Let’s talk about climate change for a second. Now I know what you’re thinking— “I’ve heard this argument a million times by now: climate change is bad.” Maybe, a good half of the world (and that’s being optimistic) understands that the rise of sea levels, ocean acidification, displacement of populations, and global warming are horrible outcomes, but there’s more to the discussion surrounding climate change than just the science. Despite understanding the general ramifications of climate change, most of the American population, even the world, have grown apathetic to it, without fully grasping the economic and political consequences. Especially in America, we don’t necessarily see the effects of climate catastrophes, unless you lived in Texas during February of last year when it had its own “winter,” or in New Orleans, which has its fair shares of hurricanes every now and then. Even as Californians, our annual deadly forest fires are now simply a fact of life, rather than something that can be preventable.
Because of this apathy, many Americans, despite how liberal they may lean, still have their qualms about converting to green energy, or moving towards passing referendums similar to the Green New Deal. Why is this, you may ask? We all know climate change is disastrous, yet policies like the Green New Deal face severe criticism since it advocates for something beyond just solving for climate change. Instead, it further aims to overhaul transportation systems and infrastructure, deconstruct the current state of the economy that is so heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and even provide affordable housing and healthcare. Much of the opposition to green energy policies arise from the assumption that these matters aren’t intersectional, and that climate change is its own issue that doesn’t have an effect on anything else. But what if I were to tell you that the fossil fuel industry proves otherwise?
To have a basic understanding of the intersectional nature of climate change, one question must be answered first: when did it ever become morally acceptable to capitalize off of human suffering? The answer should be “it never was,” yet the war in Ukraine and the American Petroleum Institute’s greed suggest a different answer. On the one-year anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it’s important to reflect on not only the loss of human life and the displacement of over eight million civilians, but also capitalism’s hand in fueling a worse outcome for a sustainable future amidst a humanitarian crisis.
The war in Ukraine has led the American Petroleum Institute (API) to push forward the narrative of “unleashing American energy” to combat Russian hegemony with oil. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the API encouraged the current administration to reverse its green energy rhetoric and encourage domestic drilling in the United States. The API claims that increasing domestic drilling not only helps alleviate the price at the pump, but also helps Ukraine by providing energy needs to its allies abroad in Europe. In their statement defending unused federal leases for drilling, the API supports the argument that loosening regulations in the present will not help Ukraine immediately, or ever for that matter. Kevin O’Scannlain states, “Developing a lease takes years and substantial effort to determine whether the underlying geology holds commercial quantities of oil and/or gas. The lengthy process to develop them from a lease often is extended by administrative and legal challenges at every step along the way”(O’Scannlain, 2022).
By the time that conditions are met for oil to be drilled, domestic production will increase later, and Ukraine will not reap the benefits. This statement by the API also did not deny the fact that oil companies currently sit on a large stockpile of leases. The API also fails to acknowledge that the Biden administration had approved more leases than Trump had in his first year in office (Brown & Bussewitz, 2021).
Furthermore, Mike Sommers, the CEO of the API, has expressed before the war that the incentive to increase domestic production has political ramifications, forcing policymakers to choose between Russia, painted as a violent regime, or American oil. This statement raises some concerns regarding the API’s desire for America to be a hegemonic force in oil, greater than OPEC+ which has also been referred to as a “cartel” that can hold the US as a hostage to their demands (Yahoo Finance, 2019). The API has also explicitly blamed Biden for decreasing investment into the oil industry, citing his green rhetoric regarding halting construction of Keystone XL as an example of a deterrent to investors (Green, 2021). Overall, the API has been urging Biden to cater to American energy needs under the guise of “setting the foundation for Europe’s energy security” through encouraging the clarification of leasing bans, permitting energy infrastructure, and consolidating offshore drilling plans (Sommers, 2022).
Logically, producing more oil in America will counter Russia’s power as an oil producer, which will make oil prices cheaper for Americans since we don’t have to rely on Russian imports…right? Unfortunately, that’s not exactly the case.
What you’ve most likely heard from the news is that U.S. sanctions on Russian gas have led to an increase in oil prices here at home, but what they conveniently leave out is that less than 10% of gas in America is imported from Russia. Even if you take into account that Biden’s policies, such as killing the construction of the Keystone pipeline are causing oil price spikes, it doesn’t explain the fact that oil and gas drilling has only increased under Biden, with a net increase of 0.3 million barrels of oil per day as compared to when Trump was in office. In fact, Pioneer, Natural Resources, Devon Energy and more suppliers have stated that they don’t intend to change the production of homegrown U.S. shale oil, even amidst a war that could cause shortages because their shareholders don’t want to see a decline in profits. Either they could flood the market with more oil and cause current prices to plummet to an actual affordable level or do what corporations do best, which is let consumers suffer if it means making more money.
But let’s backtrack to the onset of the pandemic where Americans simply weren’t using gas, causing prices to tank by nearly a dollar per gallon. Anytime these fossil fuel companies experience even a minor hit to their profit margins, they have the ability to lobby in Congress and ask for deregulation of processes such as fracking and building pipelines, as well as requesting for an increase in subsidization. Deceivingly, what these companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil in the API don’t want you to know is that massive profits, to the likes of nearly 174 billion dollars, have surged in 2021, even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Milman, 2021).
Now with all of this information put into light, it’s clear to see that American gas and oil companies are using the pretext of a war to profit more in the future, regardless of whether the Russian invasion is still occurring. But why does all of this matter? For one, the API’s new call to “unleash American energy” doesn’t actually alleviate gas prices or do anything for Ukrainians. In fact, building more oil pipelines and furthering our reliance on gas only directly helps Russia. My personal disgust with the API stems from the fact that they outwardly condemn the war on Ukraine, yet adamantly fight sanctions against Russian gas companies to limit “potential harm to the competitiveness of U.S. companies.” By solidifying global dependence on fossil fuels, the API is only furthering Russia’s leverage, since they have millions of more proven oil reserves than America does.
What can actually make America energy independent, if creating more pipelines and lessening fracking restrictions isn’t the answer? One word: renewables. If oil prices spike anytime a major event occurs, even a conflict on the other side of the planet, how can we still say that oil is a reliable energy source?
This is where the conversation directly ties back into climate change and a push for greener energy. It’s simple: the more we allow these fossil fuel companies to expand their reach under the guise of “global conflicts,” the less energy independent America becomes, and the worse off the world becomes due to an increase in carbon emissions. The argument regarding climate change is therefore much more than just about the environmental impacts of climate change. Not only is fossil fuel dependency terrible for the environment, but also detrimental for Ukraine, global economic stability, and even your wallet. The reason policies like the Green New Deal are being written in the first place is because the current economic structure must be deconstructed. It’s a system that lines the pockets of corrupt politicians and lobbyists, but more importantly, it’s a system that is now currently profiting off of the deaths of innocent Ukrainians.
A vision of a greener world isn’t radical. Such a vision only consists of a just world where a fulfilled life is ensured for everyone, where capital isn’t prioritized over basic humanity. Most importantly, this vision isn’t some far-off wishful thinking either. As citizens living in a country as economically prosperous as America, it is not only possible to hold corporations accountable for their wrongdoings, but it should be our moral duty to secure a better future for our posterity.
Works Cited
Brown, M., & Bussewitz, C. (2021, April 28). Oil companies lock in drilling, challenging Biden on climate. AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-wyoming-coronavirus-pandemic-a917f51126fa2641e0713573424b2b11
Green, M. (2021, November 11). Chilling the Energy Investment Climate. American Petroleum Institute. https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2021/11/11/chilling-the-energy-investment-climate
Milman, Oliver. (2021, December 6). “Exclusive: Oil Companies’ Profits Soared to $174bn This Year as US Gas Prices Rose.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/06/oil-companies-profits-exxon-chevron-shell-exclusive#:~:text=1%20year%20old-.
O’Scannlain, K. (2022, March 4). The Red Herring of Unused Leases. American Petroleum Institute. https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2022/03/04/the-red-herring-of-unused-leases&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1661794919508819&usg=AOvVaw3M_XrREmM5xEY2PIx4LGIW
Sommers, M. (2022, February 24). Actions on Energy Security Should Match Reassuring Words on Ukraine Crisis. American Petroleum Institute. https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2022/02/24/actions-on-energy-security-should-match-reassuring-words-on-ukraine-crisis
Yahoo Finance. (2019, May 8). API president: “We are very concerned about tariffs…we are losing market share in Asia.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoYn1x-VmD4
The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect nor represent the Earth Chronicles and its editorial board.
