Clean energy would break Russia’s geopolitical hold
For years, our planet has been showing us the need to move away from fossil fuels. Extreme weather, driven by excess greenhouse gas emissions, continues to get more frequent and more expensive to recover from. Here in Ohio, rainfall patterns have changed; our spring and fall weather is getting wetter, while summer is getting hotter and drier. At the Miami Valley Climate Change Seminar on April 26 of this year, Dr. Aaron Wilson of the Ohio State University noted the impact of these changes on Ohio farmers. Planting and harvesting seasons are complicated by increased rainfall, while dry conditions hurt crops during prime growing season. In addition, we are seeing more heavy rainfall events with totals of an inch or more within a 24-hour period. This increases the number of high water events on area rivers and streams, often flooding bike paths and other low lying areas, including some roads, making for dangerous driving conditions. These events also put an increased strain on the region’s extensive flood-control system.
But today, it’s not just the climate pressuring us to get off fossil fuels. Our geopolitical and economic realities are now demanding the same thing.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was swiftly condemned by world leaders, and President Biden announced a host of sanctions designed to cut Russia out of global economic activity. But Biden initially stopped short of direct sanctions on Russia’s primary exports: fossil fuels. “Russia is incredibly unimportant in the global economy except for oil and gas,” one Harvard economist points out. Ideally, America and our allies would hit them where it really hurts — and indeed, after a few weeks of conflict, bipartisan outcry from Congress prompted President Biden to ban imports of Russian fossil fuel. It’s encouraging to see our leaders increasingly willing to say no to the polluting fuels of a petrostate.
But of course, limiting the supply of oil and gas is expected to drive prices up, adding financial strain at a time when people are already struggling with inflation. It’s clear we need abundant, affordable energy — but what type?
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association representing American oil and gas producers, has renewed their calls for American energy independence through increased domestic oil and gas production. This is a false solution. The U.S. is already a net exporter of energy, yet our energy prices are still affected by the actions of other major players like Russia and Saudi Arabia. The “solution” of additional fossil fuels would merely be swap — an attempt to address one major problem while exacerbating others: climate change and price volatility.
Instead, it’s time to move as quickly as possible to power America with abundant clean energy Clean energy would make our domestic energy prices stable and affordable, freeing us from the volatility of fossil fuel prices. And of course, clean energy would not dump tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, continuing to destabilize our planet’s systems. The clean energy transition would bring more geopolitical, economic, and climatic stability, keeping us safer and more secure on many fronts. The E.U. is already taking steps in this direction, spurred by Russia’s attack. It’s time for the U.S. to deploy the most effective, fast-acting policies to do the same.
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 speed the transition to cleaner energy options throughout the entire economy, from the biggest industries down to individual consumer choices. Second, the revenue from the carbon price can be allocated to Americans as a regular dividend or “carbon cashback,” protecting Americans from higher costs and fighting against inflation. Third, a border carbon adjustment can be used to impose international pressure, which would break the grip of oil states like Russia. The European Union 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. 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 in my desk for the last three years just waiting for the time.” Republican Senator 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 discussions with renewed commitment. We can’t wait 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.
Robert A. Taft III served as Ohio’s 67th governor from 1999 to 2007. During his tenure, he instituted a temporary onehalf cent sales tax increase to generate revenue during the recession, cut the income tax rate and focused on expanding high tech jobs and improving education, among other initiatives.
Taft now serves as a distinguished research associate at the University of Dayton. In an interview, he discussed how politics has changed since he left office, what he does and doesn’t miss, and whether he’d be elected today.
The conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Do you miss politics?
No. Do I miss being governor? Yes. But I don’t miss the political combat. I mean, I enjoyed working with legislators and meeting people around the state. You make a lot of friendships.
But campaigning isn’t easy.
Campaigning is very hard work. very repetitive. I don’t miss the parades, although parades are important. They’re important for vis- ibility, but it’s hard work to smile for an hour.
How has politics, in your view, changed since the time as governor?
I think politics has become more hyper-partisan. It’s become more like war.
And it’s become that way to some extent in both par- ties. Compromise with the other side, even to get some- thing important, is frowned upon. There’s more, I think, dislike of the other side. That’s especially true at the national level, with fewer close relationships among elected officials across the aisle, where people really got to know each other as people as human beings. Columbus has been infected somewhat by the national divisions, the national polarization, so there’s probably less working across the aisle now in Columbus than there used to be.
How have the political parties changed?
The Republican Party has moved more to the right, Democrats more to the left. There used to be more moderates. When I was starting in politics, the Demo- cratic Party was the party of the working class, and the Republicans more business, maybe upscale. Well, now, the Democrat Party is more of the party of the coastal e lites, so to speak, and less the party of the work- ing class. And, you know, (former President Donald) Trump did very well with the working-class areas of the country that had been hollowed out by globalization, China, the decline of manufacturing, and so forth.
How did Republicans make gains with working-class voters?
I think the Democratic Party became more associated with identity politics and removed themselves from their traditional constituency, who then didn’t have a home. I’m not an expert, but I think that those communities, those middle income, blue-collar communities that have more traditional values, felt that the Democratic Party was no longer speaking to them.
What’s your philosophy of governing?
It’s a combination of conservative and pragmatic. The state has certain jobs like funding schools, transpor- tation, park systems, public services. So that’s my philos- ophy of government. That was my dad’s (Bob Taft Jr.) too back when he was in Congress. He voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. He was a moderate Republican. But today, if you look at Congress, and if you look at state legislatures, no Republican would want to call them- selves a moderate.
Do you think you could be elected today?
I’m not sure. I think some of the conservative Republicans thought I was a RINO (Republican In Name Only) anyway. I might give a State of the State speech and talk about the need to rebuild our highways, or we need a clean Ohio fund for trails and parks and waterways. And then some Republicans would say, now we want to hear the Republican response to Governor Taft’s speech. (chuckles)
Do we run the risk of running good people out of government?
I think that’s a great risk, that good people are not going to want to run because it is so partisan, so nasty. The lack of civility is an issue, too. The lack of respect for human differences, for human dignity. I think that’s a real problem, so I’m very concerned.