We can protect consumers from high energy costs and mitigate the climate crisis

Drivers are furious about the huge spike in gasoline prices, but blaming President Biden is ill-informed and short-sighted. The prices of oil and gas are set globally and historically rise and fall in relation to international events. Because of the global pandemic, demand for these fuels dropped significantly, and supplies are only now getting back to previous levels.

The war in Ukraine is causing the most turmoil in oil markets. As Europe curtails its use of Russian fuels, other producers are rushing in to supply them at inflated prices. Nearly three-fourths of all U.S. liquified natural gas was sent to Europe during the first four months of 2022. Rather than increasing production, oil companies are raking in billions in extra profits and plowing the windfall back into stock buybacks and dividends.

The president is not at fault here. Indeed, from his first days in office he has warned about our addiction to fossil fuels and has done all he can to transition us to a renewable energy economy that would not be subject to the vagaries of oil producers, most of which are in the control of authoritarian nations.

Unless we wake up soon to the urgency of the climate crisis, we’ll be dealing with far worse than expensive gasoline. New research reveals that inaction on climate change could cost the world’s economy $178 trillion by 2070.The human suffering, death and destruction related to unprecedented heat waves, chronic droughts, devastating wildfires, rising sea levels and extreme weather events, is the direct result of the heat-trapping emissions from burning coal, oil and gas.

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report concludes that we already have the knowledge and technology to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy — the only barriers are political. And here’s where the fossil fuel industry has an enormous advantage. They use their immense financial and political power to influence elected officials. That influence can be seen in the Republican climate plan released earlier this month, which basically calls for increasing the production and use of the very fuels that are over-heating our planet. Their plan sets no targets for reducing emissions and proposes no incentives to transition to renewable energy. Climate activist Bill McKibben compared it to announcing a health plan that “involves mailing every American a carton of cigarettes and a Wendy’s coupon.”

Funded by fossil fuel interests, the Republican Party and conservative legal activists have been working for years to limit the ability of the federal government and its regulatory agencies to set and regulate pollution standards. This year, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could severely limit the executive branch’s ability to tackle global warming. And, coming up through the jurisdictions of Republican-appointed federal court judges are more cases brought by Republican attorneys general all aimed at blocking the government’s ability to regulate industries and businesses that produce greenhouse gas emissions.

Democrats are much more serious about climate action. Their climate plans include the goal of cutting emissions in half by 2030 and incentives to encourage the transition to a clean energy economy. Unfortunately, one coal-state senator, who receives the most funding from fossil fuel interests, has managed to block it so far.

What can be done? Those who understand the looming peril and the urgency to act may feel that the deck is stacked, and effective climate mitigation is an unreachable goal. After decades of unheeded warnings even climate scientists, in desperation, have begun to take part in civil disobedience.

To achieve a clean energy future, economists have long advocated for climate policies that include a carbon pollution fee, cash-back dividend and border carbon tariff. This market-friendly, revenue-neutral approach should gather support from Republicans as well as Democrats.

An increasing carbon fee (tax) on coal, oil and gas companies would raise the price of carbon-intensive products, reflecting truer costs of the devastation they cause. As these fuels become more expensive, renewable energy, already more competitive, becomes the preferred choice for power. The revenue collected from fossil fuel companies is re-distributed back to American families to help them pay higher energy costs during the transition. Under these policies, higher costs at the pump (or on other goods) would be offset by substantial monthly cash-back to households. Low-and-middle-income families would receive more in monthly cash-back than required for increased energy costs. And, to affect a global solution, a border carbon adjustment would require all our trading partners, including China, to either pay a carbon tariff on their imports to the U.S. or adopt similar policies at home.

Robert “Bob” Taylor is a freelance journalist who specializes in environmental issues and previously worked as an economic analyst for Shell oil company. He was a contributor to “Reaching Net Zero: What it takes to solve the global climate crisis,” published in 2021.  

Craig B. Smith, Ph.D., is an engineer and former faculty member at UCLA. He is the former president and chairman of the international architect/engineering company DMJM. He is the author of several books on energy efficiency and global warming, most recently co-author of “Reaching Net Zero: What it takes to solve the global climate crisis.”