is 'skeptical of its findings and assumptions.' A true skeptic can be swayed to change an inference based on evidence, whereas a denialist holds a fixed view irrespective of evidence. Denialists tend to cherry-pick evidence, set impossible levels of evidence and engage in logical fallacies. The first Trump administration stacked the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which advises EPA on setting health-protective air quality standards, with opponents of environmental regulation, including people connected to industries the EPA regulates. The committee then amplified uncertainties. It also shifted the burden of proof in ways inconsistent with the statutory requirement to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The current administration has been dismantling science advisory committees in various agencies again and purging key EPA committees of independent experts. According to Trump, 'violations' of his executive order will be determined by a 'senior appointee designated by the agency head.' This means a political appointee accountable to the White House. Thus, science in each federal agency will be politicized. The political appointee is required to 'correct scientific information.' Anyone can file a 'request for correction' regarding a published agency report. During the first Trump administration, chemical companies or their representatives repeatedly filed requests for changes to final EPA toxicity assessments on ethylene oxide and chloroprene. The administration delayed health-protective actions, which were finally addressed during the Biden administration for both chemicals. The request for correction process is intended to correct errors, not to bias assessments to be more favorable to industry and to delay protective actions. While the language of the executive order may seem innocuous based on a casual reading, it risks undermining unbiased science in all federal agencies, subject to political whims. Setting impossible bars for 'transparency' can mean regulators ignore relevant and valid scientific studies. Overemphasizing uncertainties can be used to raise doubt and unduly undermine confidence in robust findings. A politicized process also has the potential to punish federal employees and to ignore external peer reviewers who have the temerity to advance evidence-based findings contrary to White House ideology. Thus, this executive order could be used to deprive the American public of accurate and unbiased information regarding chemicals in the environment. That would prevent the development of effective evidence-based policies necessary for the protection of human health, rather than advancing the best available science. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University Read more: EPA must use the best available science − by law − but what does that mean? How to find climate data and science the Trump administration doesn't want you to see EPA's 'secret science' rule will make it harder for the agency to protect public health H. Christopher Frey receives funding from the California Air Resources Board via a research grant to North Carolina State University. He was on leave from NCSU to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2021 to 2024. From 2021 to 2022, he served as Deputy Assistant Administrator of Science Policy. From 2022-20224, he served as the senate-confirmed Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development and concurrently served as the EPA Science Advisor. He was a member of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee from 2008 to 2012, and chaired CASAC from 2012 to 2015.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
How Trump Is Changing FEMA as Hurricane Season Begins
Atlantic Hurricane season officially began this week and it comes at an uneasy time for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Last month, the head of FEMA was dismissed, and several senior officials have left. This has come after threats from the Trump administration to dismantle the agency and cuts across multiple federal agencies that are key to storm prediction and response. FEMA has lost about a quarter of its full-time staff in recent months. As several of my colleagues reported, all of that has left cities and states uncertain about how much federal support they'll have when a disaster or storm strikes. The Trump administration has argued that states should bear more responsibility for disaster recovery. For years, emergency managers across the political spectrum have agreed that states could do more before calling for federal help. In 2017, the FEMA director floated a 'disaster deductible,' which would have required states to commit to spending a certain amount of their own money. I spoke to former FEMA officials to understand some of the worries about the agency. Some of them said the administration's actions leading up to this year's hurricane season had wasted crucial planning time, left states without time to prepare and had potentially put people in danger. The changes have pushed some high-level officials to leave the agency. 'Everyone has a line, and I have reached mine,' said MaryAnn Tierney, who until last month was the second-in-command at FEMA, in a recent message to agency staff that was shared with The New York Times. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Rebuffing Trump, New York Refuses to Rescind Native American Mascot Ban
The New York State Education Department on Thursday sternly rejected the Trump administration's demand that the state reverse a ban on Native American mascots, questioning the federal government's interpretation of civil rights law. The White House had accused New York last week of illegal discrimination, objecting to the state's requirement that school districts banish mascots that appropriate Native American culture or risk losing funding. After parents in Massapequa, N.Y., protested the elimination of the district's decades-old 'Chiefs' nickname and logo, the Trump administration ordered the state to allow all districts to choose their preferred mascots. But Daniel Morton-Bentley, the deputy commissioner for legal affairs at the state education agency, said in a Thursday letter to the administration that the federal Education Department's finding was based on 'internally inconsistent arguments.' The Trump administration outlined its view of civil rights law in a 'Dear Colleague' letter to schools in February, taking issue with diversity programs that 'stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes.' New York's two-year-old ban on Native American mascots, which many tribes argue are often historically inaccurate and draw from stereotypes, complies with the goal outlined in the administration's earlier letter, Mr. Morton-Bentley argued. He pointed out that under previous administrations, the Education Department has required some districts to eliminate Native American mascots. It was not the first time that New York's education leaders had responded to the Trump administration with defiance. After the federal Education Department threatened in April to pull school funding from states that did not eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, New York was the first state to publicly repudiate the demand. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
