[ad_1]
There are few subjects on which most Democrats and Republicans agree, but Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has created at least two sources of bipartisan consensus: that Russia should be punished for its actions and that the West’s ability to do so effectively is hamstrung by Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and oil.
Once the conversation turns to how to reduce that dependence, however the answer splits along partisan lines. Republicans and the oil industry call for more U.S. production. Democrats and environmentalists argue that the war shows the need to immediately shift to cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind power.
On Wednesday, GOP Sens. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee and Dan Sullivan from Alaska wrote President Biden a letter describing the steps he could take in order to increase U.S. oil-and-gas production. “Joe Biden has given up the best defense we had against Putin’s evil vision for the world — energy independence,” . “We need to make America energy independent again. It’s time to divest from Russian energy and stop funding Putin’s war, and reauthorize the Keystone Pipeline.”
Some Democrats countered that the Keystone XL oil pipe would worsen climate change and would have little if any impact on U.S. energy independence. The United States is already a major producer and exporter of oil and natural gas. However, prices are set by global supply/demand. Even if the U.S. continues to be a major consumer of oil, it remains vulnerable for price spikes from foreign supply disruptions.
Rep Sean Casten told The Hill this week that instead of trying to produce more fossil fuels, Congress should pass Biden’s Build Back Better proposal to invest in widely deploying clean energy, electric vehicles and energy efficiency improvements. “If we make our vehicles more efficient, if we make our homes more efficient — that reduces the need for oil and gas regardless of the source,” .
Countering Russian aggression towards its neighbors is not the only thing that’s at stake in this debate, as the effort to prevent catastrophic climate change may hinge on how the wealthy Western democracies — which produce a disproportionately large share of the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change — respond to the current crisis.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in order to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius or more above pre-Industrial levels — the marker scientists say is necessary to avoid massive disasters such as the inundation of major cities — carbon emissions must decline by 45 percent by 2030. However, current national commitments are allowing the world to increase its carbon emissions. This decade. Depending on how nations react, this huge gap between science and what humanity actually does might be narrowed or widened.
Germany, for example, has It has set 2040-2035 as the deadline for eliminating fossil fuels in its energy portfolio. But Germany’s decision — made in the wake of the at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant — to shutter its nuclear power plants by 2022 makes it hard for the country to swiftly cut back on gas imports.
The United States and its allies have imposed economic restrictions on Russia but have not committed to stopping buying Russian fossil fuels. Sanctioning those industries would strengthen the West’s hand and weaken Russia’s, but Europe needs to keep their lights on, their cars running and their furnaces boiling.
Environmental activists also condemned the invasion, but argued that fossil fuels were part of the problem. “This war is inherently linked to fossil fuel dependency, and Putin’s power is very much tied to the fossil fuel industry — which, on the other hand, has led to the climate crisis,” Dominika Lasota, a Warsaw-based climate justice activist with the youth group Fridays for the Future, told Yahoo News. Fridays for Future Thursday was a day of protest against the war in the cities of the world. “We also want to make a strong mark on the fact that fossil fuels are endangering life on the planet, be it through the climate crisis or conflicts like this,” Lasota said.
In the short term, however, there’s not much that can be done to immediately replace a dependence on Russian oil with renewable energy since any measure to rebalance Europe’s energy portfolio will require years of building up the infrastructure — whether it’s liquefied natural gas export terminals in the United States or wind turbines in Austria.
“It’s not so simple to just say ‘OK, overnight, now we’re going to suddenly switch and no longer going to be dependent on natural gas from Russia,’ or fossil fuels in general,” Pete Ogden, vice president for energy, climate, and the environment at the U.N. Foundation, told Yahoo News. “Right now, you’re seeing that vulnerability exposed and there not being easy, short-term fixes to that problem.”
Ogden agrees with other environmental experts that the Russia-Ukraine conflict should encourage other countries to move to electrified transportation and clean electricity generation as quickly as possible. This would avoid being subjected to the dictatorship of someone who uses fossil fuels to their advantage.
“We see this all the time: oil prices go up and until we actually have made the transition [from] internal combustion vehicles into electric vehicles, we’re not going to have easy alternatives when prices spike, whether due to supply disruption or just market volatility,” Ogden said. “Clearly, the path to greater energy security in the long term is to transition away from fossil fuel dependence. And that’s not just true for the Europeans.”
But the fossil fuel industry, and its allies, argue that if the Biden administration deregulated oil and gas production it would strengthen the West’s hand in dealing with Putin. American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers wrote last week complaining that “the administration continues to block U.S. energy production.” API, a trade association of gas and oil companies, called for the federal government to expand oil and gas drilling on federal land, streamline the permitting process for new natural gas pipelines and to open more offshore areas to drilling.
“At a time of geopolitical strife, America should deploy its ample energy abundance – not restrict it,” Sommers wrote.
“You talk about weakness on the part of Joe Biden. What does he do when he gets to office? He shuts down American energy production and greenlights Russian energy production,” R-Mo. said the same thing at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin feels emboldened to do whatever he wants to do?”
They are at or close to record highs and have not fallen since Biden was elected. Biden’s proposals to curtail federal fossil fuel leasing have not yet had any effect on production and less than one-quarter of gas and oil production happens on federal lands and waters.
Meanwhile, — a frightening litany of harmful effects on humans that climate change is already having or soon will have if no action to prevent it is taken — was released Monday morning, but its coverage was muted by the widespread focus on Russia and Ukraine.
A coalition of moderates representing both parties, including Democratic senators, met on Thursday to discuss the issue. Joe Manchin, West Virginia’s Jon Tester, from Montana, and Lisa Murkowski, Alaska’s Republican, introduced a bill banning marijuana. . Green New Deal author Senator Ed Markey, D-Mass. has an alternative bill. This would do the exact same thing, but also create a strategy for prioritizing clean energy.
“American fossil fuel companies helped fuel Putin’s despicable war on Ukraine to the tune of billions, propping up the ‘oil-garchs’ and cronies that keep him in power,” . “There is no separating Russian oil from the corruption and human rights abuses of the Putin regime.
Biden, however, has been notable about climate change in recent weeks, as attention has shifted towards Ukraine and he hasn’t made the connection between the conflict and fossil fuel dependence that Casten and environmental activists have. Biden mentioned climate change only in passing in Tuesday’s State of the Union address. This was not in reference to the war.
In his State of the Union address, The U.S. will release 30,000,000 barrels of oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. To stabilize oil prices, 30 billion more barrels will be released by 30 countries.
Karine Jean-Pierre, spokesperson for the White House, warned that cutting off Russian oil imports could lead to an oil price spike.
“We don’t have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy,” she told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Wednesday. “That would raise prices at the gas pump for Americans.”
Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va. was the chairman the Joint Economic Committee. He spoke out in an interview with NBC News Wednesday. “The president last night was trying to insulate the American citizen, the American consumer, from suffering too much,” said Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. “And I think the fear from the White House … is that if you cut off Russian oil, you could make people suffer too much and you could weaken our resolve to be a strong supporter of Ukraine.”
The reluctance of the U.S. to alter its long-term energy policy in the wake of the current crisis in Ukraine can be understood. Neither Build Back Better nor approving Keystone XL won’t change the outcome in Ukraine. Neither will a U.S. embargo on Russian oil. Russia can still sell oil elsewhere. What’s really at stake isn’t the West’s leverage against Russia in 2022, it’s the world’s dependence on fossil fuel producers in the coming years, because selling new fossil fuel leases or approving new pipelines locks in future fossil fuel development. A more sustainable energy portfolio would be possible if we began the process to permit and purchase the means to produce energy from sources like the sun and wind.
And so, ironically, the energy policy responses to this sudden crisis won’t likely make a difference to the fate of Ukraine but have an enormous impact on the fate of the Earth.
“At the end of the day, the idea that we’re going to find energy independence at the bottom of an oil barrel is not credible.” Ogden said.
_____
Global temperatures are rising and have been increasing for many decades. Take a look at the data to see the extent of climate change.
