Madeleine Para and Jim Wightman: Clean energy transition would break Russia’s geopolitical hold

For years, our evolving planet has sent alarming messages about the existential need to move away from fossil fuels. Extreme weather events, driven by excess greenhouse gas emissions, are more frequent and more expensive to recover from. Today, it’s not just climate change pressuring us to get off fossil fuels, current geopolitical and economic realities now demand the same thing.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was swiftly condemned by world leaders, and President Joe Biden announced a host of sanctions designed to cut Russia out of the global economy. These now include stopping all U.S. oil and natural gas imports, with consultation with European allies, even though this move will ultimately drive prices up, to Putin’s benefit. Germany’s bold move in shutting down the Nord Stream pipeline is equally laudable.

And, the European Union is taking steps in this direction. Higher energy prices will create additional burdens in Europe and here at home. However, this move sends a clear message in support of Ukrainian struggles for independence.

“Russia is incredibly unimportant in the global economy except for oil and gas,” one Harvard economist pointed out. It’s encouraging that the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association representing American oil and gas producers, has renewed its calls for American energy independence. This is an important goal, but, overall, energy independence cannot be achieved solely through increased domestic oil and gas production.

Presently, the U.S. is a net exporter of oil and gas, yet our energy prices are still affected by actions of major producers like Russia and Saudi Arabia. So, the “solution” of increasing domestic fossil fuel production would merely be a swap — an attempt to address one major problem while exacerbating others: climate change and price volatility.

So, let’s imagine an America powered by abundant clean energy, leading the world in the transition away from fossil fuels. Eventually, increased clean-energy production would translate to stable and affordable domestic energy prices, freeing us from the volatility of fossil fuel prices. And of course, clean energy would not produce heat-trapping gases that have destabilized our planet’s atmosphere and ecosystems. Equally important, our clean energy transition would bring more geopolitical and economic stability, keeping us safer and more secure.

The question now is how can the U.S. make the transition? A well-designed price on carbon — which the U.S. Senate is already seriously discussing — would meet all the needs here.

First, imposing a steadily increasing carbon price would incentivize the transition to cleaner energy options, from the biggest industrial consumers down to individual households.

Second, revenue generated from the carbon price adjustment will be allocated to Americans as a regular dividend or “carbon cashback,” offsetting higher oil and gas prices and fighting against inflation.

Third, a border adjustment on carbon consumed in production of goods offshore will impose international pressure to transition to clean energy and break the grip of fossil fuel producers like Russia. The E.U. is already planning to implement a tariff like this, and Republicans in Congress are expressing support for a similar idea.

At the height of Build Back Better negotiations last fall, this idea was a prominent one. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Finance Committee to craft carbon pricing legislation. Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden said, “I’ve had a carbon pricing bill on my desk for the last three years just waiting for the time.” Republican Sen. Mitt Romney — who, it’s worth noting, identified Russia as a threat in 2012 — said in January, “If you’re serious about climate, put a price on carbon.”

It’s time for our elected officials to jump back into these policy discussions with renewed commitment. We can’t wait any longer for the transition to clean energy, and we have broad agreement on the policy that can get us there. Our climate, our energy prices, and the stability of our world are at stake.

Madeleine Para is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Jim Wightman is a media liaison for Citizens Climate Lobby – SLC Chapter.