We Can Fight Climate Change and Russian Aggression

Guest Opinion

By Cathye Williams | March 26, 2022

While some refuse to face the truth, most people recognize that the continued use of fossil fuels is harming the planet and all life on it. Carbon emissions drive climate change, leading to ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels, more frequent/intense storms, wildfires, floods, and droughts. More directly, air pollution from carbon emissions leads to an estimated 3.6 million premature deaths a year.

The cruel Russian invasion of Ukraine highlights another compelling reason to transition to clean energy: ending the stranglehold that fossil fuel states have on the safety and security of sovereign nations.

In response to Russian aggression, President Biden announced a host of sanctions, including a ban on imports of Russian oil and gas products. These sanctions, while weakening Putin’s assault on an innocent nation, will limit world supplies, adding strain in Europe and the West at a time when people are already struggling with inflation. Even worse, they will create volatility and rising prices, boosting Putin’s profits that he will ultimately funnel back to his war machine. It’s clear that America’s—and the world’s—fossil fuel dependence is complicating our ability to control Russian aggression through sanctions.

American oil companies and their allies in Congress would like us to think that the only remedy to this quandary is to increase domestic oil and gas production. While energy independence is an important goal, this is a troubling “solution.” No matter how much we produce in the U.S., we are still beholden to global oil prices. Increased domestic production might lower prices some, but it would have a minimal impact on the huge global market.

Increased post-pandemic global demand, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, has driven up gas prices, but why are fossil fuel companies enjoying record profits while Americans face these higher energy costs? Recent statements by oil CEOs reveal that their priorities have little to do with the suffering of Ukraine, nor the plight of American consumers. Instead, they have stressed the importance of returning cash back to the shareholders and stated that they “have no need and no intent to invest in production growth this year.” (So says the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, headquartered in Houston.)

The short-term costs of the necessary and just transition to clean energy should not be the burden of consumers, but rather of the industry that has reaped exorbitant profit from dirty energy for decades. Furthermore, even if extracting more fossil fuels provides any relief, it will exacerbate another problem: climate change, a harm that oil companies have ignored for decades.

So, how can we loosen Putin’s stranglehold and end our dependence on life-killing fossil fuels?

First, reduce demand rather than pumping more oil. The oil industry would like us to think this means deprivation, creating a false narrative that we wouldn’t be able to drive anywhere or heat our homes. This is far from a realistic assessment of what would be needed. The International Energy Agency plan says that Europe can reduce its need for Russian gas through energy efficiency, electrification, conservation, increasing production from existing nuclear plants, and accelerating deployment of wind and solar installations. Americans could also adopt many of these efficiency measures such as carpooling, work-at-home options, and incentivizing public transportation. These are hardly huge sacrifices for most people and have the added benefit of saving us all money.

Second, move swiftly to non-fossil fuel sources of energy. In spite of what the fossil fuel industry would have us believe, we have the technology necessary to move fast, and deploying it will save us money. Climate advocate Bill McKibben has suggested invoking the Defense Production Act to ramp up the manufacture of heat pumps for shipment abroad. Rewiring America’s Electrify for Peace Policy Plan is a three-part plan that would build American manufacturing and workforce capacity to help Europe reduce its reliance on Russian energy and support long-term energy security for the U.S. as well.

During World War II, we mobilized in a similar way, transforming American labor and industry to produce what was needed to defend democracy: tanks, bombers, destroyers, helmets, and parachutes. We innovated and created substitutes for materials not readily available to us. Today, these same strategies could bring control of renewable manufacturing back to our shores. The timeline is doable—wind farms in Europe have been built inside of 18 months without any wartime pressure.

Finally, we should implement carbon pricing with a border adjustment. A steadily increasing carbon fee would speed the transition to cleaner energy options throughout the entire economy, and the revenue collected from polluters would be returned to Americans as a “carbon cashback” dividend, protecting us from higher costs and guarding against inflation. The border carbon adjustment would impose international pressure for carbon-free energy, breaking the grip of oil states like Russia. The EU is already planning a tariff like this, and a joint trade mechanism would create a united front to counter them further.

We should remember another key advantage of renewable power: it’s widely distributed, making it far less vulnerable to attack. All the more reason to support an all-out effort to decarbonize the free world.

Cathye Williams serves as volunteer and media liaison for the Grand Traverse and Manistee chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. She writes from the northern corner of Manistee County.