Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Should PR Agencies Not Represent Fossil Fuel Clients?

      by

      The most basic objectives of public relations (PR) agencies are rather straightforward. They make an impact on the public perception of their clients and increase profits for shareholders. PR agencies work for companies in many sectors and represent these companies on several issues. Some issues resonate well with international norms and expectations, others less so. When PR agencies are perceived to be working against a global good, they are often castigated by  pressure groups and concerned citizens.

      These days, environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria have become important for most businesses and PR agencies are no exception. If businesses use child labor, burn forests or bribe politicians, many suppliers, buyers, investors and other stakeholders stop engaging with them. This focus on ESG has profound implications for PR agencies. Many expect them  to stop taking on clients with poor ESG records. For instance, some demand that PR agencies should stop taking on fossil fuel companies such as Chevron or Shell as clients.

      Such an argument raises key questions. As businesses, should PR agencies shut off a key source of revenue? What if they go bust? Are PR job losses desirable? Many businesses cause environmental damage. Should PR agencies also not accept mining companies and automobile manufacturers as clients? Should the burden of responsibility of accepting or not accepting clients rest on individual PR agencies?

      Public Pressure on Public Relations

      The outcry against PR agencies acting for fossil fuel companies has a context. Many believe that these agencies have downplayed scientific data revealing the scale of climate change to help the cause of their clients. Recently, a global coalition of over 450 climate scientists signed a letter calling on PR agencies and advertising firms to end relations with fossil fuel companies. These scientists want them to get behind legislation for climate change mitigation.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      In 2021, a study highlighted hundreds of elaborate campaigns purportedly designed by PR agencies to hinder climate action. Their clients include Shell, Chevron and other fossil fuel entities. Around the same time, the Clean Creatives collective published an open letter calling on Edelman, the world’s largest PR agency,  to end the ‘greenwashing’ of fossil fuel clients. 

      Edelman’s response to the climate emergency emphasized working with partners to accelerate climate action, develop best practices, and hold clients as well as itself accountable for mitigating climate change. The agency also promised many other changes but stopped short of dropping its energy clients.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The Pickle Over Climate Change

      To casual observers, these actions by Edelman might be indicative of an industry that uncompromisingly prioritizes profit above ethical standards. Despite the unquestionably sales-driven nature of the business, such a conclusion is too simplistic and a bit unfair. Like other sectors, PR has professional bodies that set ethical standards for the industry. Ethical competence is a prerequisite for membership. Of these, the International Public Relations Association’s (IPRA) code of conduct is one of the most comprehensive. Among its many provisions, the code states that practitioners must not intentionally disseminate false or misleading information.

      Last November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) inspired IPRA to form a chapter to heighten professional knowledge of climate-related issues. In doing so, the organization seeks to enable members “to play a valuable part in furthering communications aspects of climate change.” Neither IPRA nor this specific chapter urge PR professionals to cease business with fossil fuel clients, making it unlikely that Clean Creatives and climate change scientists will stop criticizing them.

      PR agencies are in a bind. When they work with fossil fuel producers, they have to abide by a code of conduct that might limit what they can do for their clients. The other option for PR agencies is to drop these clients altogether.

      Dropping fossil fuel companies might not be an entirely good idea though. If Shell sets its target of becoming a net-zero energy business by 2050, PR agencies could help. From developing communications strategies to running press offices, these agencies can help achieve this goal. They can also help in a crisis. Crisis communications helped citizens after  an oil spill off the coast of Peru.

      Ethics Matter and Might Be Good Business

      Any PR professional worth their salt knows that emphasizing the industry’s ethical charters and practices alone is unlikely to cut it with climate activists. For them, such is the severity of the climate emergency that PR agencies should just cease working with fossil fuel companies. Finding a way forward that will satisfy all sides, and suitably addresses climate change communication, remains challenging.

      For starters, some consultants may need to get better at managing some of their clients’ expectations. PR agencies might consider the value of emphasizing how they don’t support harmful aspects of oil and gas production. It goes without saying that PR agencies do promote oil and gas producers in Nigeria. However, they do not represent illegal oil refineries on the continent, which cause much pollution and drain state coffers. The risk of expulsion from trade associations and the fall of a leading firm like Bell Pottinger are very real for PR agencies. These businesses might upset their critics but they play by their own rules and do not cross thin lines in the sand.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Many PR agencies might also find inspiration from ESG business successes. In the 1990s, the UK’s Co-Operative Bank ran a powerful advertisement, promising not to invest their “customers’ money in countries with oppressive regimes.” This advertisement was part of a series that highlighted the bank’s commitment to ethical finance. The bank’s compelling ads had hard hitting and often harrowing content about landmines, fossil fuels and more. In 2021, the Co-Operative Bank was  named the best high street bank for ESG. Such sort of clients might represent the future of PR agencies.

      Fossil Fuels Are Legal and Essential, So Are Their PR Needs

      It is unlikely that PR agencies could run advertisements like the Co-Operative Bank for all their clients. Such campaigns would certainly not work for oil and gas producers. Giving them up as clients might not be the right business move. In fact, if PR agencies did  what the likes of Clean Creatives say and jettisoned these clients, climate change would still go on.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      The Russia-Ukraine conflict provides a timely reminder that fossil fuels still power the global economy. As essential players in the global economy, oil and gas producers need strategic communications support. They are not Colombian cartels operating in the shadow economy. If nothing else, these companies have to maintain crisis communications preparedness for public interest reasons. What happens if there is an oil spill? How does an oil company communicate about such a spill to the public? As long as we depend on oil for cars and on gas for power, PR agencies have a role to play for bona fide legal businesses.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 263 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I know how much it hurts’: Biden to release US oil in bid to lower gas prices – as it happened

      by

      Key events

      Show

      4.21pm EDT

      16:21

      Closing summary

      4.17pm EDT

      16:17

      ‘Incontrovertible evidence that this [war] has been a strategic disaster for Russia’ – White House

      3.15pm EDT

      15:15

      Biden: Putin may be in ‘self-isolation’

      2.48pm EDT

      14:48

      Romney: $10bn ‘agreement in principle’ over Covid relief

      1.56pm EDT

      13:56

      Biden confirms draw on oil reserves to lower gas prices

      11.44am EDT

      11:44

      Pelosi wants inquiry on Russia’s ‘crimes against children’

      9.33am EDT

      09:33

      Oil prices plunge as Biden mulls 180m barrel release

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      From

      1.56pm EDT

      13:56

      Biden confirms draw on oil reserves to lower gas prices

      Joe Biden says his plan to release 1m barrels daily from the US strategic oil reserves will: “Ease the pain families are feeling right now, end this era of dependence and uncertainty and lay a new and new foundation for true and lasting American energy independence.”
      The president is speaking live at the White House to announce the move, which he said would last up to six months and which will represent the largest ever draw ever on the country’s emergency supplies.
      “I know how much it hurts,” he said of rising gas prices that have followed the decision by the Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
      “Putin’s price hike is hitting Americans at the pump.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      After a Difficult Year, US Farmers Are Pessimistic

      by

      Debt is of great concern to many American citizens, despite the Biden administration’s selective efforts at debt forgiveness. While high and trending upward, debt has at least remained relatively stable over the past year.

      Market concentration, on the other hand, is a more pernicious issue. More than half the value of US farm production came from farms with at least $1 million in sales in 2015, compared to only 31% in 1991.

      The consequences of consolidation become apparent in the sales of various agricultural products. For example, in 2000, the biggest four companies sold 51% of soybean seeds in the United States. By 2015, their share rose to 76%.

      What Yemenis Can Learn From the Indian Farmers’ Protests

      READ MORE

      “The agricultural industry is different than other industries because Capper-Volstead allows them to combine in ways that other individuals would go to jail for,” says  Allee A. Ramadhan, a former Justice Department antitrust attorney who led an investigation into the dairy industry. The 1922 Capper-Volstead Act was a law originally designed to protect producers by allowing them to secure their interests through cooperatives. Unfortunately, it has resulted in the perfect conditions for heavy consolidation by the largest companies.

      Consolidation doesn’t just impact prices, but it also contributes to US agriculture’s declining competitiveness. That is why agriculture was included in President Joe Biden’s executive order on competition last July, in which he declared that the “American promise of a broad and sustained prosperity depends on an open and competitive economy.”

      Fertilizers and Destabilizing Forces

      In addition to the structural concerns for US agriculture, there have been further destabilizing factors since 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only did the health crisis remove domestic outlets for agricultural products due to repeated lockdowns, but it also severely disrupted production. This was particularly in terms of available human resources, whether before at the farms or down the processing chain with the temporary closure of many slaughterhouses.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Aside from the impact of COVID-19, extreme weather has pummeled certain states, reduced production and caused billions of dollars in damage. The prices of many inputs are snowballing into other areas. Prices for urea have skyrocketed. DAP, the common phosphate fertilizer, has reached its highest price tag since the 2008 financial crash that led to the food pricing crisis.

      “As fertilizer prices continue to rise, farmers will either cut application rates, cut fertilizer entirely in hopes for lower future pricing, or cut other farm products to account for the bigger expected spend,” says Alexis Maxwell, an analyst at Green Markets.

      Some farmers are essentially holding out before buying for the next growing season, in the hopes that costs come down. But that is a risky strategy.

      Contributing to the destabilizing forces, recent countervailing duties against foreign fertilizer producers selling to the US market have cut supply. Chris Edgington, the president of the National Cotton Growers Association, said in late 2021 that the Mosaic Company petitioned for the tariffs and has since seen its share of the phosphate market grow from 74% to 80%, a near-monopoly. “There’s been a dramatic increase of fertilizer costs to the producer and that’s not looking to end,” he added. In general, the price increases for different fertilizers are not yet at the levels seen in 2008, but they could soon be even higher if they keep climbing.

      Uncertainty Due to the Ukraine War

      The war in Ukraine has added fuel to the fire regarding the uncertainties in the agricultural sector. The conflict has pitted against each other Russia and Ukraine, whose wheat exports account for more than 25% of the world’s supply. Now, these exports are at risk, as witnessed by the emerging food crisis in several North African and Middle Eastern countries.

      For instance, Tunisia imports nearly half of its wheat from Ukraine to make bread. In the country where the Arab Spring began in December 2010, Tunisians are worried there could be shortages of supplies and a repeat of bread riots like in the 1980s. Alarmingly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused prices to rise to their highest level in 14 years. Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt are also beginning to be stricken by flour shortages.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      The conflict has also led to the introduction of severe sanctions against Russia and Belarus, two of the world’s largest producers and exporters of fertilizers of all kinds, along with natural gas, an essential ingredient in ammonia production and a key component of complex fertilizers. Although the United States produces most of its own natural gas, fluctuations in world prices have a significant effect on the fertilizer industry. This only exacerbates the difficulties farmers currently face in obtaining inputs.

      Thus, while US farmers could look forward to a windfall of increased demand for their grain in the coming year, in the immediate future, they are simply faced with a further increase in production costs. Due to these added costs of inputs and the supply chain issues, US agriculture — especially the wheat industry — may be lacking the fertilizers needed to maximize yields, resulting in a decline in production and impeding its capability to respond to global demand.

      In a way, in the immediate and near future, the nightmare of 2021 is only worsening. For Arkansas farmer Matt Miles, “There’s no guarantee of anything being a sure thing anymore. That’s the scary part.”

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Manchin ‘very reluctant’ on electric cars in ominous sign for Biden’s climate fight

      by

      Manchin ‘very reluctant’ on electric cars in ominous sign for Biden’s climate fight Centrist Democrat, who holds key swing vote in US Senate, has poured scorn on the idea of phasing out gasoline and diesel carsFaced with rising gasoline prices, many Americans are now looking to switch to an electric car. But the shift away from fossil fuel vehicles has been criticized by Senator Joe Manchin, who has said he is “very reluctant” to see the proliferation of battery-powered cars.There has been a surge in interest in buying electric vehicles (EVs) in the wake of the war in Ukraine, analysts say, with drivers in the US unnerved by gasoline prices that have surpassed $4.30 a gallon as a result of the conflict and the supply chain issues from the pandemic.‘A really bad deal’: Michigan awards GM $1bn in incentives for new electric carsRead moreJoe Biden has repeatedly championed the growth of the nascent EV market as a way to tackle the climate crisis, with America’s heavy dependency on polluting cars a major source of planet-heating emissions.But Manchin, the centrist Democrat who holds a key swing vote in the US Senate, has poured scorn on the idea of phasing out gasoline and diesel cars.“I’m very reluctant to go down the path of electric vehicles,” Manchin said at the energy conference CERAWeek, held in Houston. “I’m old enough to remember standing in line in 1974 trying to buy gas – I remember those days. I don’t want to have to be standing in line waiting for a battery for my vehicle, because we’re now dependent on a foreign supply chain, mostly China.”Manchin, who has taken more money in political donations from fossil fuel interests than any other senator, also said he has “a hard time understanding” why the federal government would invest in a network of electric car charging stations, as the Biden administration aims to do.“I’ve read history, and I remember Henry Ford inventing the Model-T, but I sure as hell don’t remember the US government building filling stations,” Manchin said to applause. “The market did that.”The West Virginia senator’s criticism is ominous for the White House’s hopes of passing major climate legislation this year. The climate elements of the Build Back Better Act, which Manchin’s opposition has so far stalled, included half a trillion dollars in clean energy tax credits as well as major rebates for electric car purchases to drive up their adoption.Manchin’s comments also come amid renewed consumer interest in EVs reported by car dealers as some Americans look to bypass the volatility of the global oil market altogether. The past month has seen a strong increase in the number of people searching online for hybrid and battery electric vehicles, according to Edmunds, a car shopping and industry analyst website.This is a continuation of the broader growth of EVs in recent years “but the major surge in interest of late is certainly more of a reaction to record gas prices sparked by the war in Ukraine”, according to Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at Edmunds.“Anecdotally we are hearing a lot about a greater interest in EVs because of what is going on in Ukraine, but the real test is whether that will last,” said Ed Kim, president of AutoPacific, an auto industry research firm.Kim said that gas-powered cars built in the US are already full of foreign-made parts. “Joe Manchin represents West Virginia which is dependent upon coal so I believe he has a vested interest in downplaying clean energy,” Kim said.“Look at what’s happening right now, we are seeing fuel prices we haven’t seen in years because of geopolitical issues. Any measures we take to reduce our reliance on petroleum is good for our economy, our environment and to ensure the country doesn’t come screeching to a halt.”Previous jumps in the price of gasoline, such as in 2008, saw a corresponding increase in sales of battery-powered and hybrid cars and analysts expect a similar spike as a result of the current crisis. Around half a million electric cars were sold in the US last year, up more than 80% on 2020, with consumers attracted to a slew of new models such Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and the Telsa Model Y.While traditional car makers such as Ford and GM are now making significant investments in the EV market, demand is now regularly outstripping pandemic-hit supply, meaning the ballooning interest in going electric may end in frustration. “Unfortunately, making an EV purchase is not particularly easy to do right now amid inventory shortages,” said Caldwell.Owning an electric car is far cheaper than a gas-powered one due to a lower cost of fuel and fewer mechanical problems but the up-front cost of most EVs is typically more than $40,000.This means they are often out of reach for many low-income Americans who are already forced, due to the car-centric design of US cities and suburbia, to spend a large amount of their money on running a vehicle to go to work and complete other routine trips.The Biden administration is aiming for 50% of new car sales to be electric by 2030 – last year the total share was around 3% – and industry experts say that major investments will need to be made to hit this target.“Dependence on oil is funding some of the most brutal regimes in the world today. There’s nothing to suggest any component of an EV would resemble the current national security, environmental and humanitarian cost of oil.” said Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy.“The transition to EVs is inevitable at this point – the timeline is up to consumers and policymakers. The events in Ukraine are a reminder how volatile and destructive a dependence on oil is and that should only accelerate this timeline.”TopicsClimate crisisElectric, hybrid and low-emission carsJoe ManchinJoe BidenUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      France’s Green Party Fails to Connect Ahead of Election

      by

      As a presidential election looms, the Greens lag far behind in the polls. Analysts say the party has failed to inspire voters and show them it can rule.MONTPELLIER, France — Yannick Jadot, the candidate for the French Green Party in April’s presidential elections, walked through a small cheering crowd to a podium topped with banners featuring his face, as speakers blasted a version of “What a Wonderful World” by the punk rock singer Joey Ramone. The candidate bobbed his head to the rhythm.The event on a recent afternoon in the sun-soaked central square of Montpellier, a large city on France’s Mediterranean coast, had all of the trappings of a dynamic and enthusiastic campaign. “Environmentalism is all about fun!” said a speaker introducing Mr. Jadot.But with less than 30 days to go before the first round of the French presidential elections, the Green Party’s campaign has so far failed to generate much excitement among the public. For weeks, Mr. Jadot has been stuck around 5 percent in the polls, about a third of the share of the top three right-wing contenders and one-sixth of the support for President Emmanuel Macron.The Greens’ disarray comes despite the increasing prominence of environmental concerns in France in recent years, marked by a series of climate marches and lawsuits, as well as by sweeping climate change legislation and a wave of environmental protests that have engulfed universities and cafe terraces.Green Party supporters in Montpellier. With less than 30 days to go before the first round of elections, the Greens have failed to generate much enthusiasm.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesMr. Jadot said in an interview that “the French are not yet invested in the election campaign,” as other more dramatic issues like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine are consuming much of their attention. He added that he remained “confident” that voters would soon focus on environmental issues.But so far, the run-up to the election has been dominated by issues like security, immigration and national identity, reflecting France’s recent shift to the right. By comparison, climate issues have largely been ignored, accounting for 2.5 percent of media coverage of the election in the past four weeks, according to a study released by several environmental groups.The problem, analysts say, is that the French Greens have failed to bring in new ideas and create a clear, coherent platform that goes beyond their core issues. They also point to the party’s struggle to be seen as a credible governmental force, capable of dealing with issues like diplomacy and defense, as is the case in Germany, where the Greens are now part of a three-party government coalition.A fountain in Montpellier. The election has been dominated by issues like security, immigration and national identity.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesIn a recent essay, Bruno Latour, a French anthropologist and philosopher, and Nikolaj Schultz, a Danish sociologist, said environmental parties had failed to come up with inspiring narratives conveying hope for a better world.“For now, environmental politics is succeeding in panicking minds and making them yawn with boredom,” they wrote.Hoping to shake off this negative image, Mr. Jadot recently embarked on a tour of France that will bring him to some 15 cities by early April. All of the campaign stops have been designed to create connections with voters, with Mr. Jadot addressing them from a small octagonal podium.Mr. Jadot said he wanted to solve “both sides of the equation” by convincing voters that it is time for real climate action and that doing so can also bring about a better lifestyle, or what he called “a new kind of enthusiasm.”“Taking action for the climate means economic innovation, eating well thanks to sustainable and small-scale farming,” he said. “Basically, it’s about regaining control of one’s life.”In Montpellier, where some 500 people had gathered, Mr. Jadot’s speech was filled with concrete proposals, including an $11 billion “Marshall Plan” for home insulation to cut energy consumption in half. He also plans to ban the use of dangerous pesticides and to create a new wealth tax that reflects the environmental impact of some investments.Mr. Jadot recently embarked on a tour of France that will bring him to some 15 cities by early April.Andrea Mantovani for The New York Times“On the substance, these are very relevant proposals,” said Daphné Destevian, 50, a project manager for an offshore renewable energy institute.But when it came to the candidate’s approach, Ms. Destevian was unmoved. “He yells too much,” she said. “I find it a bit aggressive.”Standing on a podium that resembled a boxing ring, Mr. Jadot struck a combative tone, castigating the government for signing free-trade agreements, attacking the French energy giant TotalEnergies and likening Mr. Macron’s pro-nuclear measures to far-right or authoritarian government policies.Jérémie Peltier, an opinion expert at the Foundation Jean-Jaurès research institute, said this tone could prove detrimental to the Greens. “When you listen to Yannick Jadot,” he said, “you feel like you’re constantly being told off.”Mr. Jadot’s supporters in Montpellier were well aware of the need to convey more optimism, like the positivity that radiated from the youth climate protests in 2019.“People are worried” because “they won’t be able to live as peacefully as they used to, to take their car, turn on the heat, put on the air conditioning without second thoughts,” said Bruno Cécillon, a longtime Green supporter.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesJosé Bové, a longtime Green and anti-globalization activist, said “the battle we have to win” is to prove that environmentalism “is a joyful project, one that makes people feel good.”Marie-Noël De Visscher, 70, a former researcher in agronomy, said that instead of “making people feel guilty,” the Greens had to show that “we can do great things and that taking the train is fun.”That challenge has proved particularly acute on the economic front, with the Greens struggling to reconcile the fight against climate change with combating economic insecurity. Mr. Jadot is performing poorly with working-class voters, who fear the impact of the transition to clean energy on their livelihoods.Learn More About France’s Presidential ElectionCard 1 of 6The campaign begins. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US fossil fuel industry leaps on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to argue for more drilling

      by

      US fossil fuel industry leaps on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to argue for more drillingPetroleum lobby calls for looser regulation and drilling on public lands to ‘ensure energy security’ The US oil and gas industry is using Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to pressure the Biden administration to throw open more land and ocean for domestic drilling and to loosen regulations for large companies attempting to ramp up their fossil fuel extraction.Just hours before Russian troops began their unprovoked assault on Ukraine, the American Petroleum Institute (API) posted a string of tweets calling for the White House to “ensure energy security at home and abroad” by allowing more oil and gas drilling on public lands, extend drilling in US waters and slash regulations faced by fossil fuel firms.API, which represents oil giants including Exxon, Chevron and Shell, has called on Biden to allow an expansion of drilling and to drop regulations that impede new gas pipelines in order to help reduce fuel costs for Americans and support European countries that have seen gas costs spiral due to concerns over supply from Russia, which provides Europe with around a third of its gas.“At a time of geopolitical strife, America should deploy its ample energy abundance – not restrict it,” said Mike Sommers, the chief executive of API. Sommers added that Biden was “needlessly choking our own plentiful supply” of fossil fuels.Some leading Republicans have joined the calls. “No administration should defend a Russian pipeline instead of refilling ours,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, told her state’s legislature this week. “Every day, I remind the Biden administration of the immense benefits of Alaska production, energy and minerals alike, and every day I remind them that refusing to permit those activities can have harmful consequences.”Environmental groups were quick to criticize the renewed push for more drilling, accusing proponents of cynically using the deadly Ukrainian crisis to benefit large corporations and worsen the climate crisis.“Expanding oil and gas production now would do nothing to impact short term prices and would only accelerate the climate crisis, which already poses a major threat to our national security,” said Lena Moffitt, chief of staff at Evergreen Action, a climate group. “We stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and stand opposed to actions by leaders of the fossil fuel industry that attempt to profit off of these harrowing atrocities.”Russia has faced a barrage of sanctions from the US and the European Union, although the western allies have so far largely steered clear of targeting the country’s vast oil and gas industry. Biden has said the sanctions will “end up costing Russia dearly, economically and strategically” but has not applied punitive measures to Rosneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company.The US president faces the opposing pressures of dealing with the climate crisis while avoiding the political headache of rising gasoline prices for American drivers. On Thursday, the price of a barrel of crude oil rose to more than $100 on the global market for the first time since 2014, amid fears over Russia’s supply.A group of 10 congressional Democrats wrote to Biden on Thursday to urge the president to release more oil from the US’s strategic petroleum reserve in order to lower fuel costs for consumers in the short term. “We know that in the long-term, eliminating US dependence on oil will provide the stability we need to keep energy costs low for American households,” the lawmakers acknowledged.The European bloc is thrashing out a plan for a long-term shift away from dependence on the fluctuating fossil fuel markets, with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, outlining the need for “strategic independence on energy”. Europe is “doubling down on renewables”, she added.The Ukraine crisis could prove to be a “turning point” in global energy consumption, said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency. “There will be a transition to clean energy… it will be a difficult one, but I believe the governments will have to manage a transition if we want a planet that is safe and clean in the future,” he said.The development of solar and wind power has grown strongly in the US in recent years, although fossil fuels still account for about 80% of domestic energy consumption. Scientists have warned that emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas must be rapidly and drastically slashed if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate impacts such as heatwaves, floods, food insecurity and societal unrest.“Clean energy is affordable and reliable; we can’t afford to wait any longer to free ourselves from the volatility of the fossil fuel market and the dictators and violence it enables,” said Moffitt.TopicsUkraineOilEuropeUS politicsBiden administrationFossil fuelsReuse this content More