3 days ago
Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference 2025 left unspoken what Alaskans truly value
The Canning River, seen here in 2018, flows from the Brooks Range into the Beaufort Sea along the western edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo by Lisa Hupp/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
At the conclusion of the 2025 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference much attention was given to profitability of fossil fuels, while far less was said about the meaning of 'sustainability' itself. In fact, both Alaskans and the principles of sustainability were notably absent from the conference's central themes and many of its attendees. From the outset, the federal government's priority appeared to be reassuring foreign interests of the United States' continued ability to sell off Alaska piece by piece.
Conference organizers, led by Gov. Mike Dunleavy appeared eager as regulatory protections continue to be rolled back by the Trump administration. Federal officials, including U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, expressed strong support for the further weakening of environmental safeguards to unilaterally advance long-contested development projects across Alaska.
Many attendees represented corporate interests excited to profit from new extraction opportunities or potential buyers, watching to see if the administration follows through on promises to mine Alaska's oil, gas, and critical minerals. These companies appeared enthusiastic to exploit the land with minimal oversight and a lack of local consent. The audience was left with a misleading impression of Alaskan support.
At the center of ongoing and proposed projects, such as Red Dog mine, Graphite One, and Ambler Road, was the largest item for sale: a natural gas reservoir on the North Slope.
The proposed Alaska liquid natural gas pipeline, currently led by the Alaska Gasoline Development Corp. and New York-based Glenfarne Group LLC, would extract natural gas from subsurface carbon and transport it 800 miles south to Nikiski for export. The estimated almost $40 billion project promises only temporary jobs and infrastructure.
Environmentally, natural gas poses risks similar to coal and oil. It is composed primarily of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Inevitable gas leaks during extraction and transportation can release up to 10% of methane before combustion, with the remainder ultimately emitted as carbon dioxide. These outcomes reflect outdated, combustion-based energy models.
Regarding Alaska's wildlife and people, cabinet members seemed to dismiss concerns after brief visits, suggesting the animals are happy and that communities would benefit from further resource development despite evidence to the contrary.
The 'resource curse' is a paradox that explains the economic dynamics of regions rich in natural resources, but limited in democratic representation. Extraction projects often introduce new workers, housing, and other infrastructure at great cost to local communities. Despite generating profits for corporate sponsors, these projects typically result in a net loss for the public. Workers are imported from out of state, while profits are exported. Local towns are then responsible for maintaining infrastructure without receiving corresponding benefits like revenue to support housing, health care or affordable energy. As finite resources are exhausted, companies maintain profit margins while community returns diminish. Once operations end, communities are often left with environmental damage and abandoned development, economically and socially worse off than before.
Alaska's economy remains heavily reliant on oil and gas. As existing operations decrease in yield, public education and health care routinely face budgetary cuts. The natural gas reserve would only provide exports for a few decades, but its development would cause irreparable environmental damage, and leave Alaska facing another energy crisis within a generation. Why Gov. Dunleavy labeled this conference 'sustainable' remains unclear.
It is unrealistic to claim the pipeline would benefit any of the roughly 190 communities beyond the Railbelt. While the state invests in LNG exports, rural towns reliant on diesel will face rising costs and health issues, including cancer risks.
Regardless of one's stance on oil and gas, Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, himself stated: 'Energy… it's about people and math.' However, his equation solves for profit, while Alaska's equation for energy must begin and end with the voices and needs of the people.
Scientists attending the summit this week in an official capacity were restricted to framing oil and gas as the primary development priority. This narrowed the conversation and sidelined discussions around advances in technology such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy. Still, a handful of sustainability advocates attended as guests, business owners, protesters, and speakers. One speaker, Lesil McGuire, senior advisor with New Energy Alaska, an advocacy coalition that promotes renewable energy noted, 'Solar arrays can be propped up in a number of weeks.' As of 2020 solar energy has become cheaper to install and maintain than fossil fuels.
Alaska needs energy infrastructure tailored to its unique environment, focused on long-term self reliance through renewable sources. Current examples include solar installations in the Northwest Arctic Borough, microgrid cooperatives, and heat pump incentives in Southeast Alaska. A cursory glance shows Alaska's capacity for renewable energy that could be faster to build and more cost effective than the LNG pipeline.
In reality the conference didn't need to be held in Alaska, as Alaskans themselves played a minimal role. Led by Gov. Dunleavy, the 'Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference 2025' resembled government-backed promotion of the oil and gas industry and signaled extraction projects could move forward without oversight and regardless of local stakeholder's needs or opposition. International representatives seemed to be promised fuel for import, and out-of-state corporations appeared to be invited to profit at the expense of Alaska's environment.
Renewable energy has been viable for decades and continues to become more efficient. Given a voice and a seat at the table, many Alaskans and Americans would likely favor local, self-sufficient renewables for lower prices and long-term reliability. Natural gas in Alaska will run out in this lifetime, do nothing to reduce costs in the majority of Alaskan communities, and may cause permanent harm to the environment. The United States and Alaska are not in need of a technological revolution in fossil fuels, but an information revolution in renewable energy. It is vitally important that all Alaskan voices are heard. Alaska values pristine wilderness, supports true sustainability, and is not for sale.
