1.

Did approving the Willow Project break a campaign promise Biden

made?
03/13/23: The Biden administration approved Project Willow.
The decision to approve the Willow Project in Alaska's National Petroleum
Reserve could be seen as potentially inconsistent with some of President Biden's
campaign promises related to climate change and the environment. During his
campaign, President Biden pledged to transition the United States to a clean
energy economy such as wind and solar power and to limit fossil fuels
development like oil, coal and gas on public lands and waters.

2. Why has a president who has embraced strong action on climate change
just approved a project dubbed a "carbon bomb"?
It's because Willow is all about
However, a surge in oil prices after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict
forced the Biden administration to return to the oil industry and under pressure
from the courts last year, he authorised plans to sell new drilling leases. Similar
pressure from the courts could be at play again.
The Biden administration is obviously aware that, from a purely climate
perspective, the project can't really be justified.
Another reason why President Joe Biden accepted the Willow project is the
huge profits that this project brings. It is estimated that it can extract more than
600 million barrels of oil from the Alaska area over 30 years, equivalent to
200,000 barrels of oil per day. According to estimates by the Bureau of Land
Management, the Willow project will likely generate between $8 billion and
$17 billion in revenue, a surprising number!

3. What could the legal arguments be against Willow?

Environmental protection, indigenous rights, and compliance with federal
regulations.
Some of the potential legal arguments against the Willow project may include:
1. Violation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA requires
federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for
 any major federal action that may significantly impact the environment.
Opponents of the Willow project may argue that the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) failed to adequately assess the potential
environmental impacts of the project before approving it.
2. Failure to consult with indigenous communities: The Gwich’in Nation,
whose ancestral lands are adjacent to the Willow project area, have
expressed opposition to the project due to concerns about the potential
impacts on caribou, which are a key subsistence resource for the
community. Legal arguments may be made that the BLM failed to consult
with the Gwich’in Nation and other indigenous communities in
accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and other federal
laws.
3. Violation of Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Willow project area is
home to a number of endangered or threatened species, including polar
bears and migratory birds. Opponents of the project may argue that the
BLM failed to adequately assess the potential impacts of the project on
these species and their habitats, and that the project may violate the ESA.
4. Inadequate consideration of alternatives: NEPA requires federal agencies
to consider a range of alternatives to a proposed action before making a
decision. Opponents of the Willow project may argue that the BLM failed
to adequately consider alternative locations, technologies, or approaches
that could reduce the potential environmental impacts of the project.
These are just a few examples of the potential legal arguments that could be
made against the Willow project in Alaska of President Joe Biden. The specific
arguments and legal strategies used will likely depend on the specific facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as the legal and regulatory frameworks that
apply.