“Natural gas is the fastest growing energy source on the planet. It has been for the last 15 years. It’s 40% of the growth in energy. So demand for natural gas is simply huge. Alaska has a great oil pipeline and a huge amount of natural gas, but no way to transport the natural gas. We’ve already got the right of way along the oil pipeline. We lay essentially a twin pipeline down through Alaska LNG export terminal in southern Alaska. Six days sail to Japan, to Korea, another day or so to Taiwan. So I think it’s a tremendous opportunity to have natural gas leaving from the west coast of the United States and very close to our Asian allies.”
These statements by the U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright form part of Trump’s grand plan to boost mining activity—a theme he has promoted since the first day of his presidency. New drilling, new pipelines, and the lifting of environmental restrictions are key components of Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” policy, championed by his climate-change-denialist energy secretary.
Alaska is poised to be a focal point in this strategy, with representatives from the energy markets of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan expected to invest and purchase output. In early June, key officials from these Asian markets and the U.S. convened in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. They discussed profitable prospects and expressed optimism about stimulating the economy and achieving energy self-sufficiency amid heightened “geopolitical concerns,” according to the Trump administration.
More drilling
‘Get rid of them! They’re gone! It’s a new day!’”
shouted Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska, theatrically tearing up environmental protection decisions in front of cameras. These decisions had previously slowed mining and related infrastructure construction. The administration portrays the rollback of federal restrictions as a significant win for growth and progress—promising expanded fossil fuel production, economic boosts, job creation, and increased energy exports.
However, environmental organizations in the region have a very different opinion. Kristen Miller, Executive Director of the Alaska Wilderness League, stated:
“The Trump administration’s move to roll back protections in the most ecologically important areas of the Western Arctic threatens wildlife, local communities, and our climate — all to appease extractive industries. This is another outrageous attempt to sell off public lands to oil industry billionaires at the expense of one of the wildest places left in America. These lands are home to caribou, migratory birds, and vital subsistence resources that Indigenous communities have relied on for generations. The public fought hard for these protections, and we won’t stay silent while they’re dismantled.”
According to the organisation’s website, Alaska is home to 21,000 known species. It contains 85% of the total land area managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 65% of the country’s national parks. It also has a longer coastline than all the other states combined.
Oil and natural gas extraction threatens not only Alaska’s ecosystems but also the planet’s climate, which is already at a tipping point. Some scientists estimate that the battle to keep the Earth’s temperature below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels—the original Paris Agreement target—has already been lost, with the global average now expected to rise by at least around 2°C. This will only worsen as long as fossil fuels continue to be used as energy sources. The consequences are not just slightly warmer weather, but a sharp rise in extreme weather events and disasters, sea-level rise, growing numbers of environmental refugees, the destruction of arable land, and much more.
In addition, oil and gas extraction damages the local environment—affecting air and soil quality, groundwater and surface water, vegetation, and wildlife. The extraction process itself, along with related infrastructure, produces air pollutants and noise pollution even before the fuels are burned. It also carries a constant risk of spills and leaks, whether at drilling sites or during transportation through pipelines, tankers, and other means.
Disastrous plans
Chris Wright’s proposal for a “twin” natural gas pipeline—built alongside the existing oil pipeline—would run the length of Alaska from north to south, ending at a liquefaction and loading terminal for export. The pipeline would be 1,287 kilometres (800 miles) long and is estimated to cost $44 billion to construct. Current plans call for construction to begin in 2026 and be completed before 2031, when gas shipments are expected to start.
However, the necessary agreements have not yet been finalised, and there is no guarantee they will be in the near future—despite the celebratory statements of Trump administration officials. The bulk of the U.S. energy industry remains cautious in ramping up drilling activity. Low oil prices, geopolitical instability and the tariff debacle are dampening enthusiasm for long term investments in the field. What is clear, however, is that this administration is prioritising a massive expansion of fossil-fuel investment, with the Alaska pipeline and new drilling at the heart of this policy.
Who is Mr Wright?
Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy and CEO of the oilfield services company Liberty Energy, is a millionaire and one of Donald Trump’s closest allies. Like Trump, Wright claims that climate change is not a real threat to the planet and insists that fossil fuel extraction should be expanded.
“There is no climate crisis. Nor are we in the process of an energy transition…”
he stated.
Trump has often praised Wright, particularly for his role in the development of hydraulic fracturing—better known as fracking—a method of extracting natural gas and oil by injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into underground rock formations.
In March last year, Wright staged a publicity stunt in which he and some of his colleagues tried to prove that fracking fluids are safe for the environment by cheerfully drinking a glass of the solution on camera—or at least that is what they claimed. The chemical composition of fracking fluid varies depending on geological conditions, but it typically contains acids, biocides, and other industrial substances. While the mixture was being prepared, Wright remarked that bleach was being added, and laughed as he described the ingredients as “safe, simple chemicals found in our homes.”
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Center for Biological Diversity have proven that hydraulic fracturing has, in certain cases, impacted drinking water resources—through mechanisms such as spills, inadequate well integrity, improper disposal, and wastewater leaks. There is widespread use of toxic chemicals in fracking fluids—including methanol, benzene, naphthalene, and trimethylbenzene. Approximately 25% of these substances can cause cancer, and mounting evidence shows they are contaminating aquifers and drinking water supplies.
So even if what Wright drank was fracking fluids, drinking a (possibly diluted) sip doesn’t mean that industrial pollution on a massive scale is safe for the environment or humans. But, it’s the king of political stunts that the Trump administration bases itself upon.
Renewable Sources and Workers Resistance
The environmental movement in the U.S. and internationally must strive to go beyond general statements about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. It must oppose each concrete attempt to degrade the environment and expand fossil fuel extraction by putting up a fight—working alongside local communities, other social movements, and trade unions in sectors affected by the so-called “development” drive. Local communities in Alaska have already started to mobilise against these projects.
It is also essential to engage with workers and unions in major industries such as construction, transport, new technologies, and the energy sector itself. They must be convinced that rejecting fossil-fuel policies and moving fully to genuinely renewable sources is the only way to safeguard the environment, protect living standards, and secure long-term employment. After all, workers are the only force capable of physically halting destructive projects pushed by fossil-fuel corporations. They can strike to demand that their plants transition to truly environmentally friendly energy sources under public ownership. They can refuse to work on projects that threaten catastrophic consequences.
The environment will always be at risk under capitalism, a system based on the exploitation of both natural resources and the labour power of the working class, to create profits for the few. The struggle to protect the planet is intimately connected with the struggle for a socialist future.
