A May 9 article by Yereth Rosen appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, painting a bleak and misleading picture of Alaska’s future by claiming that permafrost thaw driven by climate change will cost our state up to $51 billion by mid-century. The study she cites, from Nature Communications Earth and Environment, may sound authoritative, but this is just another in a long line of climate doomsday projections that cherry-pick data, ignore history, discount human innovation, and attack Alaska’s right to develop its natural resources.
Rosen appears to support the recent lawsuit filed by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown against President Trump’s executive order aimed at unleashing Alaska’s resource potential. That lawsuit is a direct attack on our way of life. Brown and Rosen seem to agree that choking off the very industries that fund our roads and schools is the solution, and that the innovation and adaptation measures which Rosen’s article ignores simply won’t happen.
Truth is, the sky is not falling, and the answer isn’t ending our oil and gas economy. The solution is doubling down on smart, energy-driven adaptation, something we Alaskans know how to do.
Rosen’s article leans heavily on worst-case climate models, assuming we’ll all be baking in heat and wading through water in just a few decades. But as Gregory Wrightstone documents in Inconvenient Facts, these models are routinely wrong, especially in the Arctic, where natural climate fluctuations have occurred for thousands of years. Permafrost has thawed before, during periods like the Medieval Warm Period, yet we’re still here adapting and innovating.
Even if methane releases were to become more significant, a society with abundant, affordable energy will be well equipped to handle the problem.
In fact, today’s temperatures are not tracking with the extreme scenarios the IPCC continues to promote. Real-world data from NASA and NOAA show that warming is occurring at a much slower rate. Ignoring that in favor of panic-driven forecasts is a disservice to science and to Alaskans.
Let’s be clear. Fossil fuels are not destroying Alaska. They are the reason we have been able to thrive in one of the harshest environments on Earth. In Fossil Future, Alex Epstein explains that affordable, reliable energy is the foundation of human progress and resilience. Fossil fuels are why the modern world can support today’s population. They are the reason we have alternatives like wind and solar, AI, data centers, global transportation, and the ability to live in places that would otherwise be uninhabitable.
It’s no coincidence that the very technologies used to assess and adapt to permafrost challenges, such as satellite imagery and heavy construction equipment, depend on energy from oil and gas. The Bottomless Well by Huber and Mills makes this clear: the more energy we have, the more solutions we can implement.
The $37 to $51 billion figure cited in the article is a classic example of speculative modeling that does not reflect reality. As Steve Goreham explains in The Green Breakdown, these kinds of cost estimates often overlook market-driven adaptation and the engineering advances that dramatically reduce costs over time.
Rosen’s article relies on fear and leaves out essential facts. It exaggerates the risks, ignores historical context, and underestimates our capacity to adapt
Take Fairbanks, for example. Yes, it faces serious challenges from thawing ground. But we are already using proven techniques like insulated foundations, thermosyphons, and strategic siting of infrastructure. These methods are not only effective, they cost far less than the inflated projections in Rosen’s article. The idea that Alaska is just going to sit back and let buildings collapse is both absurd and insulting.
Rosen doesn’t directly state it, but she hints at the idea of a methane “time bomb” from thawing permafrost – also an overblown claim. As both Wrightstone and Epstein point out, methane from permafrost is a minor factor compared to emissions from wetlands and agriculture. Furthermore, methane breaks down in the atmosphere over a relatively short time.
Even if methane releases were to become more significant, a society with abundant, affordable energy will be well equipped to handle the problem. But that depends on continuing to produce energy and maintaining the technology and innovation that comes with it.
The core issue here isn’t permafrost. It’s political overreach. Ideologically driven lawsuits aimed at blocking Alaska energy development won’t stop the ground from thawing. What it will do is make it harder to pay for the practical solutions we already know how to apply.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
The Green Breakdown and The Bottomless Well both reinforce the same point: adaptation is faster and more affordable and effective than sweeping global climate mitigation policies. We don’t need approval from Washington bureaucrats or climate activists to build strong, resilient communities. We just need the freedom to use our own resources and the determination to invest in real-world solutions. The kind of solutions that come from access to abundant and affordable energy, including fossil fuels and other emerging sources.
Rosen’s article relies on fear and leaves out essential facts. It exaggerates the risks, ignores historical context, and underestimates our capacity to adapt. More concerning, it supports a broader agenda that seeks to sideline Alaska’s resource economy under the cover of environmental concern.
Books like Fossil Future, Inconvenient Facts, The Bottomless Well, and The Green Breakdown offer a far more realistic perspective. Innovation, energy, and engineering; not fear, regulation, or restriction, are what will secure our future.
Alaskans are resilient. We have built roads through tundra, pipelines across mountains, and airports on permafrost. We can meet future challenges too but only if we are allowed to keep using the tools and resources that built this great state in the first place.
The views expressed here are those of the author.