The impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on climate change policy
Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine has drawn attention to Russia’s role as one of the world’s top three suppliers of fossil fuels. The United States, Saudi Arabia and Russia lead the way in GHG sales. As our economy becomes more and more dependent on energy as a daily necessity, the need for reliable and affordable energy is becoming more apparent. Despite all their problems, fossil fuels are still our primary source of energy. While the fossil fuel industry wants us to increase our reliance on their products, it is clearly not in our interest to do so.
Even setting aside the environmental damage caused by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, supply volatility and price volatility make it a particularly problematic resource. The West’s ability to wage an economic war against Russia due to its wanton destruction of neighboring sovereign states is undermined by our reliance on fossil fuels. Europe is like a drug addict trying to attack its favorite drug dealer. Not a credible threat in the short term.Europeans know this, as Somini Sengupta and Lisa Friedman New York Times last week:
“European countries can quickly reduce their reliance on natural gas through energy efficiency measures and increased investment in renewable energy, analysts say, already in line with Europe’s ambition to stop emitting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by mid-century. Conflict in Ukraine could accelerate Part of that. It could also lead to what Lisa Fischer of the research group E3G follows energy policy calls a “tectonic shift” — the use of renewable energy sources rather than adequate gas storage for energy security.”
In the United States, the issue of energy security has been debated for half a century. The fragility of the energy supply in the 1970s led to calls for American energy independence that are now being revived by the baby drill crowd. The team was in charge during the Trump administration, and despite their best efforts, they could not ensure independence. This is not because the US lacks fossil fuels, but because we are in a global economy where there is no real way to keep US-produced fuels in the US if they can command higher prices elsewhere. The goal of energy independence was never realistic; it was just a deceptive political symbol. The only real way to ensure true energy independence is to break our dependence on fossil fuels. Renewable energy is the ultimate form of energy independence because no sovereign nation owns the sun. In addition, renewable energy will become increasingly affordable as innovations reduce the cost of technology to convert solar and wind energy into electricity. Battery technology, which is essential due to the intermittent nature of solar and wind power, is also improving. Motor vehicle batteries have become lighter while expanding their charging range.
In the short term, climate advocates are concerned, as the war and demand for Russian resources appear to have kept climate change off the political agenda. I think it makes perfect sense to shift our focus from climate policy to trying to stop murderous lunatics from destroying Ukraine and then possibly turning our attention to other nearby countries. The long-term effects of this war can and should increase demand for renewable energy as we scramble for energy supplies to replace Russia’s fossil fuels.
Disruptions to global supply chains are renewing calls for U.S.-first manufacturing and supply lines. It’s also more deceptive political nonsense. U.S. manufacturing will grow with the increased use of automation and artificial intelligence, but not in response to nationalist symbolism, but because the reduced need for low-cost labor in manufacturing makes it viable. Growing wealth in the global economy is used for services and creative production in information, analysis, design, health, education and entertainment. The global, high-tech, brain-based economy is here to stay. Communication, information and transport technologies have made global production the best way to produce high-quality, low-cost goods and services. Disruptions caused by COVID, climate impacts and war will disrupt but not disrupt global supply chains. We can expect companies to find redundant suppliers to deal with disruptions, but the global economy will continue to move forward relentlessly.
Which brings me back to climate policy. The Biden administration’s proposed $500 billion subsidy to accelerate decarbonization and adaptation to climate change is an important move. This element of the “Build Back Better” Act should be reinstated when the terror in Ukraine is over or at least suspended. The radical right-wing Supreme Court is likely to undermine the Clean Air Act and contradict an earlier George W. Bush-era decision to define greenhouse gases as dangerous pollutants requiring EPA regulation. Regardless, corporate, state and local decarbonization efforts will continue. In the famous words of Bob Dylan, “You don’t need a weatherman to know where the wind is going.” This is especially true during climate-amplified hurricanes, floods or forest fires. Most U.S. agencies are starting to focus on climate change. But the federal government’s role in supporting decarbonization is critical. Supreme Court justices, who live on earth like the rest of us, should reserve their anti-regulatory ideological zeal for a policy area that does not pose an existential threat to life as we know it. The Biden team has incorporated climate policy into the infrastructure bill and used federal purchasing power to help build a green economy. These are important steps, but the challenges of decarbonization will be profound. We also need to expand our efforts to developing countries, as we all share a biosphere.
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution will be a generational process. Unlike many other forms of pollution, carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and methane from agriculture and waste are deeply embedded in our economy. The process of reducing these pollutants takes time. But I believe that with ingenuity and determination we can reduce these dangerous pollutants. As we control this form of pollution, we will need to reduce the long-term buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through government-funded carbon capture and storage.
At the same time, it is entirely appropriate to focus on the growing catastrophe in Ukraine. My longstanding focus on environmental sustainability assumes that our leaders live in the real world and have a sense of awe for the planet and its well-being. It is clear that Mr Putin cares neither about people nor the planet. His delusions can be exponentially bigger and more dangerous than any climate or COVID deniers. The global effort to legitimize Putin takes precedence over any other issue on our political agenda. Confronting lethal force with economic and political force may prove insufficient, but it is entirely necessary. The scenes of suffering in Ukraine are heartbreaking. The recklessness of the Russian invasion has never been more evident than last week’s attack and nearly destruction of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine. We will soon return to the long-term threat of global warming. For now, the Ukrainian people deserve our help, support and prayers.
