Option 3 for the Siku coastal plain in northern Alaska is to protect the area permanently as wilderness, with no oil drilling. Instead, the US government would invest USD 400 million over 10 years in renewable energy (wind turbines, solar panels and batteries) and insulation for Alaskan communities, many of which currently rely on expensive diesel generators. It would create 800 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs, but no oil taxes. Option 1 (drilling on land) would instead create 900 permanent jobs and USD 1.2 billion a year in oil taxes.
To what extent would option 3 be a sustainable choice? Use evidence from the information above and your own knowledge.
Model answer
A sustainable choice meets the needs of people today without damaging the environment or the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Option 3 is sustainable to a large extent, especially environmentally, but it has some economic weaknesses.
Environmentally, option 3 is by far the most sustainable option. The coastal plain would stay as wilderness, protecting the caribou calving grounds, the wetlands where migrating birds nest, and the fragile permafrost and tundra. There would be no risk of an oil spill. Because the oil would stay in the ground, it would not be burned, so no extra carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere, helping the USA meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Replacing diesel generators in Alaskan communities with wind turbines, solar panels and batteries would cut emissions and local air pollution even further.
Socially, option 3 protects the Gwich'in, who depend on the caribou for food and culture. Remote communities would also benefit from cheaper and more reliable electricity once renewables replace expensive diesel, and from local jobs installing and maintaining the equipment. However, Iñupiat communities such as Nanuq would lose the oil tax income that could have paid for their school, clinic and water supply, so not everyone would benefit.
Economically, the picture is less positive. Option 3 creates only 400 permanent jobs compared with 900 for option 1, provides no oil taxes compared with USD 1.2 billion a year under option 1, and costs the government USD 400 million. On the other hand, renewable energy reduces fuel costs for decades and is not affected by rising oil prices, and it builds skills in a growing industry. There are also practical problems: in the Arctic winter there are months of darkness, so solar panels produce little, and extreme cold affects batteries, so backup will still be needed. In addition, if the USA simply imports more oil, the emissions and spill risks may just move to another part of the world.
Overall, option 3 is highly sustainable environmentally and for most communities socially, and it is the only option that fits a future in which fossil fuel use must fall. Its weaknesses are economic and short term, so it is the most sustainable choice in the long term, provided the investment in renewables is reliable enough to meet communities' needs.
Explanation
A 'to what extent' answer needs a judgement. Weigh each strand of sustainability, recognise who loses (communities expecting oil taxes, the state economy) and practical problems (winter darkness for solar power), and consider whether emissions simply move elsewhere. A supported conclusion such as 'sustainable in the long term but economically challenging in the short term' reaches Level 3.
